On the idea of fixing new plays, I'd hope a lot get added HB/FB routes? There is a VERY slim selection of FB routes right now.
Forum > Test Server Discussion > ?s about the test server
Originally posted by thehazyone
Originally posted by foofighter24
Why is the FB Texas play being tested so much, and what is hoped to be learned from all the tests on HB/FB passing?
Test links? (I'm too lazy to go look it up)
I'm not sure why but I'll be glad to find out.
There are four games run with FB Texas. Here is one of them:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1652
There are five labeled "FB passing" including:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1640
Then there are ten more that are hb/fb passing:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1635
Originally posted by foofighter24
Why is the FB Texas play being tested so much, and what is hoped to be learned from all the tests on HB/FB passing?
Test links? (I'm too lazy to go look it up)
I'm not sure why but I'll be glad to find out.
There are four games run with FB Texas. Here is one of them:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1652
There are five labeled "FB passing" including:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1640
Then there are ten more that are hb/fb passing:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1635
Deathblade
offline
offline
Originally posted by foofighter24
Then there are ten more that are hb/fb passing:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1635
Dunno...maybe it was startled from the hundreds of pages of people complaining about QB's not throwing to HB/FBs?
Then there are ten more that are hb/fb passing:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1635
Dunno...maybe it was startled from the hundreds of pages of people complaining about QB's not throwing to HB/FBs?
Dpride59
offline
offline
Have you guys confronted/asked bort why we can't get hb's to get targeted in the passing game on non screen passes? Clearly this was tuned down, does anyone actually know why the hell if hb a is primary receiver, he is qb #1 option, and he is wide open, he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the ball? This is without a doubt the most frustrating part of the sim for me this season.
Edited by David Stern on Dec 30, 2009 22:54:58
Edited by David Stern on Dec 30, 2009 22:54:50
PP
offline
offline
Originally posted by foofighter24
Why is the FB Texas play being tested so much, and what is hoped to be learned from all the tests on HB/FB passing?
Bort asked us to test the FB & HB routes to see if a change helped them be targeted more. So, I trimmed down the routes in the play book so those types got dialed up more and just haven't changed it...I assume that's why others have done similar things, but can't swear to it.
Why is the FB Texas play being tested so much, and what is hoped to be learned from all the tests on HB/FB passing?
Bort asked us to test the FB & HB routes to see if a change helped them be targeted more. So, I trimmed down the routes in the play book so those types got dialed up more and just haven't changed it...I assume that's why others have done similar things, but can't swear to it.
Edited by PP on Dec 31, 2009 00:47:14
PP
offline
offline
Originally posted by David Stern
Have you guys confronted/asked bort why we can't get hb's to get targeted in the passing game on non screen passes? Clearly this was tuned down, does anyone actually know why the hell if hb a is primary receiver, he is qb #1 option, and he is wide open, he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the ball? This is without a doubt the most frustrating part of the sim for me this season.
Bort said he didn't do anything to purposefully turn them down, and I believe him. Persoanlly, I think his changes to QB vision to not see blitzers coming is what's responsible, but I could be wrong...And, Bort is aware of it and trying to address it, as mentioned in the post above
Have you guys confronted/asked bort why we can't get hb's to get targeted in the passing game on non screen passes? Clearly this was tuned down, does anyone actually know why the hell if hb a is primary receiver, he is qb #1 option, and he is wide open, he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the ball? This is without a doubt the most frustrating part of the sim for me this season.
Bort said he didn't do anything to purposefully turn them down, and I believe him. Persoanlly, I think his changes to QB vision to not see blitzers coming is what's responsible, but I could be wrong...And, Bort is aware of it and trying to address it, as mentioned in the post above
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by foofighter24
Then there are ten more that are hb/fb passing:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1635
Dunno...maybe it was startled from the hundreds of pages of people complaining about QB's not throwing to HB/FBs?
Maybe it could say that in the description of the test? Also,the findings would be nice, since we can't see the AI settings and player tactics. Are the QBs not seeing the backs opn because of low vision, is it bad tactics on the part of the QB, is low receiving causing the QB to ignore the back, or is it just broken?
FYI, your attitude is driving your right out of this game. Grow up.
