Warrior General Games

Thread Started on the Test Server March 8th.

Summary: Catch is currently testing SA's and is asking the opinions of testers as to what is over/under-powered in SA's and VA's.

The Discussion is On-Going.

******************************************************************
Originally posted by Catch22
I just finished testing the new SA's for balance (they all looked pretty good, ran over 50 test games) and am about to get started testing SA's/VA's using equivalent players (no differences in builds at positions). I want to get your opinions on which VA's and SA's I should be looking at closely as far as being over powered or under powered.

Originally posted by Enkidu98
Mentor = Overpowered

I'll have to think about this one and get back to you more.
Originally posted by Deathblade
It's a pretty widespread belief that mentor actually doesn't even work...so I lol'd a bit.
_____________________________________
Originally posted by tpaterniti
Hard Count
Originally posted by Enkidu98
Hard Count is fine. IMO. I like that it works and it is noticable but it also has a counter. D-line with 64+ Vision.

The only thing I might do with Hard count is modify it so that it has two forms in one. Once you force a team to jump offsides X number of times, it then turns into a deal for the D-line to get off the snap, like a reverse 'jump the snap'.

EG, instead of triggering throughout the game and causing lots of encroachments, it triggers like 3 encroachments and then each time it 'triggers' after that adds a negative modifier to the Defenses ability to get moving once the ball is snapped to simulate them being extra careful and avoiding the DC chewing their asses for stupid penalties.
Originally posted by jdros13
I think Hard Count is ridiculous. If it is going to stay, there should be the possibility of it causing false starts as well. Personally I'd prefer that we not have any VA's that cause penalties.
Originally posted by Staz
It does reflect a real "ability", though.
Originally posted by jdros13
which is fine, but there is no down side. I haven't seen it determine any games yet that I've been involved with, but I've seen teams get over 50 free yards out of it. Personally I think the penalties should go away altogether, but since I'm sure they won't I'd rather just see the offense have a chance to be hurt by this VA.

________________________________




Originally posted by Mat McBriar
SAs that are probably too weak:
{NOTE- Removed Generic Descriptions. Tuba}

Strong Arm (Guard/Center/FB)

Shock Block (Guard, Offensive Tackle, Center)

Route Running (Wide Receiver, Tight End)

Jumping Catch (Wide Receiver)

Diving Catch (Wide Receiver)

One Handed Catch (Wide Receiver)

Turn the Shoulder (Quarterback)

Snarl (Defensive Tackle, Linebacker)

The Glare (Defensive Tackle, Linebacker)

Trash Talk (Linebacker)


Blitz (Cornerback)

Growl (Free Safety, Strong Safety)
.
Originally posted by tautology

Of these, I think Blitz and Route Run are probably fine (especially Route Run).
The rest are a little weak, especially one-handed catch which seems to have too few opportunities to fire for the points required to make it work.
I would throw Absorb Pain into the list of sub-par SAs as well.
____________________________________

Originally posted by Mat McBriar
For the overpowered (feeling lazy to do a legit list):

1. First Step
2. Protector
3. Shutdown Coverage

Originally posted by Koncorde
Is First Step truly overpowered?
Originally posted by Mat McBriar
Idk about you, but I find insta-max acceleration due to First Step pretty ridiculous. Players go from stop to their top speed (or relatively close to it) almost immediately.
Originally posted by Enkidu98
Yeah, I think the speed/acceleration curve in the game as a whole is a bit messed up. I'm not sure that first step is overpowered though.


Originally posted by Mat McBriar
If you look at players w/o First Step, the speed/acceleration curve really isn't all that messed up. It's still a bit extreme, but especially on heavier players it's ok. If you look at some replays of my 125.5 speed/78.5 agility TE with 0 First Step it isn't all that bad. If we could take that acceleration and match it to 180 pound WRs, I think we'd be in the right place.

First Step would still need a nerf, although it'd really hurt the pass rush (unless we could somehow keep the First Step effect off the snap for linemen the same).
Originally posted by Enkidu98
I was just going to say. Any change to first step would need to accommodate the D-Line/Line....

