Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Just quoting the NFL rule book, brother.

You quoted it, but didn't understand what you were quoting.

You KICK OFF via a tee. You quoted right there: "An artificial or manufactured tee cannot be used." Therefore, you are incorrect- a team may NOT kick off after a safety. It says right there: punt, dropkick, or placekick. That does NOT say kick off. A place kick is NOT a kick off, it is a FG or XP attempt. I'm sorry, but you are 100% wrong and you quoted the exact rule which illustrates that. A team CAN NOT kick off after they are safetied. That is actually a huge glaring hole in GLB when you come to think of it.

There seems to be some confusion here. The tee is the plastic thing that holds the ball up in the air so people who know how to kick can kick a football in excess of 80 yards in the air. Without the tee, that's not possible. I think that is why some are confused.

The other part that I don't understand, the free kick after the safety takes place from the 20. The whole thing is just wrong

(laughs) Dude... as a kicker for our school I knew the rule and I also knew what it meant to 'placekick' but we called it a kickoff. because the ONLY difference was the tee. If the game is in windy conditions and the ball keeps getting blown off the tee, someone has to 'hold' it... but we didn't call that a 'placekick' either. I actually preferred no tee so I always had a holder... but then I didn't kick soccer style either so it made no difference in the distance (tee vs no tee) for me. Likely it does for soccer style kickers. I learned from watching the old guys... Dempsy... Blanda... and I learned as a little kid so that's all I knew was kicking that way. I got the dang job when our regular kicker broke his leg in my sophomore season in HS and kept it until he got well enough (next season). I mean, we're bandying semantics here in the end just to be 100% 'technically' correct. In truth it would simply be called a 'Free Kick' no matter how you did it. Just as a kickoff is after a score, no matter how you do that either. Style could be debated, but the definition of what the kick is is more based on WHY you're kicking (or punting) than how. Even when the ball is punted they call it a free kick (when after a Safety)... not a punt.

Why R U debating JW? Waste of time IMO!

Debate me then, because I brought it up. No one is trying to bust anyone's chops, especially not Wizzy's since he is one of the better at giving advice, but it is an error in GLB because not only is a kick-off from the 30 the wrong outcome of a safety, it makes safeties irrelevant. In fact, if you really think about it, in GLB you probably would rather make the team punt from inside the 2 yard line rather than get a safety on third down. If we are going by NLF metrics, its a break even scenario:

In the NFL, the average drive which starts around their own 20 yard line (the average outcome of a kick off) is worth .5 points in expected value.
The average drive which starts around the opponent's 40 yard line (an average outcome of a punt from the end zone) has an expected value of 2.5 points.

By that measure, getting the safety is equivalent to not getting the safety.

I personally think its even worse in GLB because it seems (anecdotally) that the best chance of a punt return TD is on a punt from their own end zone, and we all know in GLB kickers make 50+ yard field goals all day long so you will alway be in FG range as soon as you get the punt. So (once the kicker is old enough to kick-off through the end zone) a team, speaking in terms off mathematical odds, is better off not getting the safety in most cases. That is very unfortunate. IMO its just about the biggest problem of inaccuracy in GLB, but thankfully it doesn't come up that often. Once upon a time, we used to try to avoid safeties on offense and get them on defense but then I did the math and now our play calling doesn't even take safeties into account, since on average its a break even proposition anyhow.

Originally posted by Backes-to-Backes
Why R U debating JW? Waste of time IMO!


*JW closes eyes...slowly turns 360 degrees...opens eyes*


Originally posted by Bash E. Bull
Debate me then

Originally posted by Bash E. Bull
Debate me then, because I brought it up. No one is trying to bust anyone's chops, especially not Wizzy's since he is one of the better at giving advice, but it is an error in GLB because not only is a kick-off from the 30 the wrong outcome of a safety, it makes safeties irrelevant. In fact, if you really think about it, in GLB you probably would rather make the team punt from inside the 2 yard line rather than get a safety on third down. If we are going by NLF metrics, its a break even scenario:

In the NFL, the average drive which starts around their own 20 yard line (the average outcome of a kick off) is worth .5 points in expected value.
The average drive which starts around the opponent's 40 yard line (an average outcome of a punt from the end zone) has an expected value of 2.5 points.