Originally posted by foofighter24
Then there are ten more that are hb/fb passing:
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1635
Dunno...maybe it was startled from the hundreds of pages of people complaining about QB's not throwing to HB/FBs?
Maybe it could say that in the description of the test? Also,the findings would be nice, since we can't see the AI settings and player tactics. Are the QBs not seeing the backs opn because of low vision, is it bad tactics on the part of the QB, is low receiving causing the QB to ignore the back, or is it just broken?
FYI, your attitude is driving your right out of this game. Grow up.
Originally posted by foofighter24
Maybe it could say that in the description of the test? Also,the findings would be nice, since we can't see the AI settings and player tactics. Are the QBs not seeing the backs opn because of low vision, is it bad tactics on the part of the QB, is low receiving causing the QB to ignore the back, or is it just broken?
FYI, your attitude is driving your right out of this game. Grow up.
No need to get bent out of shape. I even happen to like Deathblade's House like attitude (it's funny and enjoyable to read his posts/reactions to posts).
Concerning the large number of tests, it was done by a tester in order to see if anything popped out or something that could be taken from.
In response to asking if anything had changed with the HB/FB passes.
Originally posted by Bort
Nothing in particular changed, but QB's are now more likely to see and hit the "open man." Perhaps that has caused issues overall? Or perhaps player progression needs to have more impact on who to choose again.
Later, and more recently (note this is on the test server, you'll see any change here in the changelog, ldo.)
Originally posted by Bort
As I posted in a recent update thread:
I've also done a little playing around with targeting formulas to see if we can get backs the ball more, especially on "high" dump off. I've made it easier to see receiver risk as part of my trace output in replays, as well, so if we run some games here and you guys can point out plays where you think the HB is the better target, I can take a look at the risk values.
The large number of tests regarding the topic were completely justified, and I see no reason for you to get upset over it. As far as "findings" are, I'm not sure what you want. The tests were done to try and identify something, to find reason. Fwiw, "findings" were a bit non-existent.
Maybe it could say that in the description of the test? Also,the findings would be nice, since we can't see the AI settings and player tactics. Are the QBs not seeing the backs opn because of low vision, is it bad tactics on the part of the QB, is low receiving causing the QB to ignore the back, or is it just broken?
FYI, your attitude is driving your right out of this game. Grow up.
No need to get bent out of shape. I even happen to like Deathblade's House like attitude (it's funny and enjoyable to read his posts/reactions to posts).
Concerning the large number of tests, it was done by a tester in order to see if anything popped out or something that could be taken from.
In response to asking if anything had changed with the HB/FB passes.
Originally posted by Bort
Nothing in particular changed, but QB's are now more likely to see and hit the "open man." Perhaps that has caused issues overall? Or perhaps player progression needs to have more impact on who to choose again.
Later, and more recently (note this is on the test server, you'll see any change here in the changelog, ldo.)
Originally posted by Bort
As I posted in a recent update thread:
I've also done a little playing around with targeting formulas to see if we can get backs the ball more, especially on "high" dump off. I've made it easier to see receiver risk as part of my trace output in replays, as well, so if we run some games here and you guys can point out plays where you think the HB is the better target, I can take a look at the risk values.
The large number of tests regarding the topic were completely justified, and I see no reason for you to get upset over it. As far as "findings" are, I'm not sure what you want. The tests were done to try and identify something, to find reason. Fwiw, "findings" were a bit non-existent.
Edited by Mat McBriar on Dec 31, 2009 15:07:59
Edited by Mat McBriar on Dec 31, 2009 15:07:09
I am not upset at all. If you enjoy someone acting that way, it is your choice. I am entitled as entitled to my opininion as he is, am I not? His attitude is becoming more and more problematic. I am just asking about the tests, which is what this thread is about.
I did not see where any findings from all those tests were reported, so I asked. Is there something in particular about the FB Texas play that started the tests on that?
I did not see where any findings from all those tests were reported, so I asked. Is there something in particular about the FB Texas play that started the tests on that?
Originally posted by foofighter24
Is there something in particular about the FB Texas play that started the tests on that?
::shrugs::
No idea. When the particular thread was opened, the play was called into question, using the following as an example: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=917554&pbp_id=8008085
I believe it was just picked out because it is a FB specific pass play.
Is there something in particular about the FB Texas play that started the tests on that?
