Warrior General Games

Originally posted by PP

If you'd like, I can point them all out for you. My day job is a freelance writer, and I make a pretty not bad living at it.



Pot, meet kettle.

Originally posted by Cryptotich
Errrr.... I disagree.

If you go for an interception, your entire concentration is on the ball, not the receiver.

If you go for a PD, your attention is split. You have one arm on the receiver and one arm going for the ball.

Knocked loose only happens when you are trying to make a tackle, which means you were more focused on the tackle than the Deflection or Int.

I think the sim should bear that out.


Well said and I completely agree

In regards to the interception/PD/KL issue and aggressive coverage, I think there should be some change to the way aggressive coverage works. Right now we have a sim where CBs jump the route pretty often on aggressive, but rarely make the interception. During most times where the CB jumps the route, the CB appears to be in the correct position, but still misses the roll. Every time I see this, I think of a CB who is good enough to read when and where a QB is going to throw the ball, but once he gets there he's so uncoordinated that he wildly flails his arms in the air as the ball flies through his hands, or he reads the route but doesn't realize that he can't jump high enough to get the ball. Both seem highly unrealistic if that CB is good enough to read the pass in the first place and can make plays on the ball regularly in semi-aggressive coverage. Instead, a CB good enough to jump the route and put himself one on one with the ball should hit his INT roll really often.

However, CBs not hitting their INT roll very often when jumping routes makes sense since they jump the route so often. If they did hit often, INTs would be out of control. So the number of INTs CBs get are at a reasonable amount (though could probably be increased), but the way we get to that number is illogical. Instead, I think CBs should hit their INT roll much more often when they jump the route, but jumping a route should require a much harder vision check. A CB making such a good read that puts himself one on one with the ball should be a fairly rare occurrence, but when he does, the INT should be almost automatic for a CB with good catching.

Originally posted by TheGreatAus
Does it end up badly in the NFL? HB's often times have to slow down a bit for the giant roadgrader to clear the way. They usually just slow down enough to ride their ass. I think the idea of an east to west speed boost in a pull would probably be benefical. This is the one play where Gs really get to move, they will have adrenaline pumping and be moving quite fast despite their size. Comparably, HB's 40's are generally 4.2-4.4 depending on size. Lineman can vary from 4.8-5.x, they are still pretty fast at the pro level.

I'll be happy for the time being with just the pathing fix. O-linemen too slow to stay in front of the HB isn't so unrealistic but having them wander off into space when blocking targets are obviously available if they'd just turn once clear of the tackle is a problem. My Guards aren't extremely fast but would be much more effective if they just didn't go brain-dead when pulling. I think the "outside blocker" VA option combined with a pathing fix would be sufficient for now. No need to get too far from real world physics.

Originally posted by LC_Balla

Pot, meet kettle.

I was making fun of myself

Originally posted by bhall43
is this for real? i mean...WTF?!

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1631&pbp_id=353582

That appears to be Bort trying to hit the right balance between WRs not running 4 yards before a KL and fumbles...not there yet.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
In regards to the interception/PD/KL issue and aggressive coverage, I think there should be some change to the way aggressive coverage works. Right now we have a sim where CBs jump the route pretty often on aggressive, but rarely make the interception. During most times where the CB jumps the route, the CB appears to be in the correct position, but still misses the roll. Every time I see this, I think of a CB who is good enough to read when and where a QB is going to throw the ball, but once he gets there he's so uncoordinated that he wildly flails his arms in the air as the ball flies through his hands, or he reads the route but doesn't realize that he can't jump high enough to get the ball. Both seem highly unrealistic if that CB is good enough to read the pass in the first place and can make plays on the ball regularly in semi-aggressive coverage. Instead, a CB good enough to jump the route and put himself one on one with the ball should hit his INT roll really often.

