Warrior General Games

GLB2 Changelog Requests
Code Changes

[Code] Base Salary Change
Tier 1
QB $4,490,000 / HB $3,380,000 / LB $2,750,000

Tier 2
FB $2,120,000 / WR $2,800,000 / TE $2,960,000 / CB $3,380,000 / SS $2,540,000 / FS $2,540,000 / DE $3,170,000

Tier 3
OT $2,170,000 / G $2,060,000 / C $2,060,000 / DT $2,430,000 / K $1,270,000 / P $1,270,000

Suggestion: Switch the Salaries of LBs and CBs. This makes more "game" sense in that LBs matchup with HBs and CBs matchup with WR. The above also shows how moving FB to Tier 3 (and this may change some of the SP costs) makes sense as FB salary is closer to the OLine than the other skill players.

This is actually the HIGHEST priority change in the game.
Why? Rosters need to be re-balanced with less LBs and more CBs to properly cover 3WR, 4WR and 5WR sets. At the same time, this change will blow up teams without proper notice and/or implementation. The ‘other’ issues shouldn’t be tuned and then one day this is fixed. The salary issue needs to be properly addressed so that we can eventually implement the other needed changes.

[Code] Defensive Mismatch of Personnel and/or Formation
Eventually, we need to address how plays like 3-4 Cover 3 Tiger excel against 5WR, 4WR and 3WR sets. I'm sure there are Man examples as well like Middle Overload and 5-2 Over Mike against 4WR. The basic issue is too many LBs on the field trying to match up with WRs.

Here’s Belichick making the comment about Man-Zone matchups and how Edelman in the slot against a LB is a colossal mismatch after Josh Daniels mentions that the Rams are in their ‘base defense'. Wade Phillips (the Ram DC) adjusts on the NEXT PLAY.

https://youtu.be/X8EdV0s8edg?t=121

You can listen to Tony Romo say "There's no way you're going to cover him in there."

This is an example of matching personnel (Edelman was the only WR), but not formation. Harder to code (maybe impossible) but it speaks to the point, that you need to match personnel on the field. Match-ups matter. A Man D call (by the Rams) would have done that, but the Zone call didn't. You can't expect to load up the field with LBs against a 5WR set and not match the formation and/or personnel on the field.


[Code] Eventual fix: Pre-snap QB read of uncovered players. This happens in both Zone and Man. It eventually needs a fix. However, it’s also one of the reasons I’ve posted over and over about how Zone needs Defensive plays that handle TRIPS appropriately. You can’t fix the code if the player base doesn’t have the tools to deal with it. Thus, please add Zone D plays that allow for proper formation matchups.

Man example: https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/815997/786543
Zone example: https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/824437/1856211

DC’s are calling plays that don’t make sense because there is no penalty against them. You can’t leave a WR uncovered. But without a cost, DCs will continue to do it. The problem is that if you fix the code for the QB to target the uncovered WR, OCs will spam 3WR & 4WR TRIPS because the existing Zone plays don’t match up.

So first there needs to be Zone plays that build the coverage zones properly so that DCs can match formation and then the code fix needs to be applied. (See final request at the end of this post.)

Obviously, there are a few steps needed for this and that’s why it’s presented as an eventual fix.


[Code] Pass Progression Changes: Either allow us to choose the Pass Progression for all 5 players or change the default Pass Progression on many plays. They are wrong. QBs scan Left-to-Right or Right-to-Left. Too often they go Left-Right-Left-Right, etc. The outlet pass is at the end of the read. So if the outlet pass is Left, then the play starts Right and the QB scans to the Left. If the outlet pass is to the Right, then the play starts Left and the QB scans to the Right.

My Suggestion post for Big I plays is here: https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5319671


[Code] Player Change for Teams/ Coaches
Have the default value be that the player’s build is open to coaches so that we don’t have to individually change each of them. If you’re on a team, this is reasonable.

Level 2 request – Allow coaches to adjust Player Tactics (rushing, pass rushing, etc.) of each player’s build. That may/should be subject to agent approval, but again, if you’re on a team you should allow Coaches to utilize your player appropriately.

