Warrior General Games

Originally posted by PrizzlePulse
(And same question, but for mods).

Please contact Lead Moderators (myself, Norsemanvike, tpaterniti) if you have an issue with any moderator. We are happy to address issues - and we do look seriously into issues. If you have an issue with a lead mod, contact Support and Pallow will respond.

Have you ever thought of placing some sort of in game incentive on winning in the Minors? (Small enough to not make the rich 'richer' but large enough to create some excitement about trying to win?)

GLB unintentionally removed the 'win to move up' incentive when moving from Regions / Pyarmids to level tiered minors.

People now often benefit more by not trying for a year, going 4-12, until they hit the absolute max level for caps to then proceed to be at the best possible level/age to win every year, rather than winning every season they can.

Tying MVP awards, to only playoff teams for example is a small incentive with value, but not game breaking. I'm sure there are other possibilities.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
I understand that you are only in discussion. I'm not one of those agents who thinks you just throw a dart at a wheel and that is your future GLB change. I actually respect how you guys put thought into your game changes.

My point is that you're choosing between one method that allows more choices, but with different costs, versus a method that forces some build aspects. Putting a cap on how much EQ can go into an attribute will force agents to go certain routes. Allowing them to choose in a cost/benefit scenario will open up build variability. You just have to prevent the super-extreme builds from being so effective in their choice of strengths that they can exploit the sim. That is where changing the deviations comes in. This might be a moot point, however. To just go with speed as an example (since that is the attribute most at issue), most elite man coverage CBs in the future will have around 140 speed and most hard hitters will have around 125-130 speed. If that 140 speed is enough to keep up decently with 160-170 speed WRs, then all is good. If those 160-170 speed WRs will break a guaranteed 1-2 TDs per game, then changing the difference between those speeds might be needed. This doesn't mean that you should use diminishing returns, but that you should shrink the range of possible speeds, so that higher speed will mean something, but not so much that it is exploitable.

Same difference as implementing diminishing returns over 100 (or some other higher number) isn't it?

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by F8n4tune

2 questions , thanks.

Which procedure overrides the other , player tactics(slider) or the tactics set by the Coord ?

And what exactly is the purpose of the player(agent) having the option if the AI is the override ?

Coordinator first. The only one I can really think of that overlaps is coverage distance, though...and the coverage distance ADDS to whatever the coord set up.

Ha thanks , told someone close to this.

Originally posted by Doug_Plank
ooof, i hope there is a fair amount of open discussion about this before it happens.

Once you start limiting how someone can construct their build, a lot of min maxers are going to be pissed. Makes a lot more sense to increase the relative worth of secondary attributes in order to force min maxers to think harder about what they are losing/risking.... giving them more to sacrifice by neglecting secondaries rather than flat out limit how min/max they can go

EQ and attrib capping really are the same thing

Well the way we see it there are four options:

1) Leave as is - won't really work because 160+ in an attribute breaks some aspects of the game and causes some balance issues.
2) Have attributes have a diminishing effect over 100 like SA's do over 10. This is a possibility we would consider, especially in regards to speed (which is the biggest issue we have with maxed attribs)
3) Have a hard cap on attributes - we don't really want to do this
4) Have a cap on attributes via EQ either by limiting the number of points a player can put into an attrib or reducing the value of EQ.

So really we have to do #2 or #4 and #4 seemed like the most effective means of ensuring players tried to build more well rounded players and thus giving secondary attributes more value (if you can't put points into X attribute, you'll then put them in Y).

As stated before, this is just in discussion, so let's not push the panic button.

Originally posted by TJ Spikes
QB AI targeting:

If a 6'5 WR is covered by a 5'10 CB wil the QB "see" him as more open than if he were covered by a 6'3 CB? If yes, then will he attempt to throw the ball higher, so that the shorter defender has worse Deflection/Int rolls?

Does the QB have any way of knowing an archetype of a defender and adjusting for it... like maybe a Returner CB in as the CB5 might be more susceptible to pump fakes, or maybe the QB shouldn't lay a WR out over the middle when a HH safety is around? -- Players do have reputations and tendencies ect IRL...



No, height wouldn't really affect things outside of the fact that his deflection chance is lower. The QB is far more interested on how many defenders are nearby than how tall they are or what type of player they are.

No, the QB doesn't adjust his strategies based on archetype.

Originally posted by Catch22
No. We'll never give owners control over individual players.

that's not exactly 'giving owners control' when you have the coordinator rather than the dots owner set the tactics. The game is rife with idiots who set their dots to power tackling to get stats cause missed tackles don't show and cost their teams. They have a lot of control over a agents dot when he signs - how he's used, where he goes on the depth chart, and even whether he plays at all. Football is a team sport after all. If you didn't trust a owner and his coordinators enough to let them dictate the game you shouldn't sign with them in the first place.

Wrapping up - five minutes left. Hope everyone enjoyed the Q & A!

Are designed QB rollout plays still on the radar?

Is there any plan to give agents more control of their QBs via player tactics in terms of how often they roll out and how often they tuck and run? Right now agents can't make their scrambling QBs tuck and run often, and they can't make their pocket QBs avoid pulling the ball down on 3rd & 15 against coverage-heavy defenses.

I posted this earlier as well, but if you put speed on a nonlinear curve, treating it as kinetic energy and putting velocity on a square root curve as opposed to a logarithmic curve makes more sense imo.

Any chance to have a pro bowl of sorts on day 40 after the championship? Have teams vote in the players, the players with the most votes gets a pro bowl game. Pro bowl is played by a sim that no one controls. Just builds vs builds and basic tactics.

Originally posted by Bort

No, the QB doesn't adjust his strategies based on archetype.

With archetype bonuses, this might be something to consider. Unless, of course, the QB bases his "risk" calculation on the WR vs. CB base score (which would include the archetype bonuses).

How is JohnnyDollar not an admin of this site yet?

Originally posted by Catch22
Wrapping up - five minutes left. Hope everyone enjoyed the Q & A!

Was productive. Thanks for doing it.

Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by jamz

Have you ever thought of placing some sort of in game incentive on winning in the Minors? (Small enough to not make the rich 'richer' but large enough to create some excitement about trying to win?)/QUOTE]

Actually, we discussed that today as well. We're looking at some team incentives for winning and promoting. It'll likely be rolled out with the new league structures.

qfquotefail