Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Dr. E
They will already do that if you use evasive. wont pile up to begin with if you space the defenders properly.

Simply not true at all. Safeties on evasive with high VIS/AGI/CD etc playing way back constantly run up on sweeps etc and instead of avoiding the WR blocking the CB they run right to him like they're magnetized and get caught up by the super WR. The fact that you are even refuting this just shows that you don't really know WTF you're talking about.

/shrug ™

Originally posted by Toriq
Simply not true at all. Safeties on evasive with high VIS/AGI/CD etc playing way back constantly run up on sweeps etc and instead of avoiding the WR blocking the CB they run right to him like they're magnetized and get caught up by the super WR. The fact that you are even refuting this just shows that you don't really know WTF you're talking about.

/shrug ™


Hmm, well, somehow the stuff I say works doesn't work for you, but it does for me. The answer is there if you apply some logic.

Originally posted by Dr. E
Hmm, well, somehow the stuff I say works doesn't work for you, but it does for me. The answer is there if you apply some logic.

I imagine you're the only one with the "logic" to make it work for you in the SIM then since you appear to be the lone voice in the crowd. But, that's ok.

Why not show examples of it happening while you're at it? Sure many folks would love to see it since just about everyone else is seeing different (magnetic attraction) reactions regardless of dot position. So, instead of doing what you usually do and say "blah, the SIM is fine it's just you don't know how to use it right and I do", provide some examples like Rage does all the time to illustrate how it's not broken.

Originally posted by Toriq
Yeah, that's it. Thanks for playing.

BTW, personal attacks can get you banned too. Did you know that as well?

Ya, I don't make them, nothing to be gained, although there is nothing preventing people from being offended by innocuous statements or in this case, a little rhetoric. ( I'm prone to rhetoric, something in me just can't stand illogical behavior. I'm trying to stop, does no good. You can't teach a man until he asks to be taught. ) The problem is people allow their feelings to get involved. There is a test for determining if a response is rational. Take any trigger word from our society then go to some tribal area of the world and use the same word. If you don't get the same response then it's not the word, it's the interpretation. RBT..Rational Behavior Therapy. Look it up, real stuff and it just happens that I was an instructor for such a class for 9 years.

http://www.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1625872&pbp_id=10312905&flash=1 this is just pure bs!!

Originally posted by Dr. E
Ya, I don't make them, nothing to be gained, although there is nothing preventing people from being offended by innocuous statements or in this case, a little rhetoric. ( I'm prone to rhetoric, something in me just can't stand illogical behavior. I'm trying to stop, does no good. You can't teach a man until he asks to be taught. ) The problem is people allow their feelings to get involved. There is a test for determining if a response is rational. Take any trigger word from our society then go to some tribal area of the world and use the same word. If you don't get the same response then it's not the word, it's the interpretation. RBT..Rational Behavior Therapy. Look it up, real stuff and it just happens that I was an instructor for such a class for 9 years.

Still awaiting examples of how it's working correctly regardless of the psychotherapy.

Originally posted by Dr. E
They will already do that if you use evasive. wont pile up to begin with if you space the defenders properly.
Why does the MLB run directly into the RT and SS... shouldn't there be some sort of avoidance factor for defensive players?
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1641692&pbp_id=10246599 (from today's scrimmage)
If there is an avoidance factor, don't you think that it should be factored in when players are chosing their pursuit angles, not only when their teammate is directly in front of them?

nevermind, i'm going to bugs with this one

FS runs into his own players: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1595140&pbp_id=5346127

i dunno strom about suggesting more of an avoidance factor. thats asking bort to add more codes to the defensive dots...limiting them even more on some level. it can cause them to take even more stupid pursuit angles imo. it seems bort hasnt gotten this path stuff down very good....or maybe he doesnt want to. who knows.

i still think it would be best that he tone down/delete the avoidance for d players so they flow through those exchanges just like the offensive players do. especially in space.

i dont understand y he would let this issue ride as long as he has. its a terrible product of the sim and its painfully silly and everyone including himself knows it.

its strongly effects outcomes of games and has even caused an entire philosophy approach to how DAIs are set up nowadays to over compensate this stupid chit.

its ridiculous

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1641715&pbp_id=9924131

either 1 wr blocks 2 cb's, a FS and a MLB or....

it looks more like my CB blocks another CB,FS, and MLB.

To me, it looks like when the players go after the ball carrier. They focus more on getting to him rather than looking out for each other. It happens sometimes in real life. I honestly don't know how often it happens on this. If it is every once in a while its probably fine. but if it happens all of the time it needs to be fixed

Uh, what good is a "pick" play if the defenders don't run into each other? Ever see how many DL can get caught up in a good trap block?

imo - this is NOT a bug, it's simply the pathing angles taken by defenders to arrive at a spot. I'd be stunned and amazed if they didn't have to pass vision checks along the way and stromstarhammer, in that FS example, he doesn't just run into his own players and get hung up - he goes around them and makes the play. I've seen more plays with safeties going around the WR blocks than getting caught up in them - fixurbuilds.

How would you like to see pathing, if not directed at the ball carrier?

Originally posted by hopewell12
To me, it looks like when the players go after the ball carrier. They focus more on getting to him rather than looking out for each other. It happens sometimes in real life. I honestly don't know how often it happens on this. If it is every once in a while its probably fine. but if it happens all of the time it needs to be fixed

watch WR1 on that same play

Originally posted by AlBarsch

How would you like to see pathing, if not directed at the ball carrier?

So then what's up with a LB in close coverage, the receiver catches it and the LB shoots at a 90 degree angle upfield to some intercept point when if he'd just continue his path to the catch he'd have had a tackle chance? That happens a whole lot as well. Basically, D pathing is snookered and that's how it is.