Warrior General Games

Originally posted by r8
Originally posted by pottsman

2 TE and 4 Wides are fine for the defense to account for, with or without the DPC.

Oh? Well then, please explain to me how the DPC would account for a 2nd TE as it is? I'm a little confused there.

Seriously guys, when we say that the DAI isn't ready, it's because it isn't ready. Not that hard to grasp.

How hard is it to add "TE1" and "TE2" to the drop down boxes? I can't imagine we are talking about more than a couple of hours of work. We have 3WR SB sets, you'd just be swapping out WR3 for TE2.

Originally posted by jdros13
Originally posted by r8

Originally posted by pottsman


2 TE and 4 Wides are fine for the defense to account for, with or without the DPC.

Oh? Well then, please explain to me how the DPC would account for a 2nd TE as it is? I'm a little confused there.

Seriously guys, when we say that the DAI isn't ready, it's because it isn't ready. Not that hard to grasp.

How hard is it to add "TE1" and "TE2" to the drop down boxes? I can't imagine we are talking about more than a couple of hours of work. We have 3WR SB sets, you'd just be swapping out WR3 for TE2.

This. I don't know what's going on on the "make the DPC work" end, but from the "put plays together" end, you add a drop down box for TE2 the same way we have a WR4 box. A 4WR set, again, same thing. And without the DPC, simply rotate the assignments of the defenses so that whoever would normally be assigned to the fullback will be assigned to TE2 and the normal TE assignment becomes WR4. Again, I don't know your end, but on my end, seems simple and straightforward, while allowing me to run some plays I find very interesting (I like playing against balanced sets).

I legitmately do not know the answer to this, so please, tell us why it won't work, what isn't ready. Enlighten us normal folks.

How about some HB runs to the right out of the 3 WR Shotgun? I would really like to see a pitch to the right, and something like a slam. Would be nice to help keep defenses a little more honest there.

I'm going to have to say that it is great that you want to add plays to the game. I'm all for it.

But part of me feels like you could spend your time working on a larger project that will have more results.

You guys should be putting together an Offensive Route Creator, because honestly that does two things for you.

1) The player base can create plays and test out routes faster than Bort and the Testing team.
2) It takes a large amount of workload off of Bort and the Testing team down the road, as you will no longer have to add plays on either side of the ball. Or you can also argue that it will shift the work and focus to something that is going to give the game a more dynamic feel.

I know that I don't see all of the issues and coding that would most likely change because of it. But the work up front will have large gains in the end. It seems from looking at it from outside the code, most of the framework is in place or already written in different spots and you would just have to connect the dots in the code.

The Offensive Play Creator Rules
1) Offensively you can only have up to 5 down field receivers.
2) Offense would not be able to adjust the starting positions of players. But they would be able to select the 5 down field receivers they want on the field.
3) That means Players could pick 3 WR and two TE or they could build a Veer type offense with 2 FB, 2 TE and a HB or a true spread type offense.
4) They can select the route they want to have each position run. With the options in place to select pass block and run block.


It gives teams a way to build their offense and identity. It also would open up the freedom of builds for players as they can be built for certain roles on the team. Down the road you could add things like blocking assignments. It will have long term benefits as it will give Teams a reason to stick together and good OC’s will become known for their Offenses.

But Yes I want more plays.

Originally posted by Pietasters
I'm going to have to say that it is great that you want to add plays to the game. I'm all for it.

But part of me feels like you could spend your time working on a larger project that will have more results.

You guys should be putting together an Offensive Route Creator, because honestly that does two things for you.

1) The player base can create plays and test out routes faster than Bort and the Testing team.
2) It takes a large amount of workload off of Bort and the Testing team down the road, as you will no longer have to add plays on either side of the ball. Or you can also argue that it will shift the work and focus to something that is going to give the game a more dynamic feel.

I know that I don't see all of the issues and coding that would most likely change because of it. But the work up front will have large gains in the end. It seems from looking at it from outside the code, most of the framework is in place or already written in different spots and you would just have to connect the dots in the code.

The Offensive Play Creator Rules
1) Offensively you can only have up to 5 down field receivers.
2) Offense would not be able to adjust the starting positions of players. But they would be able to select the 5 down field receivers they want on the field.
3) That means Players could pick 3 WR and two TE or they could build a Veer type offense with 2 FB, 2 TE and a HB or a true spread type offense.
4) They can select the route they want to have each position run. With the options in place to select pass block and run block.


It gives teams a way to build their offense and identity. It also would open up the freedom of builds for players as they can be built for certain roles on the team. Down the road you could add things like blocking assignments. It will have long term benefits as it will give Teams a reason to stick together and good OC’s will become known for their Offenses.

But Yes I want more plays.


true

Offense route creator would work at its best in GLB

would solve issues and many other things

Fantastic - the more plays the better! Keep up the good work!

Originally posted by r8

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1205&pbp_id=267104

good god, what is that RDE on? My DE don't look like that, and his stats are better than the test dude's.

