Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Diamond Spade
cant have it both ways ken. u want realistic outcomes for the defense but the offense can have unrealistic outcomes.

No. I want realistic outcomes for the offense. Before the team movement, the WL had a median of 7.1 yards per pass attempt, exactly the same as the NFL, as it should be. We can't see that after team movement, because successful teams were moved in and unsuccessful ones out. I have said there should be more interceptions, because they were low even when we had the actual WL teams in there.

Originally posted by Ken1
No. I want realistic outcomes for the offense. Before the team movement, the WL had a median of 7.1 yards per pass attempt, exactly the same as the NFL, as it should be. We can't see that after team movement, because successful teams were moved in and unsuccessful ones out. I have said there should be more interceptions, because they were low even when we had the actual WL teams in there.

you implied that u dont want defenses contributing to the score board cuz its not there #1 job thats y u improved of the nerfs tthat apply to turnovers

Originally posted by Diamond Spade
you implied that u dont want defenses contributing to the score board cuz its not there #1 job thats y u improved of the nerfs tthat apply to turnovers

No. I was responding to someone who said to let the defenses contribute much more than in real life to the scoreboard, so they can have more fun. I want them to contribute as close to equally to their real life contributions as possible.

Originally posted by Ken1
No. I was responding to someone who said to let the defenses contribute much more than in real life to the scoreboard, so they can have more fun. I want them to contribute as close to equally to their real life contributions as possible.




So then what are we going to do about offenses that produce far beyond their real life counter parts? The offenses in GLB WL produced a total of 2760 TD's to the NFL's 1145 TD's, that is 1615 more or again should real life numbers only apply to the defense?

Originally posted by cjericho
So then what are we going to do about offenses that produce far beyond their real life counter parts? The offenses in GLB WL produced a total of 2760 TD's to the NFL's 1145 TD's, that is 1615 more or again should real life numbers only apply to the defense?

The offenses currently there aren't the ones that played in the WL last season. They're the ones who played well enough to keep their spots in the WL, and the ones who dominated National Pro leagues and earned promotions.

Before the team movement, you'd see much more realistic numbers, and the much smaller differences would exist would be mostly due to their being more plays per game in GLB than in real life.

The scores from the WL playoffs are still actually the "real" S27 WL, and the scores look pretty realistic: http://goallineblitz.com/game/playoff_bracket.pl?league_id=280&conference_id=0 . There was a 55-17 game, but also a 14-9 game, etc..

If you look at the standings of the current WL teams you see 4 undefeated teams, and only one with a losing record. That's because the winning WL teams are being counted as are a bunch of teams that dominated (and got a lot of TDs against) very inferior National Pro competition.

Originally posted by NtropiK
Originally posted by sicarius

Honestly this isn't even an argument to increase the pick-6. The entire point is to let the defender perform as he's built and be able to move correctly after an INT. Fine, we don't want to have too many defensive return TDs. The point of this thread is that there aren't even any return YARDS, let alone TDs. Having the majority of the turnovers result in no return yards at all is just plain wrong.

+1 to the person talking sense in this suggestion.

+1 to the suggestion since it is a good one but mere is right. This ken1 guy is off the rails. He is arguing with everyone in this thread and contradicts himself over and over. I'm not sure if he makes stuff up like it has been said in this thread but he definitely sounds a little crazy.

Originally posted by Wicked_Cthulhu
+1 to the suggestion since it is a good one but mere is right. This ken1 guy is off the rails. He is arguing with everyone in this thread and contradicts himself over and over. I'm not sure if he makes stuff up like it has been said in this thread but he definitely sounds a little crazy.

I agreed with that suggestion, if you look at what my response was. I'm just always qualified in such agreement because I want to make sure they don't overadjust and send us back to Pick Six-mania.

Originally posted by ron2288
Originally posted by Ken1

Not if it makes them more likely than in real life.

just stop posting

+1 to both suggestions

Originally posted by sicarius
Meanwhile, back at the main point of the thread ... defenders making a clean INT without an offensive player immediately on top of them should NOT be forced to sit down and wait to be tackled. It was acknowledged last offseason that the patch was too extreme and "fixed" but the fix did nothing. The next step is to put the next patch on that corrects this ridiculous behavior.

Well said

Originally posted by sicarius
Honestly this isn't even an argument to increase the pick-6. The entire point is to let the defender perform as he's built and be able to move correctly after an INT. Fine, we don't want to have too many defensive return TDs. The point of this thread is that there aren't even any return YARDS, let alone TDs. Having the majority of the turnovers result in no return yards at all is just plain wrong.






Ken1...really just stop posting...damn you are arguing with anyone and everyone....just stop..you are really getting annoying and looking like an jackass
I mean hell Sic made 2 great post and you still found a way to try to argue with him



WTG BTW on derailing the hell out of this thread Ken1...WTFG..

STOP POSTING

+1 to keep this alive

INT yards need to exist in the game.

Aside from a lot of the individual back and forth with certain agents that Ken1's been doing, I'm actually ok with the core of his issue, in that he doesn't want to see this get 'fixed' too far in the other direction again. I'm fine with that too - i'm not advocating for every turnover to end up in the end zone. We did have a lot of those before, probably too many. But let's just keep that side of the argument to that point and leave it there. We don't need 2 pages of off topic debating to try to make a point pretty much everyone agrees with anyone.

So to summarize what the community as a whole is after:

- Fix the idiotic D dot sitting down after a pick and allow them to move as they should
- In doing so, make sure the fix does not result in excessive defensive scoring as seen in seasons past.
- There IS a happy medium. We're not there now. Get there.

Originally posted by sicarius
Aside from a lot of the individual back and forth with certain agents that Ken1's been doing, I'm actually ok with the core of his issue, in that he doesn't want to see this get 'fixed' too far in the other direction again. I'm fine with that too - i'm not advocating for every turnover to end up in the end zone. We did have a lot of those before, probably too many. But let's just keep that side of the argument to that point and leave it there. We don't need 2 pages of off topic debating to try to make a point pretty much everyone agrees with anyone.

So to summarize what the community as a whole is after:

- Fix the idiotic D dot sitting down after a pick and allow them to move as they should
- In doing so, make sure the fix does not result in excessive defensive scoring as seen in seasons past.
- There IS a happy medium. We're not there now. Get there.

I can agree with this but I would really like to see what the actual numbers are before making any rash fixes like they did. If we could just for next season completely remove any restrictions for int returns we can see what the real numbers are and then go from there. In the mean time someone could think up a real fix if the problem is that bad. So basically we should get the proper data this time around so we know exactly how to fix the problem.

Originally posted by cjericho
Originally posted by sicarius

Aside from a lot of the individual back and forth with certain agents that Ken1's been doing, I'm actually ok with the core of his issue, in that he doesn't want to see this get 'fixed' too far in the other direction again. I'm fine with that too - i'm not advocating for every turnover to end up in the end zone. We did have a lot of those before, probably too many. But let's just keep that side of the argument to that point and leave it there. We don't need 2 pages of off topic debating to try to make a point pretty much everyone agrees with anyone.

So to summarize what the community as a whole is after:

- Fix the idiotic D dot sitting down after a pick and allow them to move as they should
- In doing so, make sure the fix does not result in excessive defensive scoring as seen in seasons past.
- There IS a happy medium. We're not there now. Get there.

I can agree with this but I would really like to see what the actual numbers are before making any rash fixes like they did. If we could just for next season completely remove any restrictions for int returns we can see what the real numbers are and then go from there. In the mean time someone could think up a real fix if the problem is that bad. So basically we should get the proper data this time around so we know exactly how to fix the problem.

Sounds good to me.