Level 3 request – QB and MLB audibles. QBs and MLBs should be able to call a secondary play. This is a HUGE coded change. So for now, it’s only an idea to think about.


Development Leagues
Please limit D-Leagues to one per Tier. There are currently 3 Vet D-Leagues. There are only 23 agent created players across these 36 teams.

[Offensive Tactics] QB Blocking Audibles
Change the QB Blocking Audibles slightly.
Currently, the QB only activates the Audible if he is rattled.
Proposed Change:
If the QB Blocking Audible Tactic is selected (like it is mostly for FBs), have two conditions:
If QB is not rattled, then selected player (FB) delays their route running by 10 ticks on Pass plays. This shouldn't effect Run plays.
If QB is rattled, then selected player (FB) is held in.

This is more in-line with NFL Pass Pro. In a 2-back set, the FB is going to scan the two LBs assigned to him before releasing. If either blitzes, he stays in and blocks. If neither blitz, he runs his outlet.

This would also help with HB blocking against blitzes on Pass plays in 3WR and 4WR sets (TRIPS included).

Play Additions (Missing Common Plays across All Formations)
This is an attempt at a comprehensive list. Not expecting all these adds in one off season, or even a few, but hopefully over time, you can fill some of the gaps.

Offense

[1WR]
Big I – No QB Inside runs, limited FB Inside runs (2 out of 6). Need HB Screen Right, FB Screen Left. Lacking in Pass plays: Only 4 Short, 3 Medium, 1 Long. This is rather important because Big I is the only 1WR formation for defensive matchups. As you’ll see below, while some formations are missing plays, it’s less of an issue if some other formation has the play with regards to the defensive matchup. Example: You don’t need HB Counters for every [2WR] formation to have a HB Counter in your playbook against [2WR] Defensive play calls. I’d suggest adding a 1WR formation to the Strong side and replicating the plays so there is another option for this formation but that kind of negates the point in having this formation. Adding more play diversity should be the first step.

[2TE] Singleback Big – No QB inside runs or QB Off Tackle. Only 1 Long Passing play.
[2TE] Pistol Big – No Outside Counters. Has HB Pitch Strong and HB Pitch Weak. Has no Counters. Needs QB Inside runs and QB Off Tackle. Needs HB Screen Right.

[2WR] Diamond – No QB Off Tackle plays. No HB Screen Strong. No HB Counter Sweep Strong.
[2WR] I Form – No QB Off Tackle Weak.
[2WR] Strong I – No QB Off Tackle. Medium Pass play: has a Weak Overload play but missing a Strong Overload play (whereas Weak I has both).
[2WR] Weak I – No QB inside or Off Tackle runs.
[2WR] Pro Set – No HB Slam Weak. No QB inside runs. No HB Screen Weak. Only 1 Long pass.
[2WR] Pistol Strong – No QB inside or Off Tackle runs. No QB Rollout Weak. No Screens at all. Only 4 Short passing plays and 1 Long play.

[3WR] Singleback - No Counters. No QB Off Tackle Weak.
[3WR] Shotgun – No QB Off Tackle runs.
[3WR] Pistol – No Outside HB Counters. No QB inside or OT runs. No QB Rollout Weak. No Screens at all. Only 2 Short pass plays.

[3WR TRIPS] Singleback TRIPS – No HB Counter Weak. No QB Inside or OT runs. Only 4 Short Passing plays and only 1 Long play. As a single formation for Defensive matchups, this formation would benefit from more Passing plays.

[4WR] Singleback Spread – No QB Inside or OT runs. Only 4 Short passing plays and 4 Medium.
[4WR] Shotgun Spread – No HB Screen Left. No WR Screen weak. Only 3 Short passing plays.

[4WR TRIPS] Shotgun TRIPS Weak – No QB outside run to the strong side. No QB OT runs. No Passing Plays where HB attacks Weak Side. No HB Screen Strong. Only 3 Short passing plays. As a single formation for Defensive matchups, this formation would benefit from more Passing plays.

[5WR] Shotgun 5WR – No WR Screen Weak.

