Warrior General Games

Originally posted by PP
Test on 1/10
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1692

This test ran all the pulling G plays for Jacks and all passes with the targetting pulldown set. My Gs are still at 100 speed. So, I'll have to knock down the speed to 65ish and retest. However, 1 thing was obvious. When you line the NT up over the RG pulls to the weak side, the RG ends up engaging the NT almost every time. The fix is to have the C block down on the NT
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1692&pbp_id=366542

As I said, it needs to be reran at normal speeds for the Gs (and I'll shift the DL to see the RG pull weak), but, outside of that issue, I liked the results

The target selection worked as I had set...The only thing I could see as being helpful would be to either include twice as many fields as WRing options or be able to set a time for how long the QB targets each option. Otherwise, he just flies through his reads so fast that the 1st 3 or more aren't even really into their routes far yet. Either setting the WR 2 or 3 times in a row or being able to set a time on how long the QB targets each WR solves that

Edit: As I keep looking, I guess I see a few head scratchers on the pulling G plays, but I'll hold off on those until the test with legit speed Gs is summed

Originally posted by
The target selection worked as I had set...The only thing I could see as being helpful would be to either include twice as many fields as WRing options or be able to set a time for how long the QB targets each option. Otherwise, he just flies through his reads so fast that the 1st 3 or more aren't even really into their routes far yet. Either setting the WR 2 or 3 times in a row or being able to set a time on how long the QB targets each WR solves that"

What was the QBs slider set at? Just wondering if favoring open man might cause him to fly through his reads quicker where route distance might cause him to wait longer on his first target before having to go quickly through his progression to get rid of the ball.

What exactly is the WR Pulldown thing?

Is it to select the intended receiver on the route?

Originally posted by Sik Wit It
What exactly is the WR Pulldown thing?

Is it to select the intended receiver on the route?

Yes. Say for example you call Flanker Drag but instead of WR2 being the main target you can designate the HB as the first check down and then WR1 as the second, TE as the third... up to five total.

Originally posted by thehazyone
Originally posted by Sik Wit It

What exactly is the WR Pulldown thing?

Is it to select the intended receiver on the route?

Yes. Say for example you call Flanker Drag but instead of WR2 being the main target you can designate the HB as the first check down and then WR1 as the second, TE as the third... up to five total.



sweet!

Originally posted by ImTheScientist
sweet!

Super sweet.

Hazy, Thanks for the update

I'm going to be busy as chit through the weekend. So, I won't be able to do much here, but here's my last test game with normal speed Gs (65, iirc). Feel free to review it http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1692.

As far as QB settings, they are the same as my last test:
middle of the slider on everything, middle option on all be being set to aggressive
No on fav long & fav WRs

Another upgrade to the passing game that I noticed with your replay is that the QB seems to have no "anticipation" of the route. He doesn't seem to "know" where a WR is going to be, just what his current speed/direction are.

Originally posted by

General notes:
Way too many encroachment penalties
I quite agree its getting way out of control in lower leagues like AA. Lost a AA conference championship part in due to a team forcing 9 encroachments on us....Hard Count is too strong in lower leagues....need something to balance it out there...

Feedback from a real (if not well-known) DC:

Originally posted by PP

Originally posted by PP
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1713

1st, a real DC would be far better qualified to test this than I. So, my ? may be stupid as hell.

So, I have the OLBs set to zone immediate on the flats. Shouldn't the ROB be picking up the HB a little here? I know his route is a little deep.
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1713&pbp_id=370422

Don't know what depth of flat zone you've got, but certainly I'd expect the ROLB to pick up the HB in a deep flat zone. In a medium or shallow flat, I can see why he wouldn't (he cuts right around the border of the zone) but a flat defender needs IMO to be striking a balance between the current behavior of "always stay home" and the behavior in the rest of the zones where a defender will cheerfully follow the closest receiver and ignore QB contain. Zone immediate shouldn't behave differently from zone in terms of how defenders cover once they get to their zones, though (IMO).