By that measure, getting the safety is equivalent to not getting the safety.

I personally think its even worse in GLB because it seems (anecdotally) that the best chance of a punt return TD is on a punt from their own end zone, and we all know in GLB kickers make 50+ yard field goals all day long so you will alway be in FG range as soon as you get the punt. So (once the kicker is old enough to kick-off through the end zone) a team, speaking in terms off mathematical odds, is better off not getting the safety in most cases. That is very unfortunate. IMO its just about the biggest problem of inaccuracy in GLB, but thankfully it doesn't come up that often. Once upon a time, we used to try to avoid safeties on offense and get them on defense but then I did the math and now our play calling doesn't even take safeties into account, since on average its a break even proposition anyhow.


Well, I do agree it's not accurate to most known Football but then it is accurate to WG's approach to the game design. Consider that we also lack the following as well;
Injuries
Many of the plays available from all the football playbooks
Onside kicks
Almost all of the penalties (only false start and off-sides are available)

That's just for starters but it shows that WG had in mind a much, much more simplified version of a football sim. COuld those things be in the game? Sure... but I suspect it would take a LOT more intensive and involved coding as well as more $ spent on having more servers to handle all the extra processing involved. My guess is they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided what to include... and not include... before they even got half-way into game design.
Like many here I would love to see it more in line with what really happens in Football... but I also am just as sure it was never going to happen.

Originally posted by Daedalus




LMAO that's funny

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Well, I do agree it's not accurate to most known Football but then it is accurate to WG's approach to the game design. Consider that we also lack the following as well;
Injuries
Many of the plays available from all the football playbooks
Onside kicks
Almost all of the penalties (only false start and off-sides are available)

That's just for starters but it shows that WG had in mind a much, much more simplified version of a football sim. COuld those things be in the game? Sure... but I suspect it would take a LOT more intensive and involved coding as well as more $ spent on having more servers to handle all the extra processing involved. My guess is they did a cost/benefit analysis and decided what to include... and not include... before they even got half-way into game design.
Like many here I would love to see it more in line with what really happens in Football... but I also am just as sure it was never going to happen.

Really, many of these things were seriously considered but purposely not implemented- for example, injuries. I remember Bort for a long time wanted to add that for realism and so many many of the agents did as well, but no, really they did not. Bort realized no one is devoting all this time and money to watch their dot's ass sitting on IR half the season. Nobody really wanted to lose on a bunch of penalties, a botched snap, muffed kick return, wayward pitch or butt fumble either, as much as they may have thought they wanted those things in the game, so none of that was ultimately added.

Onside kicks being missing, I agree that does have a big effect. I think its somewhat mitigated by how fast teams can line up and and snap the ball which in its own way gives teams a chance to catch up. I agree that it'd be really nice if there were more types of plays available. I thought i had mentioned that in my first post, but whatever, I'm sure everyone would agree with that.

Maybe the biggest thing I'd change is the 5 Major WR archetype. That I don't get. Now, I don't do 5 Major dots really so obviously there's people who can make them better than I, but still it seems rather prohibitive in cost to take an attribute over 100 with a 5 Major dot and I can't figure out why you could theoretically make a 165 speed pass rushing defensive end easier than a 165 speed WR- and for that you have to pay way more flex for the WR! Something about that doesn't add up but unfortunately nothing is going to change...