Can we get confirmation and repeated test examples that during plays using Motion:

A. The LB m2m moves with motion player
B. The CB m2m moves with the motion player
C. The Safety m2m moves with the motion player
D. The LB m2m w/o move does not move with the motion player
E. The CB m2m w/o move does not move with the motion player
F. The Safety m2m w/o move does not move with the motion player
Yes each of these would have to be tested separately so when it is implemented us defenders are not screaming that one of the above actions did not occur, since we know it would take a few games (or season) to trouble shoot.

While we are on this subject, a suggestion/add-on to the DAI or in the AI's output would be, Defender in m2m or m2m w/o move will
(insert drop down box or something)
A. Mirrors the Motion Player
B. Does not mirrors the Motion Player

░░░Medium TE░░░
└Singleback TE Motion http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1201&pbp_id=266547

isnt it Shotgun?



RM

Originally posted by timthorn
Can we get confirmation and repeated test examples that during plays using Motion:

A. The LB m2m moves with motion player
B. The CB m2m moves with the motion player
C. The Safety m2m moves with the motion player
D. The LB m2m w/o move does not move with the motion player
E. The CB m2m w/o move does not move with the motion player
F. The Safety m2m w/o move does not move with the motion player
Yes each of these would have to be tested separately so when it is implemented us defenders are not screaming that one of the above actions did not occur, since we know it would take a few games (or season) to trouble shoot.

While we are on this subject, a suggestion/add-on to the DAI or in the AI's output would be, Defender in m2m or m2m w/o move will
(insert drop down box or something)
A. Mirrors the Motion Player
B. Does not mirrors the Motion Player

seriously. I didn't even know they were screwing around with motion. This is going to create mass headaches on defense trying set things properly.

Originally posted by timthorn
Can we get confirmation and repeated test examples that during plays using Motion:

A. The LB m2m moves with motion player
B. The CB m2m moves with the motion player
C. The Safety m2m moves with the motion player
D. The LB m2m w/o move does not move with the motion player
E. The CB m2m w/o move does not move with the motion player
F. The Safety m2m w/o move does not move with the motion player
Yes each of these would have to be tested separately so when it is implemented us defenders are not screaming that one of the above actions did not occur, since we know it would take a few games (or season) to trouble shoot.

While we are on this subject, a suggestion/add-on to the DAI or in the AI's output would be, Defender in m2m or m2m w/o move will
(insert drop down box or something)
A. Mirrors the Motion Player
B. Does not mirrors the Motion Player

+1 - there will be chaos and roiting in the streets unless the answers to these questions are widely known prior to the new offence going live.

I would like for the D player to be able to recognize that an HB or FB(TE also, if the motion goes into effect) did not release to his side of the field.

For example: you have your ROLB set to cover the HB or FB or Blitz, right now if the HB releases to the right and the FB stays in, your ROLB will try to get across the field and cover the HB, I personally would much rather he blitz in that situation.

I know shit about coding so I have no idea how hard this would be to put in, but I know I would like it.

Would like to see some weakside pass routes for the HB out of Shotgun

Originally posted by Pietasters
I'm going to have to say that it is great that you want to add plays to the game. I'm all for it.

But part of me feels like you could spend your time working on a larger project that will have more results.

You guys should be putting together an Offensive Route Creator, because honestly that does two things for you.

1) The player base can create plays and test out routes faster than Bort and the Testing team.
2) It takes a large amount of workload off of Bort and the Testing team down the road, as you will no longer have to add plays on either side of the ball. Or you can also argue that it will shift the work and focus to something that is going to give the game a more dynamic feel.

I know that I don't see all of the issues and coding that would most likely change because of it. But the work up front will have large gains in the end. It seems from looking at it from outside the code, most of the framework is in place or already written in different spots and you would just have to connect the dots in the code.

The Offensive Play Creator Rules
1) Offensively you can only have up to 5 down field receivers.
2) Offense would not be able to adjust the starting positions of players. But they would be able to select the 5 down field receivers they want on the field.
3) That means Players could pick 3 WR and two TE or they could build a Veer type offense with 2 FB, 2 TE and a HB or a true spread type offense.
4) They can select the route they want to have each position run. With the options in place to select pass block and run block.


It gives teams a way to build their offense and identity. It also would open up the freedom of builds for players as they can be built for certain roles on the team. Down the road you could add things like blocking assignments. It will have long term benefits as it will give Teams a reason to stick together and good OC’s will become known for their Offenses.

But Yes I want more plays.


An Offensive Play (not just routes) Creator is overdue. The defense can create custom plays while knowing every play available in the offensive playbook. More offensive plays only helps short-term until DC's get handle on all the new plays. We should've been had an OPC that allows you to customize routes, primary targets, blocking assignments, and run type/direction/gap all out of already existing formations. Give OC's some creative freedom. Meanwhile DC's still have a one-up since they can pretty much go Romper Room with formations, gap assigments/fronts, blitzes, and coverages.