Originally posted by
Since both OLBs are set to flat zone immediate, shouldn't they be breaking to their zone here. I noticed this a handful of times
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1713&pbp_id=370459

I'd say the ROLB in this example should and the LOLB should have a little more room to freelance. What I'm thinking is that as soon as a LB reads run on "zone immediate", they should engage pursuit logic that's weighted towards, but not dictated by, going to their original zone assignment first--and thus the ROLB should read that his flat zone is giving him a good pursuit angle and try for outside contain, while the LOLB should read that he's on the back side of the play and slow his drop greatly/start sliding towards the play side.

Basically, "zone immediate" should make the drop a priority compared to the read, but shouldn't obliterate the read and turn a defender into an idiot until they hit their zone.

Originally posted by PP
[
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1713

1st, a real DC would be far better qualified to test this than I. So, my ? may be stupid as hell.

So, I have the OLBs set to zone immediate on the flats. Shouldn't the ROB be picking up the HB a little here? I know his route is a little deep.
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1713&pbp_id=370422

Since both OLBs are set to flat zone immediate, shouldn't they be breaking to their zone here. I noticed this a handful of times
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1713&pbp_id=370459




On the first replay the LB should recognize the HB. It shouldn't matter if he is playing Shallow Middle or deep. For me the Zone depth should only determine how quickly the LB, if set to cover 0 yards, closes the gap between him and the player in his zone.

For example on short yardage situations I will play a shallow zone because I want the LB on top of the HB as quickly as possible. In Long yardage situations I would play zone deep to make sure the HB doesn't get behind my LB. Almost a bait the QB to throw to the open man. Then come up and make the tackle.



The second replay is what has drove me nuts about LBs for seasons now. They drift inside, I guess, when diagnosing the play. Drives me nuts and allows the HB on pitch plays to get outside. Lets the FB seal you inside. I hate it.

I should clarify a couple things here (the issue with just posting my results from the test server is that some of the things said before are lost)

Zone immediate is an option Bort added on the test server to get the D dots to run directly to their spot without trying to read run first. Since that's the purpose of the setting, I assume that's what they should do every time (OLBs were set to that)

Also, the flat zone is something he put in that's supposed to cover the flats better and ignore the WRs. So, it may be that the HB is too deep on the play I linked. I honestly don't know what his intention for it is.

Here'a a bunch of additions to a discussion on making the RGs work on the pull plays. As a background to this, my last test had the RG with 10 in first step on TCTF, but not on the one on Jacks, both have 82 agility and 65 speed. We are discussing if we should just give out the boost for free on these plays this ssn, make ppl get 1st step or turn it into a VA. What Catch is referring to several times here is the new SA trees being considered and making 1st Step an option for the OLmen. Forgive me. This may be a bit hard to follow, much of it is just a debate between 3 of us:

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=1829

Originally posted by PP
OK...So, I tested it with a bunch of blitzes first, to see if I could find something where "line your blitzer up here and he takes out the QB each time before the handoff" type thing. You can sure explode the play easy enough, but not like that. I found it very reasonable

Next, I tried the 10 1st step on one RG and left the other as is...Holy shit, what a difference!

To put this in perspective, I tallied 20 plays for each
The RG with 10 1st step made a useful block 14 times, 5 too slow to help, 1 undecided.
The RG without 10 1st step ran almost exactly 50/50, but all the useful ones were sealing back and none actually leading (where as a decent amount of the ones for the 10 1st step were lead blocks)

With
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1829&pbp_id=394907
Without
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1829&pbp_id=394913

Suggestion
-To me, it's a slam dunk...add the equivalent to 10 1st step on top of what you already have and it's reasonable, IMO...Not always enough (25% of the time not and a decent part of the time that it is good enough it's because of a seal back), but nothing should work all the time either.

Edit: Actually, I'm p pumped about this...I think we finally got this one Bort!

Originally posted by xxxxx


I guess in my mind, if a guard wants 10 in first step, they have the ability to get this through the AEQ store...this would make them much better on pulling (and better on some other plays as well), but would come at the cost of 40% hold block or a big Get Low/Pancake piece.