Maybe first step should give you instantaneous acceleration to your top speed for a set number of tics and your normal speed acceleration curve is also kept track of and after x number of ticks you drop to your normal speed per the acceleration curve?
Originally posted by Staz
I don't think you should EVER be able to get to top speed in less than 20 yards.
I think FS should simply cause the acceleration "curve" to be steeper for 2-4 ticks, and then go right back to the normal curve. You won't lose any speed, and FS will be helpful, but much more realistic.
I'm going to use numbers, since idk how to paint it any other way:
Normal Accel Curve (each number is on it's own tick): 1, 1.5, 2, 2.75, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.75, 7.75, 8.75, 10, 10.75, 11.75--
First Step Maxed: 1, 2, 3, 4, - Starts normal curve and continues from there.
I don't think that's the greatest example, but you can see sort of what I'm talking about. Just increase the rate of acceleration for 2-4 ticks, and then go back to the normal values.
Originally posted by Enkidu98
That would do huge damage to the line. Since a tic is a fraction of a second, I figure it represents your explosiveness. Its like a good start off the blocks. where the initial jump is very high, then retreats. I think our aim is the same thing, but for it to work for the D-Line etc, they'll need max speed with a quick drop off.

WR's, HB's etc may need to be treated differently.

First Step Is discussed more with the testing staff seemingly split on whether or not it is overpowered at all, whether it is overpowered for some, and just what positions it would need to be nerfed for, especially the need to not nerf it for D-Linemen.
________________________________________________________
Originally posted by Kirghiz
Aura Of Intimidation
Field General
Line General
Defense General
One Handed Catch

Demoralize - This SA should absolutely not be active on designed QB run plays, and it isn't, but limiting it to only scrambles for yards kind of negates it's value. It should also trigger on any completed pass in which the QB threw it from outside the tackle box.
In response to Demoralize...
Originally posted by Bort
"After any QB rush or pass from outside the pocket, the defense will lose additional morale."
_________________

Originally posted by Mat McBriar
Short Yardage Monster is too powerful. Maybe restrict the effect to runs inside the tackles or something.

I know the AEQ stacking will bring it down a bit, but it still will need more of a nerf.

Originally posted by tautology
On the VA front, Punishing Runner and Adrenaline Junkie seem inherently weak...unless their effects are actually activated on Missed tackles as well as tackles. If that is the case then they might be worthwhile at least on the surface.

Originally posted by Staz
Agree. I'm not a fan of these "% chance for this thing to even work" SAs
____________________________________
Ongoing.....

Cut Block needs to be boosted.

If you're going to continue to let the DEs stack TV and FS and just run around OTs, then Cut Block should be buffed so OTs can try to take their legs out as they throw themselves at the DEs legs as he saunters by.

Originally posted by Bort
"After any QB rush or pass from outside the pocket, the defense will lose additional morale."

That's good and all, but scrambling is busted. Where's the rollout plays for dual threat players?




Turn Shoulder is bad.
On the Run is bad.
Dump Pass is wasted points.
Demoralize is bad.

HF/Juke. both need a buff against man coverage. It makes sense football wise, and balance wise in the sim.

Jump/Diving/1hand Catch are all terrible. There isn't any reason to use them right now.

Hands... 99/98 energy settings and depth. Not to mention stamina isn't big enough atm. Instead of a shitty morale/stamina SA. Have the SA (Hands) enlarge the potential blocking area. But have a chance of a holding call when it's on the very outside of the radius. So if it's a 90 degree front (blocking cone) Hands would make it 110 degree front, but with that outside 20 degrees the further you get to the exterior the more likely a hold is called.

Shock block really needs to be changed to "quick set" in functionality. Basically off the line you jam the DE then drop back to form a pocket. Against faster DE's you should absolutely quick set and try to jam them early.