Not sure if I'm right but, IMHO, the issue with .3, .4, and .5 ALG dots is how ALG gains are done. To me, it's backwards. I'd have to do some serious math but just based on what I see I would say WG set a specific number for ALG gains then simply used the number of Primary and Secondary skills to divide that ALG gain number by. This causes an imbalance. .3 ALG dots get WAY too much boost from ALG gains. If I wanted to I could hit 180 or more on a primary skill on a .3 dot. Can you imagine a HB or a WR with 180 speed? And .5 ALG dots get penalized too much and are real hard to build (pro-tip; treat them as .4's and you'll do better at the builds.)
If .4's are perfect then I would've actually given LESS ALG gains to .3 dots... and more to .5's. I know WHY they did it the other way (besides being much simpler to code/work with)... it's because they thought giving .5's too much would make them too powerful. Problem is that Multi-training is limited to 4 slots... MAX. This means you can only train 4 skills at a time and even then only for so long if you want 4 AEQ... longer if you only do 3. So having an extra primary skill, for a .5 dot, doesn't really help much except to give you a little flexibility. In the end, giving them better AGL gains wouldn't've hurt the game but would've given both dot builders AND coaches a lot more flexibility to work with. There's a reason you don't see many people use the Combo arches much and it's because most are .5 ALG's. What good is creating something useful then damaging it bad enough to make it not as useful?

I've been waiting for a pocket QB for next season for a long time. I want to start playing the game again, and Pocket QB has been the only game that I can play on my phone. But now, the developers have announced that they will no longer be developing it. I am not getting from https://topcvwritersuk.com website which is really interesting and provides the best writers for cv.

Originally posted by Loonzilla
Late to the party...

1. The price is now and always has been the limiting factor. How many have quit the game, because there wife got pissed? I know of 3. I myself just got a new wife

4. I honestly think that this game is damn good and Advertising and mass email campaign ( Missed the best opportunity during covid ) combined with cost reduction could revive the brand.

ya. Bort should sell to someone who would put some time in to revive GLB. Making it more cost effective to build/boost an entire team from start to finish would increase activity imo. That's what I'd like to do but I'm not dropping a few thousand bucks on this game and I'm not buying a multi or whatever happens behind the scenes so I stick to peewee

Just thinkin out loud here but what if you could replace Peewee leagues with an 'Owner Only' leagues? Parameters would be that you select a team and set your wants for all 55 positions... then buy the team and all dots would be instantly created (random names only... too psycho to code in ability to name every single dot on the team). Team cost and dot cost all combined but reduced (to... half?). Like Peewee, team could not jump leagues since that'd be, technically, cheating. You could invite coaches, CFO's, to join but agents and LOL GM's you could not. Restructure the 3 league Peewee system to mirror the Regular and Casual but likely limit it to one tier per age/level group instead of variances such as they have in Regular/Casual leagues. Dots could not be signed, traded, or cross over from other leagues. Basically a self-contained league for those that want to do everything (build all dots and own the team... perhaps even all coaching and finances as well) for a reduced cost.

Well, we know that nothing is going to change. Its completed now, fbow

Honestly though, most of the things that we would want to change, really we don't. You start adding them all up and you get GLB 2. Obviously GLB 1 isn't perfect, but its coming up on 100 seasons people have been doing it this way. If they made the changes needed to actually 'perfect' GLB, I think it would end up changing too much of what people have gotten used to over all these seasons. GLB would basically become like GLB 2 and no one would really be happy.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Just thinkin out loud here but what if you could replace Peewee leagues with an 'Owner Only' leagues? Parameters would be that you select a team and set your wants for all 55 positions... then buy the team and all dots would be instantly created (random names only... too psycho to code in ability to name every single dot on the team). Team cost and dot cost all combined but reduced (to... half?). Like Peewee, team could not jump leagues since that'd be, technically, cheating. You could invite coaches, CFO's, to join but agents and LOL GM's you could not. Restructure the 3 league Peewee system to mirror the Regular and Casual but likely limit it to one tier per age/level group instead of variances such as they have in Regular/Casual leagues. Dots could not be signed, traded, or cross over from other leagues. Basically a self-contained league for those that want to do everything (build all dots and own the team... perhaps even all coaching and finances as well) for a reduced cost.

bort should of just increased the dots effectiveness at the lower levels....if peewee and rookie dots were similar to university and then the builds went up from there... this game would be way different.... peewee style building and playing would of been way bigger. most people cant handle watching the sim going that slow, or just discredit the lower levels completely.