Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Pernbronze
You bring in a point of being ineffective against good OC's. At the moment a good OC is trumped by a good DC every single time. There is not enough freedom to the offense to beat a good defense. You can't say we need to ramp up the defense to have effect against good OC's if currently you don't ramp up the offense to be effective against good DC's. Its hypocritical. I agree that exploits would be hard to spot but, it would also allow OC's to have some countermeasure against talented DC's. I like both the archtype and blocking assignments idea.
+1

wat?

I'll say this: now that certain knowledgeable people have entered the discussion, I am learning something.

You see, I try to view things from both angles, but the assessment was correct in that I am still learning the defensive side of the game more so than offense. However, I am a defensive minded person who actually tends to be better on offense in sims. GLB is the first sim where I feel like I can run effective defense because of the tools at hand. I know....some may question that, and what not. Still, I play with the DPC quite a bit. But I haven't settled on what I want for a playbook because my experience has caused me to focus more on OC than DC. I actually want to do both, just not on the same team.

However, from an OC perspective, having an OL veer off a "no-brainer" assignment - or off the preset assignment as shown in the playbook - is a major peeve. Both as a fan and as a player, I have always preferred defense. I tend to have an LB mentality, even though others saw me as a HB or QB. So, that may influence my perspective a bit. It still does not change the fact that OL do not keep to assignments. There is no doubt in my mind that some DLs would still run right over the OL even if the assignment was maintained, which is why I question whether Confidence rolls are preventing OL from even trying rather than just giving a half-hearted attempt.

Quite honestly, if Confidence is that big of an issue, then I don't want such a player on my team - including my own G who has not given up a Sack in 37 consecutive games, including against competition 10 levels higher than his own. He is just one of several OL I have seen avoid his assignment. At least in my dot's defense, I can say that most often he is switching off to bail out another part of the line (going way off to do so, mind you), but it still leaves a wide open gap in the line which is easily exploited. If he just stuck to his assignment, and another part of the line got beat regularly, I could adjust the depth chart to compensate. But if he leaves his assignment, and the gap created is the one exploited, I need to know why he is leaving his assignment, which means locking players in to see how they act on their own over several plays. Without a way to evaluate this under a controlled atmosphere, OCs have no way to predict what their O-Line is going to do....unless they have an adequate grasp of the code algorithms involved. That's something that Bort tries to avoid revealing in overly great detail....because he knows what would happen if it leaked out too much.

An assignment editor might actually be too much of a PITA, but the problem does need to be addressed to everyone's satisfaction (good luck there, right?). The question is what is the simplest solution that works? I just figured an assignment editor would require less code than doing trial and error patches which might backfire and require retro-active code to fix which would be a bigger PITA involving more man-hours. In football terms, sometimes you need to drop back and punt rather than trying to go for it on 4th down.

But like I said, I AM learning something from the discussion that has ensued, which is a small part of what I am looking for since I love GLB.

Originally posted by bhall43
Its strategy. You have positives and negatives to using an arch or build.

Btw, I actually agree with this. My G which I mention? Part of his success is because I actually bucked advice and tried to adapt to stuff in the change log. Despite his arch, I intended to build him as balanced....and I learned some knowledge about the blocking algorithm which allowed me to figure out how I wanted his end build to be.

+1

Originally posted by bhall43
Your perception of defense having the upper hand is a bit naive.

But it has been suggested to Bort to build customized blocking assignments in order to combat the funky blitz's people make up to fool the blocking assignments currently given. However it seems it may be too much of a PITA to code. Not sure. I know Catch liked the idea but there was no official word from Bort on what he thought about it. Maybe something to ask him on the 7th during the QnA.

Turns out I can't take part in the Q & A session. It's on the 6th (Friday) at 8 pm EST. I'll be midway through my shift at the restaurant - zero chance of even logging in by phone during a Friday night dinner rush. If it was Thursday or Saturday, I could have done it.

Today I did some work on season stats for my team.

Of the hurries allowed, 41% of them went uncredited to a offensive dot. In other words, 4 out of 10 hurries have gone uncontested. Mind you, this is in Casual where the DPC is a non-factor. It's also on a team that has allowed the 3rd fewest hurries in the league, and given up the 2nd fewest sacks. So the ratio seems a bit high. Granted, the defense can call plays with 3 or 4 blitzers, but I'm set up to often have as many as 7 blockers on a pass play. I can see a ratio of maybe 20% because of that, but definitely not 41%.

Just figured I would toss that out there for Bort to consider, seeing as how I can't make the live Q & A session.

And yet, no one is noticing the plays where WR blocks LB+CB+SS, or when LT holds LB+DE+FS for 2-3 sec.

Pointing out another wrong doesn't invalidate the point.

I've seen what you are talking about, but mostly at low levels. Raising Vision caused it to happen less often.

I've also seen my G run all over the LOS to block 3 different rushers separately, rather than all at once.

Some of these things may happen because of too much code, for all I know. The BAE would likely help to simplify and replace some of that faulty code. It might cut down on the 1-on-3, or it might not. Only Admin knows about that.

Since I missed the Q & A due to work, did this topic come up? I'm just interested in whether there's an update.

Edit: Nevermind. Found my way to the Q & A thread, and read all 10 pages. So, I already got my answer....which was "no, it didn't".