Warrior General Games

As Air said, GE is right, the MAY part of the phrase already shows its rng, and there is no way the offense knows pre snap that the defense is blitzing, this feature is kind of an audible for a extra block assignment, but GLB doesn't work like real football, so its a really strange funcionality.

And we also need those delay routes, i don't know the football terminology, the blue route on madden, the receiver begins blocking, if there are no blitzers or a d-line that beat the o-line, they run their route.

Allowing offenses to always hold is kind of changing the play, blitzing would get even worse.

Originally posted by McLovinCowboys


And we also need those delay routes, i don't know the football terminology, the blue route on madden, the receiver begins blocking, if there are no blitzers or a d-line that beat the o-line, they run their route.


This is actually a very good idea.

So if I tell my kid he may not do something and he does it anyways I really meant he may do it after all?

If checking the box means the QB may hold a guy back, what does not checking the box mean? You guys realize this is an option in the offensive tactics right?

Also if blockers are in order of priority why doe the FB run a route and the TE is held back? Not that anyone should be held back because the damn box is indeed not checked.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
GE is using a very common coding argument here and, technically, he's right. Holding in blockers is a poorly designed feature that was was fixed via a band-aid. The band-aid only made things worse (from a design perspective).

Long story short, it is working EXACTLY as Bort and Corndog intended it, though the implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm not debating if the feature works well or doesn't work well, shouldn't be a problem for me because I have it turned off. It is about the option to turn it on or off absolutely does not work, it is a bug.

It would be like having your leading big setting at 100 and those tactics kick in with a four point lead instead of what you entered.

So again what does not checking the QB may hold back ** to block extra blitzers box actually do?

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
I'm not debating if the feature works well or doesn't work well, shouldn't be a problem for me because I have it turned off. It is about the option to turn it on or off absolutely does not work, it is a bug.

It would be like having your leading big setting at 100 and those tactics kick in with a four point lead instead of what you entered.

So again what does not checking the QB may hold back ** to block extra blitzers box actually do?


I'm with you man. I'm not sure what the debate is.

Originally posted by _OSIRIS_
So if I tell my kid he may not do something and he does it anyways I really meant he may do it after all?

If checking the box means the QB may hold a guy back, what does not checking the box mean? You guys realize this is an option in the offensive tactics right?

Also if blockers are in order of priority why doe the FB run a route and the TE is held back? Not that anyone should be held back because the damn box is indeed not checked.

One more time...The check box only applies if the "rattle" feature doesn't fire.

You have zero control on when the rattle feature fires.

I remember the rattle feature and implementation. Wasn't solely added to counteract the (zero edge blitz/something or another blitz?) or whatever the name of that blitz spam that got a sack every play.

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
One more time...The check box only applies if the "rattle" feature doesn't fire.

You have zero control on when the rattle feature fires.


What if we want an option to turn the rattle feature off then? Which is what we all thought we were doing anyway....

Why cant it simply be that whenever the rattle feature fires, the QB holds back first the players who's boxes are ticked, and if sacks continue then brings back the unticked Blockers