Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jktooley
Originally posted by The Duff Man

Originally posted by tonynf89


Originally posted by Coriantumr



We should already know whats going to get tuned down.... POWER BACKS

I hope not, people should focus on getting their players to have more than 35 str if they want to take power backs down.

Although, I think the % likelihood of the RB breaking a tackle should lower after each broken tackle. If that isn't how it happens already.

This was added last season. Defenders can now gang tackle a ball carrier.

occasionally..... Some times, not so well... And I STILL can't believe that a bonus to tackling from behind hasn't been implemented

Probably not. But you can still do a Monster Hit when you shoestring tackle someone from behind apparently.

I'll admit that I'm getting a little sick of the test server subject now myself, and I was one of the ones leading the charge about this being BS. The way I see it, what's done is done and not a hell of a lot can be done about it anymore, outside of what Bort is now and appears to be continuing to do into the future.

That said, I so completely and totally fail to grasp how anyone could see it not being a huge advantage to the testers (and that Bort really screwed up massively by doing what he did the way he did it). Even Tpat, who I do believe wasn't trying to pimp the game, is sooooooooooooo far off base on this. How the hell doesn't knowing what a 100/100 speed/agility DT performs like give you a HUGE advantage in building DTs? The results flat out tell you whether it's worth shooting for or not. How about if jacking vision up to 100 on WRs helps? Guess what? if it doesn't make much of a diff (no clue either way), then it probably doesn't make sense to bring him up to the +3 cap. If it does, then hitting that cap may just be a great move. The list goes on and on and on. They know how extreme builds perform, while the rest of us were left to guess on whether it's worth it or not (and now have to dig through pages of junk to find out....much better, but no where near as easy as testing it yourself).

This game is all about 2 things: builds and tactics. Hell, if your builds are good enough, tactics don't even matter nearly as much.

should the topic die now? Probably, but to say it isn't/wasn't a big deal or provide certain users a very big advantage is being incredibly naive, at best.

Very solid points above.

PP, I can tell you that a 100 speed/100 agility will perform extremely well, given that he has some strength (if you want to see an athletic DT perform badly with no strength feel free to refer to Kayoh). I can also tell you that a 60 speed, 60 agility, 60 catching 100 vision WR will perform better than the same WR with less vision. I don't however need a test server to understand that the opportunity cost of getting vision to 100 on a WR is huge and that WR wouldn't by any means be maximizing what he is...

If you gave me access to the test server (which I wouldn't want, but lets just say) I would no doubt test some things out and learn a little bit, but aside from validating SA's, I highly doubt I'd learn any extremely profound attribute relationships or effect which would give me some extreme advantage in building plays. The fact is, people on the test server aren't given free reign to do whatever they want, and if you've looked at the test server data/results that are up, I'm guessing that you should be a little underwhelmed. From looking at that data, do you now feel that you have a huge advantage in build knowledge that you didn't have a week ago? If they make 100+ players for no apparent reason then bort would likely label this an abuse of power and yank them out of there.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a big deal, but I'm just pretty sure that it wasn't as big of a deal as some (many) people made it out to be. These are just my opinions of course, and we are each entitled to our own budster.

just to completement the post above, Bort said it is about testing and a few things ain't working as intented. So, the results there ain't the final result. They may add 11 to pancake and then Bort notice the performance wasn't good enough, so he'll make pancake SA better and tester will not know how much better it is now. Anyway, that was just an example.

Also, who cares about testing 100 agility/100 speed DTs if you have to guess your opponents build?

Right, I make a 100 agility/100 speed DT and put him against who? My actual G? Aight, I can tell you he'll probably get burned, if he doesn't Bort will make he get burned lol. Or maybe I shall put him against a 80 speed/80 agility Guard, nice, cool, he'll probably not be burned so often but may allow sacks/hurries sometimes. I don't need access to test server to know it.

As soon as you don't know your opponents build, there is no magic in test server. The only thing you get advantage there is about tactics. You can test how your future D AI will work against certain plays/formations and know in advantace if this will work or not. I can't understand the complain about players build at all.