Do we want to give free first step to guards? The G without it is still useful, but having a Guard with 10 first Step might be a great way for folks to differentiate their builds....and not have all gurads be good at something they aren't really built to do very well (so they can focus soley on something they already do extremely well).

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Catch22
I tend to agree with xxxxx on this one - maybe a slight boost for OL but not the equivalent of 10 first step.Originally posted by PP
Well, here's my thought on it...It needs to either be made an SA in the new tree options as Bort suggested or a VA as Jed does. Not a single G in all of GLB is going to go out and buy 2 1st step pieces of AEQ. Flat out, if they do they are going to be giving up other options that they just can't afford to. So, until either the tree option become available or it becomes a vet, I think we do. It's not like we're talking about giving it to them on every play...Just on the pull plays and just while they are running parallel to the LOS. I can see the VA now:

Pulling Guard
Each level of pulling Guard gives a 1% speed and acceleration increase to a G that is pulling on a run play. It only applies to the initial portion of the pull, while paralleling the LOS.

If we don't then we mayt as well not have the Gs pull in these plays this ssn. It creates more problems than its worth otherwise.


Originally posted by xxxxxxx

I hear your frustration....but at the end of the day, I think there needs to be some real value in having 70 speed and 85 agility (roughly what my guards all have on YYYYYY), or else everyone will just push Strength/Blocking up yet another cap.

Granted, that is a high level end point build, and lower level guys will not have that sort of speed, generally.

Nevertheless, First Step is a pretty big deal on pulling, works very well for crushing the second level on many inside rush plays, has some advantages in pass blocking, and is excellent on some of the screen plays.

For an offense that focuses on the outside stuff, I can absolutely see taking a Gurad with 10 in first step over the (slightly over rated in my opinion) hold block% piece.

A power-running team will be much better served with hold bock% and the running SAs of course...but building a guard to suit a style should have some real benefits...not be watered down by making non-conforming builds be good at something they haven't bothered to spend points on.

I would also advocate a little wider differential in speed/acceleration for lighter guards as opposed to heavier guards for the same reason, actually.



edit: Just checked and saw that alll my guards are between 86 and 90 agility, one of them has less than 70 speed (currently 66) and I will likely bump that when I spend his boost points. It's not an unreasonable build request at high levels, by any means.

Originally posted by Catch22
honestly with the new archetype and the ability to pick a bonus SA - I don't see the need to add the bonus to guards since if they want it, they can add it. Let's not force the builds on players because then the game becomes too easy.

That being said, this discussion about First Step's usefulness should probably be something that is posted on the live server.

Originally posted by PP
But it's at the end, isn't it? So, 1st Step would start by costing 2 SPs to get 1? I could see using it if it took Hands or even Cut Block's place. I just don't see doing it if it costs 2 to get 1, particularly since 10 in 1st step still isn't enough to get you really out front with the Gs standard builds more than 1/2 the time with a rather run of the mill elusive back. Maybe by the time everything is said and done, if the combo of a VA and 4-6 in 1st Step would do the same thing?????

Sorry if I'm coming off as an argumentative ass. I'm just trying to come up with ways I'd be willing to build a G that could use this. I guess after putting all of this work into it I just don't want to see it all be for essentially nothing.

Originally posted by Catch22
yea - might revisit the +2 thing. I think we might just make it normal.

Originally posted by xxxxxx
I am liking the Pulling VA, actually. I think that is a pretty solid VA choice that offers a very specifc benefit. I would let it work for screens as well, but I would *not* make it available to OTs (who are already more mobile, and we don't want to over power the screen passes again...)

Originally posted by Catch22
Actually, I changed it. I think the +2 thing might not encourage people to use the bonus SA as much and I want that to be a difference maker and allow for build variety - so I just changed it to normal.

Originally posted by PP
Just to make sure I'm not being misunderstood...I REALLY wouldn't want to see Gs being given 10 1st step on anything but the initial pull of the RG on those 3 plays.

as I said, I'll live with whatever


Originally posted by PP
You know, the more I consider this, you guys are right...It' shouldn't just be programed in as a gimme, even as a 1 ssn deal. If Bort could wrap this into a vet for this ssn yet, that would be awesome, though.