Defense
5-2 Man:

[Bug] 5-2 Alignments against Big I: Please see this post. https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5319655

Outside Runs: Need a 1 DE Flats version to the Strong Side only and one to the Weak Side only like 4-3 has. Need a Man DE Flats where the MLB doesn’t Blitz. Need Man DE Flats only to the Strong side and only to the Weak side with the MLB blitzing and without.
Pass/Run: There are no Shallow plays. There aren’t enough Cover 1 options, in terms of pre-snap alignment. The LO doesn’t take the TE unless you Lurk the LO and that only covers the TE on an inside break. You could have the LBs both play Zone underneath where the MLB Lurks and the LO covers the Strong side Curl/Flat and another play favoring the Weak side. There are also no non-Blitz plays where the LO lines up on the TE and the MLB slides to the Middle (effectively a 6-1 match). An Under Sam Edge where the LO doesn’t Blitz.

3-4 Man:
Outside Runs: Man DE Flats and Man LB Contain need Strong/Weak options.

4-4 Man:
Outside Runs: Man DE Contain and Man LB Contain need Strong/Weak options.

4-4 Big:
Outside Runs: Man DE Contain and Man LB Contain need Strong/Weak options.

Nickel:
Outside Runs: Man DE Flats and Man LB Contain need Strong/Weak options.

Nickel 3-3-5:
Outside Runs: Man LB Contain need Strong/Weak options.

Dime:
Outside Runs: 2 Man DE Flats and Man DE Flats need Strong/Weak options.

Dime 3-2-6:
Outside Runs: Man DE Flats needs Strong/Weak options. And Man DE Flats version without the MLB blitzing is needed, along with Strong/Weak options.

Quarter:
Outside Runs: 2 Man DE Flats needs Strong/Weak options as well as a non-MLB blitz version.

Zone (general)
There should be Zone D plays in the following formations that cause a better matchup for 3WR & 4WR TRIPS: Nickel, Nickel 3-3-5, Dime, Dime 3-2-6. Slide a CB from the Strong side to the Weak Side and build the Zone coverage from there. There needs to be plays that Zone can effectively run against 3WR & 4WR TRIPs formations that give the DC the option to match personnel and formation.

Originally posted by Xars
Eventually, we need to address how plays like 3-4 Cover 3 Tiger excel against 5WR, 4WR and 3WR sets.

Stobie added some data fields on GLB2Scout this past season and here's some Play Analyzer data through the first 26 games of this season:

The general view is that Zone sucked for a long time and now it's balanced. I'm going to show a bunch of numbers regarding one of the most widely used Zone plays and show how ridiculous Vet Zone D has become. NOTE: I'm sure someone will show a Man example. Please do if you beat me to it.

3-4 Cover 3 Tiger has been run 1786 times across all Tiers of the game. Completion% against is 45.38%; Int% is 4.98%; Sack% of 13.33%; Passing YPA of 3.88 with a YPC of 8.55. Yards/Rush against is 4.86. Net of Sacks and INTs the Passing YPA against is 0.71.
Yes, that's correct. ZERO point 71 yards per play.

Now let's break that down by Tier:
Rookie: 330 play calls. Completion% against is 41.60%; Int% is 1.68%; Sack% of 12.61%; Passing YPA of 3.45 with a YPC of 8.30. Yards/Rush against is 3.71. Net of Sacks and INTs the Adjusted Passing YPA against is 1.81.

Soph: 31 play calls. Completion% against is 20.00%; Int% is 0.00%; Sack% of 20.00%; Passing YPA of -1.6 with a YPC of -8. Yards/Rush against is 4.88. Net of Sacks and INTs the Adjusted Passing YPA against is -3.00.

Journey: 286 play calls. Completion% against is 48.68%; Int% is 1.59%; Sack% of 15.87%; Passing YPA of 4.04 with a YPC of 8.29. Yards/Rush against is 3.27. Net of Sacks and INTs the Adjusted Passing YPA against is 2.21.

Pro: 261 play calls. Completion% against is 53.13%; Int% is 9.38%; Sack% of 6.88%; Passing YPA of 5.22 with a YPC of 9.82. Yards/Rush against is 5.27. Net of Sacks and INTs the Adjusted Passing YPA against is 0.51.