Originally posted by PP
I'll admit that I'm getting a little sick of the test server subject now myself, and I was one of the ones leading the charge about this being BS. The way I see it, what's done is done and not a hell of a lot can be done about it anymore, outside of what Bort is now and appears to be continuing to do into the future.

That said, I so completely and totally fail to grasp how anyone could see it not being a huge advantage to the testers (and that Bort really screwed up massively by doing what he did the way he did it). Even Tpat, who I do believe wasn't trying to pimp the game, is sooooooooooooo far off base on this. How the hell doesn't knowing what a 100/100 speed/agility DT performs like give you a HUGE advantage in building DTs? The results flat out tell you whether it's worth shooting for or not. How about if jacking vision up to 100 on WRs helps? Guess what? if it doesn't make much of a diff (no clue either way), then it probably doesn't make sense to bring him up to the +3 cap. If it does, then hitting that cap may just be a great move. The list goes on and on and on. They know how extreme builds perform, while the rest of us were left to guess on whether it's worth it or not (and now have to dig through pages of junk to find out....much better, but no where near as easy as testing it yourself).

This game is all about 2 things: builds and tactics. Hell, if your builds are good enough, tactics don't even matter nearly as much.

should the topic die now? Probably, but to say it isn't/wasn't a big deal or provide certain users a very big advantage is being incredibly naive, at best.

Completely agree. I also think the future testers should not own/gm teams and players. There is simply a conflict of interest for those who do both. I respect guys like Tpat and Havoc for trying to improve the game, and I trust that their intentions are to improve the sim rather than for personal gains. However, I have no confidence that they will be able to keep their findings from effecting the way they build players or set tactics. This is not an attack on their integrity, but rather to point out the trap they are getting themselves into.

Suppose that during testing Tpat finds that tackling is more effective than strength when trying to stop power backs (the rumor is that this is the case), and further suppose that Tpat also found out that there isn't much difference in missed tackles after having tackling over 60. Now what do you suppose Tpat would do when he's building his LBs? My bet is that he would get the tackling to 60. It's not like Tpat wanted to use the test info for his player build, but at the same time, he can't ignore those finding when building his players. Not his fault, but he has put himself in a situation where he is using the test findings to benefit his builds.

And LOL to all those arguing that testers don't learn anything from testing, if they are not learning anything, they are doing a piss poor job of testing.

Bottom line, I really hope Bort makes the rule that future testers are not associated in game playing. And I have nothing but respect for Tpat, I only use him as an example here because he's one of the few tester I know.

WiSeIVIaN

Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. BTW, I wasn't suggesting that having a 100 vision WR was worth it (though I'd like to think that every WR in USA Pro that isn't on GB will switch EQ and shoot for that lofty goal). What I meant was that seeing how he performed would give you a good indication as to how far to or not to push vision.

Frankly, my examples were purposefully very vanilla and fairly obvious. There are right around 10 extremes I'd love to test at various positions (not listed for obvious reasons). Until I find them on the test server (if they're even there), I'll have to choose between risking ruining a dot (and the $ that would waste) vrs chancing the creation of a super dot. I doubt if more than 1 or 2 of those extremes would pay off, but you can bet the house that I'd know if I had been a tester. In a game where there are so few real secrets, I see that as a huge advantage, but, like you, that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
PP, I can tell you that a 100 speed/100 agility will perform extremely well, given that he has some strength (if you want to see an athletic DT perform badly with no strength feel free to refer to Kayoh). I can also tell you that a 60 speed, 60 agility, 60 catching 100 vision WR will perform better than the same WR with less vision. I don't however need a test server to understand that the opportunity cost of getting vision to 100 on a WR is huge and that WR wouldn't by any means be maximizing what he is...

If you gave me access to the test server (which I wouldn't want, but lets just say) I would no doubt test some things out and learn a little bit, but aside from validating SA's, I highly doubt I'd learn any extremely profound attribute relationships or effect which would give me some extreme advantage in building plays. The fact is, people on the test server aren't given free reign to do whatever they want, and if you've looked at the test server data/results that are up, I'm guessing that you should be a little underwhelmed. From looking at that data, do you now feel that you have a huge advantage in build knowledge that you didn't have a week ago? If they make 100+ players for no apparent reason then bort would likely label this an abuse of power and yank them out of there.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a big deal, but I'm just pretty sure that it wasn't as big of a deal as some (many) people made it out to be. These are just my opinions of course, and we are each entitled to our own budster.

