Warrior General Games

I'll try to slap some Bort quotes in here, when they seem at least partially important

Edit: They'll be the Readers Digest versions. Many issues go on for pages and most of the earlier quotes become worthless by the end

XP on gut job and CPU games

Originally posted by PP
Unless I'm missing something, I doubt it'd take but a few minutes to tweak the programming to give all the dots on the depth chart of a team max game XP, if you win by 100 or more. That seems to me to be a nice and easy solution to an annoyance issue that's been a thorn in a lot of ppl's side for a long time now.

Yes, I realize that there are ways to still get everyone their XP, but why live with it if there is such an easy fix? Also, when ppl go on vacation, get busy in r/l or just plain forget, that can cause issue either not getting a bunch of dots their XP or not getting it set back and throwing the next game for no good reason.

It's a quick, easy fix that would help the game and player's attitude, IMO.

Originally posted by Bort
Ok, added to my list.

On AEQ Shopping

Originally posted by Bort
Once you get to higher levels, it starts removing the lower level "pools" so your odds for those 2% items should go down to next to nothing eventually. You should get the +5% items though.

As to the original idea, I suppose I could go through and edit all the descriptions to remove any position names at all and just replace with "this player" or something. Or I could put in a variable that fills in the position name.

On making pulling Gs serve a purpose in the run game:


Originally posted by PP


Pitch Weak (Strong I)
The RG's pull serves absolutely no purpose. in the play linked, the RG has 70 speed, 77 agility and may as well not be on the field. Aside from not coming close to getting to the edge, he appears lost as to what to do once he finally gets there. Maybe speed up his pull (if possible on that play) and have him shoot the gap between the LT & LG, looking for the 1st unblocked dot.
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1611&pbp_id=349377

HB Sweep Weak (Weak I)
LG could use a slight speed boost on this play, also. Otherwise, he may as well just fire out and take the LOLB. As is, he just helps the LOT double on the DE, on the plays he's fast enough to get out there.
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1612&pbp_id=349585



Originally posted by Bort
I don't have any mechanisms in place to speed up a particular player on certain plays. Do you think that would be a good thing to add into the mix? I doubt it would be hard, but seems kinda unrealistic.

Originally posted by Bort
I could probably add a general "make me faster when lead blocking in the x-wise direction" block for G's, now that I think about it, that would cover pretty much every pulling situation. Unless you can think of situations where that wouldn't work?

Originally posted by Bort
Might be helpful to make a list of the plays with problems and work through them.

Originally posted by PP
Pitch Weak (Strong I)
I Pitch Weak (I)
HB Sweep Weak (Weak I)
FB Sweep Weak (Pro Set)
HB Pitch (Single Back)


Originally posted by Bort
The list is all I need, unless you want to specifically look at plays and make recommendations as to the path they take. I'll need to spend some time with each play testing changes.

Originally posted by PP
I'd think the path on all of them should be about the same:
fish hook outside the LOT, 3ish yds downfield and don't stop to block anyone along the way unless they are unblocked (do stop the path if someone is free along the route). At that point, 1st look for someone that isn't blocked, 2nd choice, seal on the DE, but the search for unblocked dot radius should be big enough so that happens far less than going for an unblocked dot, in the majority of circumstances. Most times, they should keep going down field until they find someone, but not ignore the unblocked dots that would blow up the play along the way.

Originally posted by Deathblade
I think if Outside Blocker is made to work for pulling Gs, it should work fine.

I mean, the RG in my replays had 120 speed...but no outside blocker. If a G has 70 speed and the +30% from outside blocker, he is looking at over 90 speed...which comparing to the 120 (way too fast), I think 90 might be about right, which works out fairly well.

Originally posted by Bort
I will play with higher and lower speed when I start working on it. I think a lot of it is the path they take, however.

I could make them ignore players around them until reaching the outside, but when I have done that in the past, you can just blitz somebody through the hole and blow it up all the time. I haven't tried it with the updated block selection code we have now, though, so maybe it will work ok.

Originally posted by Bort
As to the original idea, I suppose I could go through and edit all the descriptions to remove any position names at all and just replace with "this player" or something. Or I could put in a variable that fills in the position name.

To touch on this real quick, the "original idea" referenced fixing AEQ descriptions. I.E. Blitz SA for a DE where the description uses CB. Just to eliminate confusion of "will this work" where people are easily confused by the descriptions.

Matt, and any other tester or mod out there, pls feel free to add any thing I miss or you feel is important. I always feel weird about posting things that other testers suggest, in that it may come off as I'm trying to take credit or something stupid like that, and I don't know who wants to stay anonymous and such...In other words, Thanks

you have my permission to post anything I say there PP. I'll try and post here if I have had something worthwhile said/done there.

Originally posted by thehazyone
you have my permission to post anything I say there PP.

Same.

thank you PP - I've been begging for a thread like this for a long, long time.

Thank you. This forum is getting more and more important.

Anything on the bump n' run testing?

Wow. PP, you could possibly be the best thing thats happened to this game. You definitely add a check and balance that didnt seem to be present before. Kudos.

Originally posted by Iron Maiden
Thank you. This forum is getting more and more important.

Anything on the bump n' run testing?

It's not uploaded to the test server yet...Not sure if Bort has it programed on his DevBox yet or not. Trying to fix the blking logic has really been the #1 priority and still is. What was uploaded to the live server last night should help some, but is in no way a finished product yet. The thought behind uploading it now was that, though not perfect and not a good SOP to upload things untl they are done, the current blking allows for so many exploit blitzes that a partial fix, even with its warts, is better than leaving it as is until the new blking is as tight as it should be. Until it is tight, it will most likely remain the #1 priority (and should, IMO)

Along those lines, theremay be some additional chipping options coming eventually

Originally posted by Bort
Think it should be on/off? Or maybe 3 options

- Do not chip block on routes
- Chip block if there is a defender along my route
- Alter my route to attempt chip blocks


As well as an option on whether the backs should run their route or stay in to block if they see a blitz, so long as they aren't the primary target

Originally posted by PP
I know it doesn't sound like it from the post above, but I think this is an improvement. Honestly, increase the chipping effect, add in the ability for backs to switch from running routes to picking up blitzes (so long as they aren't the primary) and I'd bet it'd be p damn effective.

Not 100% sure if he is leaning towards just the above quote addressing that or it goes the route of an additional option, assuming it happens. I'd dig up his quote in response to the 1st time I suggested it, but it's just something to the extent of, "I don't hate that idea"

Originally posted by PP
I'll try to slap some Bort quotes in here, when they seem at least partially important

Edit: They'll be the Readers Digest versions. Many issues go on for pages and most of the earlier quotes become worthless by the end

That's what the test blog was for afaik

Originally posted by Deathblade
That's what the test blog was for afaik

lol mods can't post in the test blog.

Originally posted by Mat McBriar
Originally posted by Bort

As to the original idea, I suppose I could go through and edit all the descriptions to remove any position names at all and just replace with "this player" or something. Or I could put in a variable that fills in the position name.

To touch on this real quick, the "original idea" referenced fixing AEQ descriptions. I.E. Blitz SA for a DE where the description uses CB. Just to eliminate confusion of "will this work" where people are easily confused by the descriptions.

too funny that you picked blitz as an example because it honestly doesn't work for a non-CB. I think that has been well documented, but I understand your point.

And thank you PP for doing this! I you!