First step isn't OOP'd in any way, Without it wr's can't even get separation, Does it even work for hb's? If someone wants to make the argument that the speed acceleration curve is whacked on GLB I will listen to that, but first step isn't oop'ed in any way, and has absolutely nothing to do with the ridiculousness of some double/triple coverage catching. If first step were to get nerfed in anyway, 95% of the game wouldn't be able to pass, and the outrageous passing teams would likely get even stronger, as this isn't the reason on any level for their success.

People blame hard count but Jump the Snap is also responsible for some of the encroachments.

Originally posted by David Stern
First step isn't OOP'd in any way, Without it wr's can't even get separation, Does it even work for hb's? If someone wants to make the argument that the speed acceleration curve is whacked on GLB I will listen to that, but first step isn't oop'ed in any way, and has absolutely nothing to do with the ridiculousness of some double/triple coverage catching. If first step were to get nerfed in anyway, 95% of the game wouldn't be able to pass, and the outrageous passing teams would likely get even stronger, as this isn't the reason on any level for their success.

You're not really presenting a strong argument here.

Yes the WRs, D-Line, etc. would be hurt big time without it in its current form but that doesn't mean it isn't overpowered. Broken mechanics semi-patched by an overpowered SA or VA need fixing on both ends (the actual mechanic and the former patch for it). Certainly our goal is not to trash the passing game.

You hit it correctly with the speed/acceleration curve being whacked, though. First Step amplifies that issue big time.

Originally posted by Pietasters
People blame hard count but Jump the Snap is also responsible for some of the encroachments. a slight lack of vision/confidence will cause undue penalties as much as anything I have seen here

Originally posted by Mat McBriar
You're not really presenting a strong argument here.

Yes the WRs, D-Line, etc. would be hurt big time without it in its current form but that doesn't mean it isn't overpowered. Broken mechanics semi-patched by an overpowered SA or VA need fixing on both ends (the actual mechanic and the former patch for it). Certainly our goal is not to trash the passing game.

You hit it correctly with the speed/acceleration curve being whacked, though. First Step amplifies that issue big time.

First step isn't OOP'ed in any way. There is no high first step player on Blaze/Black O/ or Jam, and we are #1 in passing in all leagues. Not only is first step not OOP'ed , I don't know any super high first step players who are even successful. It gives top speed for 2 ticks mb. The people who are pushing this agenda of first step being oop'd have no idea what it takes to actually be successful at this game, and are going off of that worthless speed scipt, saying " Look 1 tick acceleration, nerf it" Ask any OC in GLB who is having success, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FIRST STEP.

MCrbriar the reason my argument doesn't make sense to you - - You don't coordinate, or run any teams playing at a high level. you're not seeing what actually is bringing success in the passing game. Your goal may not be to trash the passing game, but that is exactly what would happen if first step was turned down at all. You don't see why because you don't get it.

I'm completely aware of what made specific teams great passing teams this season (amped pass quality rolls on one end with amped catch ball rolls on the other). I'm also aware that reducing the effect of First Step would hurt many receivers.

Here's where you aren't connecting with me, though. If reducing the effect of First Step would 'trash' the passing game, then there is most definitely something wrong with the mechanics behind getting open.

So it's a multi-part fix. If you fix the mechanics behind a receiver getting open, then it's most likely going to be overpowered due to First Step providing for insta-acceleration to top speed (and even faster than a player's top speed) or only work right with builds that have good to great First Step. To fix the mechanic entirely, you need to adjust both sides of the spectrum.

Originally posted by Mat McBriar
I'm completely aware of what made specific teams great passing teams this season (amped pass quality rolls on one end with amped catch ball rolls on the other). I'm also aware that reducing the effect of First Step would hurt many receivers.

Here's where you aren't connecting with me, though. If reducing the effect of First Step would 'trash' the passing game, then there is most definitely something wrong with the mechanics behind getting open.

So it's a multi-part fix. If you fix the mechanics behind a receiver getting open, then it's most likely going to be overpowered due to First Step providing for insta-acceleration to top speed (and even faster than a player's top speed) or only work right with builds that have good to great First Step. To fix the mechanic entirely, you need to adjust both sides of the spectrum.