1) I think PP just used those numbers as examples, don't really need to examine those exact numbers.
2) Just because you don't think you can learn a lot from the test server doesn't mean others can't learn a lot. I for one think I can learn / validate a lot of stuff if I had access to the test server.
3) I know the test data/results are up, but seriously that doesn't mean anything. We have no idea what builds were when the games ran. One thing we know for sure, Bort has modified some player data so that people wouldn't think TSE was a tester. Which leads to the question of what else has he modified?
4) I think Bort means well and is trying to do his best, but he does make a lot of mistakes along the way, and this is one of them. How people reacted was a result of how Bort handled this thing from the get go. People would not have made a big deal out of it had this been transparent from the beginning and had there not been so many failed attempts to cover it up. If you are not guilty, don't act like you are guilty.

Originally posted by Auris
just to completement the post above, Bort said it is about testing and a few things ain't working as intented. So, the results there ain't the final result. They may add 11 to pancake and then Bort notice the performance wasn't good enough, so he'll make pancake SA better and tester will not know how much better it is now. Anyway, that was just an example.

Also, who cares about testing 100 agility/100 speed DTs if you have to guess your opponents build?

Right, I make a 100 agility/100 speed DT and put him against who? My actual G? Aight, I can tell you he'll probably get burned, if he doesn't Bort will make he get burned lol. Or maybe I shall put him against a 80 speed/80 agility Guard, nice, cool, he'll probably not be burned so often but may allow sacks/hurries sometimes. I don't need access to test server to know it.

As soon as you don't know your opponents build, there is no magic in test server. The only thing you get advantage there is about tactics. You can test how your future D AI will work against certain plays/formations and know in advantace if this will work or not. I can't understand the complain about players build at all.


Not true. Although we don't know our opponents build, most of the good GMs/agents can have a very good guess at player's builds by looking at their scouting bars and be fairly close. Plus, most of the builds in this game are very similar. Besides if I know a DT with 100 agility will blow by a G with 80 agility, then I don't really need to know what your guard build is like, odds are most guards' agility are under 80.

Originally posted by Auris
Bort said it is about testing and a few things ain't working as intented. So, the results there ain't the final result.


Last point on this entire subject and then I'll shut up, unless something really trips my trigger.

I have no doubt that the reason above, finding flaws with the sim updates and seeing how extreme builds impact the game were the primary reasons Bort had for setting up the test server. IMO, that has nothing to do with the added benefits that were there to be had (testing the D Playmaker and builds). Also, how do we test our builds now? The vast majority of the times, we test them against Dots whose builds we can't see. I fail to see how there is no value in testing builds against unknown builds. That's all we do now.

You think testing is bad? Then you really don't want to check out what is happening in the Bugs section right now.

There is a bug that lets you get unlimited SPs. To prove it someone built a level 1 with 100+ in almost every skill.

Originally posted by The Duff Man
You think testing is bad? Then you really don't want to check out what is happening in the Bugs section right now.

There is a bug that lets you get unlimited SPs. To prove it someone built a level 1 with 100+ in almost every skill.



Saw that, man that's just bad.

This game is toast.

Originally posted by The Duff Man
You think testing is bad? Then you really don't want to check out what is happening in the Bugs section right now.

There is a bug that lets you get unlimited SPs. To prove it someone built a level 1 with 100+ in almost every skill.



I just sent a PM to Pallow, suggesting they give Hulk (vets exploit) and the guys involved with revealing the sp exploits a masive chunk of free flex (edit, meant flex, not XP as originally wrote) and that Bort creates a stickied, locked thread in the GLB forum, listing them, how many free flex they got and those that do it in the future. I could see that as being a major positive for a game that's looking to be falling apart right now.

PS...I would have PMed Bort, but I'm not white listed like you are

they definitely deserve a boatload of free flex at least.