Warrior General Games

Originally posted by bhall43
They already are drawing up new plays and testing them out.

https://twitter.com/thehazyone/status/337975326124670977/photo/1

yay 3 HB sets

just what we needed

Originally posted by Dr. Showtime
yay 3 HB sets

just what we needed

The only cure for this hangover is the hair of the dog.

As an overworked, underpaid (and underachieving) DC,

I would humbly request the no more tag-able option be added, such as this 3 RB set. If new formations must be added, can they please just be variations on existing ones.?

Like:
4 WR + the TE instead of the HB.
or
3 WR + the FB instead of TE
or
maybe just "Pistol" formations where the QB moves out from under the Center.

better yet, how about just giving the offense more options without adding formations?

Like:
Remove the OOPP for the WR4 and WR5 slots, that way OCs would be free to keep their rTEs and sHBs in the game while still using the spread and 5 wide sets.
or
Put a check box/drop down in the offensive package screen that would allow the QB to go into a shotgun or pistol formation from any existing play in the book.

or even better yet

Re-work all of the worthless plays in the existing playbook.

Originally posted by TJ Spikes

Re-work all of the worthless plays in the existing playbook.



Being worked on too.

Originally posted by Dr. Showtime
yay 3 HB sets

just what we needed

piece of cake

Originally posted by TJ Spikes

Like:
Remove the OOPP for the WR4 and WR5 slots, that way OCs would be free to keep their rTEs and sHBs in the game while still using the spread and 5 wide sets.


Meh...would rather have more thought put into roster selection. Not less.

Before we go adding new plays (339 of them already) let's fix the old ones.

Counter plays, for example. A counter is the ball carrier taking a few steps in one direction, planting, cutting back and THEN receiving the hand off. Sometimes its simply "opening up" and then heading the opposite direction.

I think adding new plays is fine and all, but fix the ones we have first, please. And, again, let us decide in our AI inputs (or packages) what deems each play a success.

Originally posted by Staz
Before we go adding new plays (339 of them already) let's fix the old ones.

Counter plays, for example. A counter is the ball carrier taking a few steps in one direction, planting, cutting back and THEN receiving the hand off. Sometimes its simply "opening up" and then heading the opposite direction.

I think adding new plays is fine and all, but fix the ones we have first, please. And, again, let us decide in our AI inputs (or packages) what deems each play a success.

Doesn't really serve any purpose to change the counter of when the carrier gets the ball. The fact will always be that the play is slow moving and thus the large hindrance of it is that defenders reach the backfield before you can really do anything with the ball.

As for fixing the plays we have that is something I already went over with Catch22 earlier in the season.

Not sure how I feel about giving coordinators control over what equals a successful play. Not really sure it is really a need.

Originally posted by bhall43
They already are drawing up new plays and testing them out.

https://twitter.com/thehazyone/status/337975326124670977/photo/1

That play is ok but an offense play creator isn't? GTFO.

Power I
Pistol
Wishbone
Double wing

Originally posted by Robbnva
That play is ok but an offense play creator isn't? GTFO.

A handful of premade plays versus unlimited potential? The OPC isn't a bad idea because someone can create one play to rule them all. It is that they can make several plays that essentially make you throw your hands up as a DC and say fuck it.

But if the premade plays suck why bother?

If a real football coach designs a play, the other team doesn't know what is coming.

How is this any different?

I'd love to create some plays that I think would work, but anything I submit would get ignored cause I'm a nobody.

Originally posted by Robbnva
But if the premade plays suck why bother?

If a real football coach designs a play, the other team doesn't know what is coming.

How is any different?

are you fucking kidding me? because in real life you can adjust to it...

especially in the lower leagues, i'd just do a couple quick cuts and watch the DBs keep running while my WR is wide open. that would make even more DCs quit.

Originally posted by Robbnva
But if the premade plays suck why bother?

If a real football coach designs a play, the other team doesn't know what is coming.

How is this any different?

I'd love to create some plays that I think would work, but anything I submit would get ignored cause I'm a nobody.



Because in real life you can adjust in game. You can call different coverages, bases, blitzes, etc. You can react in real-time. Not thecase here, obviously.

Not to mention, in real life offenses have to practice plays to understand assignments, execution, what to expect, etc. Don't have to in GLB. They know all 339 plays.

Originally posted by bhall43
Doesn't really serve any purpose to change the counter of when the carrier gets the ball. The fact will always be that the play is slow moving and thus the large hindrance of it is that defenders reach the backfield before you can really do anything with the ball.

As for fixing the plays we have that is something I already went over with Catch22 earlier in the season.

Not sure how I feel about giving coordinators control over what equals a successful play. Not really sure it is really a need.


Wouldn't be as slow developing if the play was executed correctly. RB takes 1-3 steps one direction, defense drifts that way, RB cuts back quick, gets the handoff, defense is off balance. Shouldn't take more than a half second longer than your typical play. Not like a reverse or draw would.