Warrior General Games

wr1 is getting doubled, wr5 left open. same thing used to happen in oldglb before all the custom shit.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/3828/405401

Not a bug.

Zero Blitz
Short 3-4WR Inside Run Man Defense

The defense is built to use against 3 or 4 WR sets.

so it makes sense to you that wr1 is double covered and wr5 has no defensive assignment?

that works for you?

because, as it stands now, there are (to my knowledge) zero c0 blitzes (sending more than 4 rushers) that will cover all five wide receivers, despite there being five available defenders.

Originally posted by Asheme
so it makes sense to you that wr1 is double covered and wr5 has no defensive assignment?

that works for you?

Since the play is labeled to work for 3-4 WR sets, yes, it works for me. If the play was labeled for 5 WR sets then it would clearly be a bug.

I lobbied on the server for all the plays at least to have coverage assignments because some of what would probably be the best 2 WR pass defenses are dime and quarter plays for 3-5 WR's. Not sure if they were still looking into possibly doing that or not but these are the kinda of circumstances I brought up.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Since the play is labeled to work for 3-4 WR sets, yes, it works for me. If the play was labeled for 5 WR sets then it would clearly be a bug.
ok then. here's a play labeled to work for 4-5 wr sets that does, wait for it, the exact same thing.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/3318/424084

man
quarter
over smoke
medium 4-5 wr pass defense

in fact, this play is even worse, as wr1/wr2 are double covered and wrs 4/5 are left open.

now that we've satisfied your requirement of arbitrary play labeling, perhaps we could look at the /actual/ issue, which is that cover zero blitzes with five free defenders get broken by 5wr sets, and you could get to doing whatever it is that you're supposed to do when things are broken.

Originally posted by Asheme

ok then. here's a play labeled to work for 4-5 wr sets that does, wait for it, the exact same thing.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/3318/424084

man
quarter
over smoke
medium 4-5 wr pass defense

in fact, this play is even worse, as wr1/wr2 are double covered and wrs 4/5 are left open.

now that we've satisfied your requirement of arbitrary play labeling, perhaps we could look at the /actual/ issue, which is that cover zero blitzes with five free defenders get broken by 5wr sets, and you could get to doing whatever it is that you're supposed to do when things are broken.

They haven't asked bugs mods to do a thing for GLB2. I'm just here giving my opinion like anyone else.

The issue isn't that C0 blitzes with 5 free defenders are broken against 5 WR sets. In fact, there are multiple issues here.

The first play you linked wasn't built for 5 WR sets so it didn't cover WR5. User error.
The second play you linked WAS built for 5 WR sets and WR4 and WR5 were left uncovered. That's a bug.

Therefore, let's just say it like this...

Please fix the following defense which is labeled for use against 4-5 WRs yet leaves WR4 and WR5 uncovered.

man
quarter
over smoke
medium 4-5 wr pass defense

Originally posted by Asheme

ok then. here's a play labeled to work for 4-5 wr sets that does, wait for it, the exact same thing.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/3318/424084

man
quarter
over smoke
medium 4-5 wr pass defense

in fact, this play is even worse, as wr1/wr2 are double covered and wrs 4/5 are left open.

now that we've satisfied your requirement of arbitrary play labeling, perhaps we could look at the /actual/ issue, which is that cover zero blitzes with five free defenders get broken by 5wr sets, and you could get to doing whatever it is that you're supposed to do when things are broken.

That one is definitely broke.

Originally posted by Asheme

ok then. here's a play labeled to work for 4-5 wr sets that does, wait for it, the exact same thing.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/3318/424084

man
quarter
over smoke
medium 4-5 wr pass defense

in fact, this play is even worse, as wr1/wr2 are double covered and wrs 4/5 are left open.

now that we've satisfied your requirement of arbitrary play labeling, perhaps we could look at the /actual/ issue, which is that cover zero blitzes with five free defenders get broken by 5wr sets, and you could get to doing whatever it is that you're supposed to do when things are broken.

LOL, WR2 broke for the ball and BOTH defenders ignored him and just kept trucking. It's not even really clear to me who they're covering.


Coverages in all those plays are clearly awful. Unsure why anyone would bother defending them. I mean, if there's some kinda leadership check to make sure everyone's covered in a C0 situation, then maybe this is understandable. But if the coverage assignments are hard coded (like I bet they are), it's dumb that 3 CB and 2 Safety don't sort out all 5 WR for coverage.

Originally posted by kurieg
LOL, WR2 broke for the ball and BOTH defenders ignored him and just kept trucking. It's not even really clear to me who they're covering.


Coverages in all those plays are clearly awful. Unsure why anyone would bother defending them. I mean, if there's some kinda leadership check to make sure everyone's covered in a C0 situation, then maybe this is understandable. But if the coverage assignments are hard coded (like I bet they are), it's dumb that 3 CB and 2 Safety don't sort out all 5 WR for coverage.
basically this.

i don't care what the play description says, having this be the default coverage for any play is indefensible.

unless the goal is to create an unintuitive guessing game.

lol

Man coverage assignments aren't indicated at all in the defensive playbook. It's really frustrating. But seeing stuff like this, I guess it makes sense, since they must now be known to the sim at all.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
They haven't asked bugs mods to do a thing for GLB2. I'm just here giving my opinion like anyone else.

well your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.


Originally posted by AirMcMVP
The first play you linked wasn't built for 5 WR sets so it didn't cover WR5. User error.
yes. the error was in assuming any sort of rational behavior on the part of the defensive ai. i mean, let's take a beat, here. it doesn't matter what the play was "designed" for, it matters that there are five free defenders covering four wide receivers. you want your game to be intuitive, and to respond accordingly. not to be some arcane guessing game.
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
The second play you linked WAS built for 5 WR sets and WR4 and WR5 were left uncovered. That's a bug.
yeah. just like the first one. despite your profound adherence to the sacred text of play descriptions, i'm wagering they're coded in the same way. that way is bad and broken. it should be fixed.

Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Please fix the following defense which is labeled for use against 4-5 WRs yet leaves WR4 and WR5 uncovered.
no, we say it like this: lol look at this it's awful change it.

Originally posted by Asheme
not to be some arcane guessing game.

I don't know, GLB was an arcane guessing game for quite awhile.