Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Tough might be an understatement. Have you checked to make sure that you haven't made it too tough? That CB I brought up has 87 career INTs and only 2 TD returns. Tough might be a subjective value term, but 2 in 87 seems way more than tough. I'm concerned that there is a bug here somewhere that is making INT returns much, much harder than intended.

That's fairly intentional. We didn't want it like it was in earlier versions of GLB where pick 6's were the norm and often defined the game. Now they can happen but it's a rare event when it does.

Originally posted by TehKyou
Awhile back I was scouring the wiki for various information. One thing I came across was that in a previous QA session you talked about height for blockers. Shorter blockers were harder to knockoff balance/revcake and taller blockers were better at engaging/holding blocks.

Does the same hold true for taller defensive players, In other words do taller defensive players have an easier time avoiding blocks/shedding?

Shorter players in general have marginally better balance than taller players, while taller players in general are marginally stronger. So yes, it works in reverse. It's certainly not a HUGE difference though.

Originally posted by Catch22
That's fairly intentional. We didn't want it like it was in earlier versions of GLB where pick 6's were the norm and often defined the game. Now they can happen but it's a rare event when it does.

Pretty much this.

Originally posted by iRockVans
I would like to know GLB's interest level in alternating one of the Pee Wee teams and creating it an Iron Man League? The only change that would need to be made would be roster size limit, which could be around 15? Sorry about the double question, just wanted to ask about the interest level of this being a possibility.

Edit: iron man league* first line

Thanks for the question iRockVans but this is considered a suggestion based question. Rules of the Q & A state:

4) This is not the forum or avenue to try and get a suggestion looked at or implemented. Please avoid asking questions that are suggestions.

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust

Obviously we've talked about when alpha testing would possibly open up for the new games.

When do you think you'll reveal what those games are?

soonish

define soonish? 1-6 months, 6 months - year etc lol

Originally posted by hatchman
has there been any discussion about adding some sort of way that in casual you could make a designation to go for it on 4rth down? I am not asking for a way to game the system by going for it every 4rth down. I just think that in some instances there should be a way we as coordinators could check a box that says go for it on lets say 4rth and 1 when we are on the opponents side of the field.

Thanks for the question hatchman but this is considered a suggestion based question. Rules of the Q & A state:

4) This is not the forum or avenue to try and get a suggestion looked at or implemented. Please avoid asking questions that are suggestions.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
I asked a question and you deleted it. So I'll asked this: you say this is a question and answer thread, not a discussion thread, but what is the difference? It seems to me that multiple questions and answers about the same topic is a discussion. So how do you choose to differentiate the two?

Both Bort and I answered why it's the way it currently is. We don't have time to debate it with you while trying to answer other user questions. Feel free to pm me and I'll be happy to discuss it with you there.

Originally posted by InRomoWeTrust
When is the mod staff coming out to Portlandia and being treated to some Timbers tickets? (training weekend for the mod staff of course)

If it's happening, Pallow's paying. So...it's not happening.

This is for DigitalDaggers.

Do you tweet about anything other than the NBA?

Originally posted by jdbolick
This may have been asked in a previous Q&A, but are sacks treated differently from regular tackles? By that I mean will things like break tackle AEQ & Bruiser/Slipper VAs work against sacks or just for QB runs?

As far as SA's and VA's and such are concerned, sacks are different than normal tackles.

Originally posted by JcWildcat
define soonish? 1-6 months, 6 months - year etc lol

We're working pretty hard to get something rolling sooner than later, cuz we know you all are anxious, and so are we! I just hesitate to put timetables on things these days, because we know how that can go.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024


The question was actually very simple: is there a chance there is a mistake in the code considering the fact that INT TDs are so hard to come by?

OK, I will answer the question for you then.

No, there is no chance there is a mistake in the code.

Originally posted by hatchman
well let me see if I can ask my question another way then since I am not trying to make a suggestion.

is there any changes on the horizon for casual teams such as 4rth down logic changes or possibly something else that is in the works?

None planned at the time, no.

Originally posted by Fumanchuchu
how would that work for defense? Would the DC get to choose D plays suggested by the AI triggers or have to spin through the whole playbook after formation and personnel?

I'm just spitballing here, but I'd say they'd probably have to wait for the offense to choose, and then it could suggest a play from their AI (it could do that for the offense too). Then they could flip through their playbook and click a play if they didn't like the suggestion.

Originally posted by Spread-em offense
Romo needs lots of mod training.

Bort said earlier that there has been some sort of advertisement of GLB recently.
Where was this done, and how many new users did it bring in?

It's still going on. We have an ongoing mochiads campaign; seems to be bringing in quite a few visitors.