Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jpjn94
Originally posted by sunshineduck

I'm 99% certain my CB is faster than that WR, so it's because DB's don't really play underneath coverage, especially on go routes. I'm hoping that we can have an option to favor playing underneath/above in player tactics, would make me sooo much happier

So what you're saying is if I make slower WRs, I can burn your defense all day?



if you made a hella slow WR with 100+ jumping and 100+ catching with catch ball% you would whip my CB's skinny little behind without much effort. I'm more interested in building CB's to defend against the monster 150+ speed WR's coming up in a couple seasons.

have you considered capping attributes (with or without equipment) to reduce the extreme nature of builds or is making the secondary attributes more important happening at other positions besides WR?

thinking things like vision for OL (not highly regarded even though it is a major for all OL)

Why is there a limit on how many contest one can win in this game?

I would love to see the ability for your team to scrimmage itself.

You could charge the same rate as two team scrimmage just play the starting offense vs the starting defense.
You could adjust the Stamina... or not...

Special Teams could either be tweaked or not used.

I think you could potentially generate 25% to 50% more revenue.

I would love to have my offense challenge my defense. It would allow me to check out specific offensive plays vs defensive sets.

Hell, I'd likely do it 3 or 4 times per season.

GLB in WL and PL has come down to a battle between coordinators.

There is clearly a shortage of pencil necked geeks living in the basement that are up to the task.

Any plans to simplify OAI?

Originally posted by reddogrw
have you considered capping attributes (with or without equipment) to reduce the extreme nature of builds or is making the secondary attributes more important happening at other positions besides WR?

thinking things like vision for OL (not highly regarded even though it is a major for all OL)

Actually, yes we have. Discussed this today and it's something we're strongly considering. Going to discuss internally a bit more first though.

Originally posted by sunshineduck
if you made a hella slow WR with 100+ jumping and 100+ catching with catch ball% you would whip my CB's skinny little behind without much effort. I'm more interested in building CB's to defend against the monster 150+ speed WR's coming up in a couple seasons.

That's actually untrue. The slow WR won't do shit.

Originally posted by sunshineduck
if you made a hella slow WR with 100+ jumping and 100+ catching with catch ball% you would whip my CB's skinny little behind without much effort. I'm more interested in building CB's to defend against the monster 150+ speed WR's coming up in a couple seasons.

id love to believe thats how it worked...unfortunately its not.

Just one last clarification:

Loose: Bonus to covering the receiver, but your player respond to the ball being thrown slower, essentially is less capable of interfering with the pass via deflection or interception.

Medium: Essentially loose unless you are using zones over the top of the receiver.

Semi-Aggressive: Now here I am perplexed by the description, but I assume that it is essentially the "middleground" between aggressive and loose?

Aggressive: No bonus to coverage but a bonus to ball thrown response and in turn deflection and interception chance.

Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by reddogrw

have you considered capping attributes (with or without equipment) to reduce the extreme nature of builds or is making the secondary attributes more important happening at other positions besides WR?

thinking things like vision for OL (not highly regarded even though it is a major for all OL)

Actually, yes we have. Discussed this today and it's something we're strongly considering. Going to discuss internally a bit more first though.

hmm - so the reception on that transmitter in GLB HQ IS working

Originally posted by Real LT
GLB in WL and PL has come down to a battle between coordinators.

There is clearly a shortage of pencil necked geeks living in the basement that are up to the task.

Any plans to simplify OAI?

Yep. Going to have some preset AI's coordinators can use, have already added some scouting tool enhancements, and there are other things we are going to add as well.

Originally posted by sunshineduck
Originally posted by The Avenger

Originally posted by Catch22


I'm sitting right here with Bort - he doesn't have to answer every question. Yes, I've seen the numerous threads. We're still not changing it. Sorry.

You haven't said why though. Theres ALOT of people getting screwed because you Stand on Level 69 as being the be-all-end-all for additional boosting at plateau except approx half the population does not get to take advantage of this because of big XP tweaks along the way in a build that took 1.5 years to get too!

How can you ignore that. This isn't someone asking for a handout or a slow build "gaming the system" nor any build exploit Catch22...this is a fact that setting a hard number of 69 is THE ONLY way you get to boost 3 more times is not an equal opportunity!

Allowing a minor XP only boost to get to your level 69 is a comprimise in my best opinion. it will 1000% NOT hurt a single thing in GLB. It 1000% does not favor former slow builds and above everything i've stated, it 1000% adds to GLB's bottom line, and thats boosting with paid Flex Points instead of retiring for refunded Xp or worse case scenario......leaving GLB altogether because no one wants to start over for another 1.5 years to correct what wasn't their fault in the first place!

Please respond with more then 10 words Bort or Catch.

If you boosted every season from beginning to end, you would have made level 69 unless you had seriously been screwed out of EXP in a big way. I'm not a fan of one-time SSB dots being able to boost to 72. The 69-cap is fine.

My one-time SSB build dot will be hitting lvl 72 TBH. My non-SSB build dot would not have, due to creation date.

Originally posted by Catch22
Actually, yes we have. Discussed this today and it's something we're strongly considering. Going to discuss internally a bit more first though.

wow...thats terrible

Originally posted by Catch22
Actually, yes we have. Discussed this today and it's something we're strongly considering. Going to discuss internally a bit more first though.

will this go up for voting in the new suggestion system?

Edited to add:

-1

Originally posted by notgoing2argue
Any chance we can get a pursuit slider for defensive players that affects his sensitivity to fakes based on how far away he is? Also, when can we expect the ability to push ball carriers out of bounds?

Pursuit slides would be awesome if you could select one that fits your player's position and archtype. It's maddening to see your DT turn around and run at a 70 degree angle in the futile attempt of intercepting the HB 60 yards down the field at the 5. A player should have the choice to take a more direct line to the ball carrier based on where the ball is. For the simple fact that a DT isn't going to catch the HB 60 yards downfield, and also the chance that one of your other teammates near the ball carrier does something to slow him down. If you would have just run to the ball carrier you could have gotten in on the play.

And, wouldn't certain defensive players want the option to try to string an outside run to the sideline so the ball carrier can be pushed out of bounds? It seems that the defense willingly gives the corner to the HB without considering there is sideline help.

Honestly, pursuit and the lack of 'out of bounds' is probably my biggest complaint with the sim. The defensive pursuit is pretty silly at times, especially if the HB is head faking and juking. A LB or DT isn't going to jump on a head fake from 15 yards away - he's going to get his ass to that side of the field to get near the HB before he bites on stuff like that.

It would probably be an easy drop-in replacement for a lead distance coefficient constant that already exists, however I worry it might be confusing for some people. It also does vary based on distance and number of nearby other defenders, etc. Maybe it could adjust the smoothing effect of the route by adjusting the number of past paths to take into account instead.

The main thing I think you're most worried about here is outside containment, which I agree is a problem; the defender should try to force the player either inside or to the sideline all the way. I have done work with that at various times and have some notes on my list to address, but I haven't been able to get sideline play working the way I want it at this point. Players always end up running out of bounds 1 out of 100 times or doing silly things here and there. One of those things I'll keep playing with when I have ideas pop into my head.