::shrugs::
No idea. When the particular thread was opened, the play was called into question, using the following as an example: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=917554&pbp_id=8008085
I believe it was just picked out because it is a FB specific pass play.
Originally posted by Mat McBriar
Originally posted by foofighter24
Is there something in particular about the FB Texas play that started the tests on that?
::shrugs::
No idea. When the particular thread was opened, the play was called into question, using the following as an example: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=917554&pbp_id=8008085
I believe it was just picked out because it is a FB specific pass play.
Thanks. I am also having trouble targetting the backs, which is why I was curious. Did the tester find the FB tester play was bugged or working as intended?
I do think using the Test Blog to give more detail about the testing would be helpful. It is very difficult to sync up why some tests are being run and determine what the results were without knowing the thought process of the tester. OR, the test game list could link the discussion so there is some point of reference.
Originally posted by foofighter24
Is there something in particular about the FB Texas play that started the tests on that?
::shrugs::
No idea. When the particular thread was opened, the play was called into question, using the following as an example: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=917554&pbp_id=8008085
I believe it was just picked out because it is a FB specific pass play.
Thanks. I am also having trouble targetting the backs, which is why I was curious. Did the tester find the FB tester play was bugged or working as intended?
I do think using the Test Blog to give more detail about the testing would be helpful. It is very difficult to sync up why some tests are being run and determine what the results were without knowing the thought process of the tester. OR, the test game list could link the discussion so there is some point of reference.
The play itself is not bugged, if that is your concern. Just the targeting in general needs work.
Concerning your comment on wanting "results", 9 times out of 10 it's just verifying or looking for generic things from test server code changes. Especially in tests that are essentially repeated or tweaked.
No one is testing something that would be of gain w/o it being posted here.
Concerning your comment on wanting "results", 9 times out of 10 it's just verifying or looking for generic things from test server code changes. Especially in tests that are essentially repeated or tweaked.
No one is testing something that would be of gain w/o it being posted here.
Originally posted by Mat McBriar
The play itself is not bugged, if that is your concern. Just the targeting in general needs work.
Concerning your comment on wanting "results", 9 times out of 10 it's just verifying or looking for generic things from test server code changes. Especially in tests that are essentially repeated or tweaked.
No one is testing something that would be of gain w/o it being posted here.
If the play is a FB first read amd the QB doesn't look for the FB first, is that not considered a bug? The reason you would call such a play is because a team tends to not account for the FB or leaves no one in under middle coverage. Calling that play, assuming this is the case because of both the drawing, it's placement in the playbook, and the play name, and getting something different would seem to be a problem if it doesn't work that way.
An whether only 10% of the time yields a result doesn't mean that the other 90% should be ignored when it comes to letting the userbase know what is going on. For those 10 or so games on the HB/FB passing, one test blog entry would have sufficed with the theory being tested and the information discovered. Same thing for the FB Texas play, one entry covering those four games would have been fine. Hell, they could have lumped all 14 of them together if they were part of the same tests.
Too often one individual seems to be determining what is relevant to share with the user base.
The play itself is not bugged, if that is your concern. Just the targeting in general needs work.
Concerning your comment on wanting "results", 9 times out of 10 it's just verifying or looking for generic things from test server code changes. Especially in tests that are essentially repeated or tweaked.
No one is testing something that would be of gain w/o it being posted here.
If the play is a FB first read amd the QB doesn't look for the FB first, is that not considered a bug? The reason you would call such a play is because a team tends to not account for the FB or leaves no one in under middle coverage. Calling that play, assuming this is the case because of both the drawing, it's placement in the playbook, and the play name, and getting something different would seem to be a problem if it doesn't work that way.
An whether only 10% of the time yields a result doesn't mean that the other 90% should be ignored when it comes to letting the userbase know what is going on. For those 10 or so games on the HB/FB passing, one test blog entry would have sufficed with the theory being tested and the information discovered. Same thing for the FB Texas play, one entry covering those four games would have been fine. Hell, they could have lumped all 14 of them together if they were part of the same tests.
Too often one individual seems to be determining what is relevant to share with the user base.
Deathblade
offline
offline
Originally posted by foofighter24
FYI, your attitude is driving your right out of this game. Grow up.
qfyour
FYI, your attitude is driving your right out of this game. Grow up.
qfyour
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