No receivers get open, unless faked. period.

Is there any way Bort could run a query that showed the number of folks that pick each VA and SA? Just rank them by points invested, that's gonna show which are considered stronger and which are weaker.

Originally posted by PackMan97
Is there any way Bort could run a query that showed the number of folks that pick each VA and SA? Just rank them by points invested, that's gonna show which are considered stronger and which are weaker.

I think Bort already does/has this. I think when I heard him reference it that it was in concern of VAs. Obviously nothing publicized.

I don't think it'd be an accurate gauge at what's stronger/weaker, though. I mean looking at even the World League playoff teams, some do some very different things when it comes to VAs. General users in GLB tend to flock like cattle in fear of 'screwing' up, but some of the better VAs aren't even looked at for the sole reason that people are biased by public opinion.

A relevant example that won't hurt anyone is back when the Official Footballguys had Big Heart. At the time when OFG was doing something a bit 'radical' with Big Heart use, if you queried all of GLB, Big Heart probably would have been in that bottom tier of rarely used VAs.

Bort should hire a statistician IMO. OK, I am one, so I'm a bit biased, but..

Get rid of this "sim a test game and watch it twice" garbage. Do controlled experiments with thousands of sims. Think of the questions you can ACTUALLY answer that don't rely on 20 testers digging through pbp data.

Big picture analysis:
** what SAs/VAs actually work?
** what is the optimal build structures in certain situations?
** what plays are the most effective?

Sim change analysis:
** what effect does this VA/SA have on YPC, broken tackles, completion %, deflections, etc?
** how does performance decrease when the impact of energy is increased?
** what impact does roster depth have on team performance?


Etc., etc. One full time statistician with a few dedicated test servers with less boundaries (don't restrict testing to full games, etc.) could answer the most meaningful questions without actually watching the sims in full. That's the beauty of data analysis.


Hell, instead of guessing the right % to put on the bruiser VA, ask a question first:
What impact do I want 15 bruiser to have on YPC and broken tackles?
Answer it, 1 YPC and 20% more broken tackles, but with a variance on YPA under 3 (to control for too many breakout plays)
Then run 10,000 plays varying the % on the VA and see what gets the results you wanted. Uber guess and check.



Anyway, I don't mean to discredit the great work catch is doing, but until testing is done in large scale like this, the game will just continue to make mistakes and be unbalanced...

Originally posted by Octowned
Bort should hire a statistician IMO. OK, I am one, so I'm a bit biased, but..

Get rid of this "sim a test game and watch it twice" garbage. Do controlled experiments with thousands of sims. Think of the questions you can ACTUALLY answer that don't rely on 20 testers digging through pbp data.

Big picture analysis:
** what SAs/VAs actually work?
** what is the optimal build structures in certain situations?
** what plays are the most effective?

Sim change analysis:
** what effect does this VA/SA have on YPC, broken tackles, completion %, deflections, etc?
** how does performance decrease when the impact of energy is increased?
** what impact does roster depth have on team performance?


Etc., etc. One full time statistician with a few dedicated test servers with less boundaries (don't restrict testing to full games, etc.) could answer the most meaningful questions without actually watching the sims in full. That's the beauty of data analysis.


Hell, instead of guessing the right % to put on the bruiser VA, ask a question first:
What impact do I want 15 bruiser to have on YPC and broken tackles?
Answer it, 1 YPC and 20% more broken tackles, but with a variance on YPA under 3 (to control for too many breakout plays)
Then run 10,000 plays varying the % on the VA and see what gets the results you wanted. Uber guess and check.



Anyway, I don't mean to discredit the great work catch is doing, but until testing is done in large scale like this, the game will just continue to make mistakes and be unbalanced...

I actually agree with you on this. I've always wondered just how much we're gaining from throwing out a few games, and going through each and every play to figure things out. Being able to simulate specifics, and not entire games, would be able to help, too. IDK if that's currently possible, though.