However, CBs not hitting their INT roll very often when jumping routes makes sense since they jump the route so often. If they did hit often, INTs would be out of control. So the number of INTs CBs get are at a reasonable amount (though could probably be increased), but the way we get to that number is illogical. Instead, I think CBs should hit their INT roll much more often when they jump the route, but jumping a route should require a much harder vision check. A CB making such a good read that puts himself one on one with the ball should be a fairly rare occurrence, but when he does, the INT should be almost automatic for a CB with good catching.

I think that's p dead on, myself

Originally posted by PP
That appears to be Bort trying to hit the right balance between WRs not running 4 yards before a KL and fumbles...not there yet.

but is it real?

Originally posted by PP
I think that's p dead on, myself

Does Bort read this thread?

Originally posted by PP
That appears to be Bort trying to hit the right balance between WRs not running 4 yards before a KL and fumbles...not there yet.

thanks PP...i was gonna say...seriously? that would be outrageous...

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Does Bort read this thread?

Honestly, no clue. Speaking only for myself, I do paste quotes from here (from anywhere on GLB) in the tester's forum when I think they're a good idea and it fits a topic at hand.

PP can we get some tests done where the "throwing animation last a couple ticks longer" is turned off? Just to see if this would help the passing game.

I agree with the QB having to set his feet before he can throw a ball 40 yards down the field. However I think a QB having to set his feet AND the longer throwing animation has killed the passing game. It seems to allow the Secondary a better jump on the ball. It also seems that by the time the QB throws the ball what was a good pocket ends up collapsing and causing a bad pass.

What do you think?

Originally posted by Tigerbait0307
PP can we get some tests done where the "throwing animation last a couple ticks longer" is turned off? Just to see if this would help the passing game.

I agree with the QB having to set his feet before he can throw a ball 40 yards down the field. However I think a QB having to set his feet AND the longer throwing animation has killed the passing game. It seems to allow the Secondary a better jump on the ball. It also seems that by the time the QB throws the ball what was a good pocket ends up collapsing and causing a bad pass.

What do you think?

Your post brings something to mind...


If I'm wrong in my assumption, simply correct me, but it seems as if the throwing "animation" is a constant on each play. If I'm not mistaken, the deeper the throw, the longer the "animation" should take. For quick hit routes, it should be a quicker throw. For longer, deeper patterns the quarter back should have to wind up a little bit more.



Also, I've noticed that when a QB drops back to pass or hand off, the rate at which he does this is based upon his speed, and can end up causing him to go quite a fair distance back. Are there "step drops" in GLB? 1 Step for QUICK plays like Slants, 3 step drops for the plays that might take a short time to develop, and 5 step drops for those longer passes. Being able to add this to the game could possibly help. Would also balance things out in terms of a QB needing to set his feet for a pass, as if he's in the middle of a drop, he'd have to cut his drop short, plant his feet and throw in order to have a high quality pass.

Maybe a higher vision check would be added for a QB to cut his drop off early to either react to defenders, or throw a pass quickly.


Another thing, why don't QBs look to dump the pass off to the backs frequently when in trouble? Often times the backs are open, but the QB takes the sack or throws a horrible pass under pressure. Wouldn't logic tell you to try and throw the shortest distance possible to the most open receiver when under pressure?

Originally posted by Tigerbait0307
PP can we get some tests done where the "throwing animation last a couple ticks longer" is turned off? Just to see if this would help the passing game.

I agree with the QB having to set his feet before he can throw a ball 40 yards down the field. However I think a QB having to set his feet AND the longer throwing animation has killed the passing game. It seems to allow the Secondary a better jump on the ball. It also seems that by the time the QB throws the ball what was a good pocket ends up collapsing and causing a bad pass.

What do you think?

That's not the issue. The difference in speed between points is. If you were to graph the 'speed' lines. The past speed would be X+Y=0. If you graph the 'new(should be)' equation it should be x+1.5y=0.

Also, the ball needs to be thrown loftier on long completions. When you throw it as a QB you throw it where they'll get open. If a man is even with coverage before X yards happen and there's no coverage over the top it should be a loftier pass.

Also, QB's in general need to throw 3 tics earlier or 5 tics later on most routes. Or Both to make use of the slotting system on lower crossing routes.