Vet: 671 play calls. Completion% against is 47.77%; Int% is 6.88%; Sack% of 13.16%; Passing YPA of 4.35 with a YPC of 9.11. Yards/Rush against is 4.86. Net of Sacks and INTs the Adjusted Passing YPA against is 0.33.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that GLOBAL results for a single play that has the following results is a little ridiculous: 1.81, (3.00), 2.21, 0.51, 0.33 over 1786 play calls.

Though my bigger concern is the personnel/ formation mismatch issue. Let's just look at Vet since there are 671 play calls and break it down by WR set. Here are the Adjusted Passing YPA numbers:

1WR: (5.00)
2TE: 0.06
2WR: (0.89)
3WR: 1.47
3WR TRIPS: (2.30)
4WR: (2.61)
4WR TRIPS: 3.45
5WR: (1.57)

For 3WR, 3WR TRIPS, 4WR, 4WR TRIPS and 5WR, there are at least 2 more LBs than (HB+TE) on the field, eventually reaching 4 more against 5WR.

Why do we think that this play/coverage/personnel should excel against these formations in the Passing game? What exactly is wrong with the game?

I wouldn't be surprised to find Man plays with multiple LBs performing well against these same sets. The issue is more dramatic with Zone because of the high INT rates, but it's quite possible/probable that Man calls with excess LBs on the field is also over-performing.

But for a game that wants to encourage "Play Diversity", you can basically spam one Defensive play against every formation and have fantastic results. Typically Passing is 55-70% of the play calls for most teams at Vet. (The rushing YPA against isn't as good as Man but overall it's good enough with these passing numbers.)

Isn't that a sign that something is broken? Perhaps many things?

This goes back to my Highest Priority suggestion. We really need to balance the Salary of LBs against HBs and move CBs down to their WR counterparts.

That needs to be done first. Then uncovered WRs or massive personnel / formation mismatches should be addressed. This would keep plays like 3-4 Cover 3 Tiger effective against 1WR, 2TE and 2WR sets but not 3WR, 4WR and 5WR sets.

Fix the damn screens. Sick of the QB always getting sacked before throwing the pass. If he feels pressure, just throw the ball at the feet of the receiver.

Originally posted by Xars


But for a game that wants to encourage "Play Diversity", you can basically spam one Defensive play against every formation and have fantastic results. Typically Passing is 55-70% of the play calls for most teams at Vet. (The rushing YPA against isn't as good as Man but overall it's good enough with these passing numbers.)

Isn't that a sign that something is broken? Perhaps many things?

This goes back to my Highest Priority suggestion. We really need to balance the Salary of LBs against HBs and move CBs down to their WR counterparts.



I don't disagree - that said for man or zone ..........

I think the problem is that OOP is calculated based on depth chart rather than alignment.

A LB who is man covering a WR isn't hit with OOP if he's not filling in for some other position even though he maybe lined up like a CB.

That's really problematic, while there are some LBs who are only at a small disadvantage in this real world - it's usually a QBs instant target. While the coverage awareness points are not dramatically different, the OOP really should be hitting footwork and awareness in this situation. However footwork controls both backpedal and side to side. Well that doesn't really make sense because a CB's back pedal technique looks and feel very much different from a LB controlling space or even tracking a TE / HB (much less WR).

Not just zone but I have a feeling it would also get the right risk/reward on rookie ball when someone runs 4-4 ZEB against a 5 WR set. That really should be the worst mismatch in the game ..and it is for the defense. Yeah I run it (or MO) so does everyone else your safety and LB though really should be in a hurt locker trying to split out on a WR (much less lining up inside and then trying to sprint to a WR's position).

Originally posted by Xars
GLB2 Changelog Requests
Code Changes

[Code] Base Salary Change
Tier 1
QB $4,490,000 / HB $3,380,000 / LB $2,750,000

Tier 2
FB $2,120,000 / WR $2,800,000 / TE $2,960,000 / CB $3,380,000 / SS $2,540,000 / FS $2,540,000 / DE $3,170,000

Tier 3
OT $2,170,000 / G $2,060,000 / C $2,060,000 / DT $2,430,000 / K $1,270,000 / P $1,270,000

Suggestion: Switch the Salaries of LBs and CBs. This makes more "game" sense in that LBs matchup with HBs and CBs matchup with WR. The above also shows how moving FB to Tier 3 (and this may change some of the SP costs) makes sense as FB salary is closer to the OLine than the other skill players.

This is actually the HIGHEST priority change in the game.
Why? Rosters need to be re-balanced with less LBs and more CBs to properly cover 3WR, 4WR and 5WR sets. At the same time, this change will blow up teams without proper notice and/or implementation. The ‘other’ issues shouldn’t be tuned and then one day this is fixed. The salary issue needs to be properly addressed so that we can eventually implement the other needed changes.

[Code] Defensive Mismatch of Personnel and/or Formation
Eventually, we need to address how plays like 3-4 Cover 3 Tiger excel against 5WR, 4WR and 3WR sets. I'm sure there are Man examples as well like Middle Overload and 5-2 Over Mike against 4WR. The basic issue is too many LBs on the field trying to match up with WRs.

Here’s Belichick making the comment about Man-Zone matchups and how Edelman in the slot against a LB is a colossal mismatch after Josh Daniels mentions that the Rams are in their ‘base defense'. Wade Phillips (the Ram DC) adjusts on the NEXT PLAY.

https://youtu.be/X8EdV0s8edg?t=121

You can listen to Tony Romo say "There's no way you're going to cover him in there."

This is an example of matching personnel (Edelman was the only WR), but not formation. Harder to code (maybe impossible) but it speaks to the point, that you need to match personnel on the field. Match-ups matter. A Man D call (by the Rams) would have done that, but the Zone call didn't. You can't expect to load up the field with LBs against a 5WR set and not match the formation and/or personnel on the field.


I wanted to swing back and say this is actually one of your better posts/rants.

It draws a clear line to a 4th wall issue in the game that does detract from the some of the overall enjoyment at least for myself and also it magnifies , in my opinion, the difficulty of new players in running rookie teams when theoretically at least the builds should be most undifferentiated.

It just makes no logical sense to have a LB or even Safety covering a WR one on one it's football suicide if you happen not to get to or heavily disrupt the QB.

With respect though - I think your solution of changing salaries is actually the wrong direction. Lbs certainly in the NFL are generally not paid as highly.

OOP: I do think a more logical solution is to OOP players, based not on depth chart position but by alignment selectively based on the number of WRs and the action required. Clearly a WR who is covered as a LB is in a huge advantage real life at virtually any level of football - not so GLB2 just because the OOP may not apply and since footwork is duel prupose (both back pedal as a CB and side to side like a LB) its not really the same movement at all. I get why its all on footwork (after all we don't want a player game with 95 attributes per player).

It's also not the same man awareness TE's have a totally different route tree than an outside WR and some of that awareness is certainly based on practice and familiarity.

So for Coverage I'd say:
LB covering WR -60% Footwork , -40% Man/Zone Awareness , -10% Heart
SS Covering WR -50% Footwork , -35% Man/Zone Awareness, -5% Heart
FS Covering WR -35% Footwork , -30% Man/Zone Awareness

Apply the penalty until the ball contacts the receiver or is handed off - you certainly don't want to penalize guys who do good scouting. If team X only ever runs from 3 WRs trips and you decide to go 4-4 you shouldn't be pnelaized the whole duration and the time of pitch or handoff the penalties disappear. On the other hand if he actually is dropping off for a pass your LILB should be at a huge mismatch to the wR.

The only real "seperate" problem I have with Zone is we never seem to see the LB "miss" we've all seen plays like this :
https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/824136/1781061

Yes it's not realistic but hey its good video game fun - thing is I've never the LB miss.

Even on plays where the LB first takes a stab at the interception he always seems to know "EXACTLY" where the ball is going and who its going to. Maybe he doesn't but he shouldn't know the moment the ball leaves the QBs hand even if he is watching the QB, it should need some longer adjustment time than its getting - and - yes it should "miss" totally from time to time. That's part of the benfit of zone is someone should be directly behind you to mop up your aggressive underneath play.

Originally posted by atlbruce


If you run a team with zone defense, you'll see your LBs miss that all the time, lol.

I've played against plenty of zone teams - I've seen missed tackles based on WR's - I've never seen one choose the wrong vector to strike the WR and go screaming off into nowhere.

Perhaps because zone LBs need high Pursuit? I just don't think your issue is actually an issue.

Originally posted by atlbruce
Perhaps because zone LBs need high Pursuit? I just don't think your issue is actually an issue.

They issue is they are always correct on the point where the WR will attempt to catch the ball.

Thats a 7-9 foot dive and impact at full collision - like i said no Football Coach would teach this - I get its a video game should be fun should be some wow - I'm just asking for balance on it as in a possibility to miss.

Also high pursuit isn't all pursuit all correct all the time much less with a degree of difficulty that would challenge a world class gymanist. It's cool when its knocked free from a thunderous leaping hit - I just don't think its the best idea to have that player always correct.

Or this superhuman effort : https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/825930/1504640 (Nothing again 1980's and Cybertron whose great - we do it to him earlier in the game).

QB Throws the Ball is released at 42 ticks in
Every defender recognizes it by 43

by 45 ticks FS Mark Carrier recognizes exactly where the ball is coming down...
This gives him the opportunity to make up 23 yards of game space

then some real magic at 69 ticks he attempts to deflect the pass raising his arms to swat it down ...he misses at 75 he drops it down
at 76 ticks - he's re-planted , down a deep knee bend and and delivered a monster hit launching upward into the receiver at 76

.....that's a great play but no matter what the defender once the QB has thrown always guesses right on where its going to come down. There is no "approxomation" like okay thats deep left then its over here a little more narrow box and then a little more narrow.
..

...That's what really gives Zone so much power - he covers 26 yards with the ball in the air takes a stab at the deflection still manages to plant bend his knees and launch up.

If you tried making that argument in a homicide trial no one would believe you.

Like I said video game cool so I'm good - I'm just thinking it shouldn't be perfect and reward shouold come with risk, knowing exactly where the ball will come down all the time immediately after the ball is released isn't a good idea. I'd just like to from time to time see the guy whiff - I mean if its a proper zone (like 1980s here) Todd Lyghy's playing behind he probably comes up and makes the tackle.

I'm not going to spend the time and effort to throw up examples of zone LBs getting beat, because we've all seen it time and time again. Again, I don't see your issue as an actual issue. There are so many more pressing problems with this game to address.

Originally posted by atlbruce
I'm not going to spend the time and effort to throw up examples of zone LBs getting beat, because we've all seen it time and time again. Again, I don't see your issue as an actual issue. There are so many more pressing problems with this game to address.

Still not what I said at all...but sure yes Zone LBs do get beat. Not at all what I said but ok.

Point is Xars did a really job illustrating both here and some of his other posts how zone is somewhat overpowered by Vet.

He thinks its primarily a salary cap issue along with a few OOP plays from what I gather.

My point is its the OOP being applied on depth chart rather than alignment - AND - the perfection that any player in underneath zone gets of knowing exactly where the ball will come down to the receiver and when even before the wind really has a chance to effect the throw.

Do you just think Zone is working fine and don't want anything changed?

I think you're seeing ghosts in regard to your "perfection that any player in underneath zone gets of knowing exactly where the ball will come down" thing, but, sure there are many issues to address regarding zone. Yours just isn't one of them.

Originally posted by william78

Or this superhuman effort : https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/825930/1504640 (Nothing again 1980's and Cybertron whose great - we do it to him earlier in the game).


But Mark Carrier is superhuman

And the only way zone is any good is because of the knock loose and ints (which just got nerfed). Take away the knock loose and you really nurf zone to almost unusable. Yeah...don't mess with my knock loose defenses

it would be pretty nice if the head fake and pump fake SAs actually did something. As it stands right now there's really no way to get your receivers actually open in any consistent way so the entire meta is just trying to win catch rolls on contested catches, so it'd be really nice if a pump fake QB paired with a bunch of really good route running WRs with head fake would actually be a viable offensive combination. Sadly it's just not.