Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Ken1
What's interesting is that I can agree to that too.

Maybe we've found something like a consensus?

Dude, no one has disagreed with you in this entire thread, you just keep derailing it with senseless crap that's hardly relevant to the issue at hand.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
Dude, no one has disagreed with you in this entire thread, you just keep derailing it with senseless crap that's hardly relevant to the issue at hand.

People have disagreed with me, pretty virulently. As long as they're just disagreeing with my ideas that's their right to do, but they have been disagreeing-- like the time someone called for a revert to S26 return code, so we could have almost 3 times as many pick sixes as in real life.

Anyway, we can put it all away as far as I'm concerned. I think it's possible people are bothered by the way pick sixes were nerfed and the extent (to near zero) as much as the nerfing itself. You offer a different way of calculating them, and everyone in the world, including me, realizes the nerf went too far...so let's look toward a more realistic way of achieving realistic results.

Originally posted by Ken1
People have disagreed with me, pretty virulently. As long as they're just disagreeing with my ideas that's their right to do, but they have been disagreeing-- like the time someone called for a revert to S26 return code, so we could have almost 3 times as many pick sixes as in real life.

Anyway, we can put it all away as far as I'm concerned. I think it's possible people are bothered by the way pick sixes were nerfed and the extent (to near zero) as much as the nerfing itself. You offer a different way of calculating them, and everyone in the world, including me, realizes the nerf went too far...so let's look toward a more realistic way of achieving realistic results.

So does this mean you will stop posting?


























one can only wish

Originally posted by Ken1
What's interesting is that I can agree to that too.

Maybe we've found something like a consensus?

Wonderful. So glad the consensus you speak of is the same concept I started this entire thread with, and that MileHighShoes elaborated on pages ago.

Majority of INTs should not be 0-2 yard returns. Not all INTs should end up in the opposing end zone. Now that we've established the ridiculous extremes, can we PLEASE get this idiotic dot behavior fixed?

+1 fix it.................

Originally posted by sicarius
Wonderful. So glad the consensus you speak of is the same concept I started this entire thread with, and that MileHighShoes elaborated on pages ago.

It's true that your OP referenced real life, but also seemed to call for a solution that would have had many more interception return TDs than in real life. I called for a happy medium between S26-27and you were, to your credit, in favor or that:

Originally posted by sicarius
I'd be perfectly fine with a happy medium. Unfortunately that's what they thought they provided with the 2/26 change, but clearly it badly missed the mark.

That quote I completely agreed with.

MileHigh made a statement similar to the one he recently made, and I responded:

Originally posted by Ken1
I have no problem at all with this, although they do have to engineer it so that a fairly realistic amount of long returns occur, which were way too many in Season 26 and before and are way too few in Season 27.

Pwned had a reasonable idea and Bedgood had one almost as good (on which he and I discussed it and reached something we both could live with):

Originally posted by Pwned
+1 Fumbles should be able to be returned as well..
How about players run at half speed for 5-10 ticks (randomized) after recovering a fumble, if not tackled immediately.
And players run at half speed for 3-8 ticks (randomized) after intercepting a ball, if not tackled immediately.

My only real critique on Pwned's was that at least about half of fumbles (NOT having actual stats of how often that happens, but just having watched enough football that that must be the case with at least half of fumbles) and that certain contested picks had to result in a fall-down, though much less than now.

After some back and forth flaming, I reiterated that I agreed with your suggestion under the right circumstances:

Originally posted by Ken1
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.

Than came the suggestion that set me off to flaming, because S26 was ridiculous for Pick Sixes:

Originally posted by cjericho
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.

And then, flaming ensued, as I was outraged at the thought of reverting to S26 behavior..

However, there are a lot of people who were reasonable IMO, from you to MileHigh to Pwned to Bedgood.

Originally posted by sicarius

Majority of INTs should not be 0-2 yard returns. Not all INTs should end up in the opposing end zone. Now that we've established the ridiculous extremes, can we PLEASE get this idiotic dot behavior fixed?

So, yes, I agree with that statement, as long as it's somewhere near 10% that end up in the opposing end zone. The thing that really set me off was the idea that the whole change be reverted and nothing should replace it. Replace it with MileHigh's, Pwned's or Bedgood's after Bedgood and I had discussed it a bit, and then the fall-downs can be cut way back.

Originally posted by Ken1
That quote I completely agreed with

Thankfully it doesn't really matter whether or not you agree. Your opinion is so much in the minority that it is rendered fairly meaningless. In fact, you have been the only opposition to the very good suggestion by the OP. All you've managed to do with your shrill whining in this thread is piss a bunch of people off. Kudos to you for being so irritating that everyone in the thread including the OP has had to take time to respond to your nonsensical objections.

Originally posted by ron2288
just stop posting

Originally posted by dss02
Ken1 will never understand that the only workable pass defense atm is to blitz on every down.


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.

Originally posted by Wicked_Cthulhu
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 Greywolfmeb
You are either totally full of shit or as boring a person as this game will become with your way of thinking. If it continues on the current path there will be no one but you and maybe another couple of suckers left to play.

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
Dude, no one has disagreed with you in this entire thread, you just keep derailing it with senseless crap that's hardly relevant to the issue at hand.

Originally posted by sicarius
Wonderful. So glad the consensus you speak of is the same concept I started this entire thread with, and that MileHighShoes elaborated on pages ago.

Majority of INTs should not be 0-2 yard returns. Not all INTs should end up in the opposing end zone. Now that we've established the ridiculous extremes, can we PLEASE get this idiotic dot behavior fixed?

When everyone in the thread is telling you that you are wrong and acting like a petulant child chances are you are wrong and acting like a petulant child.

Originally posted by merenoise
When everyone in the thread is telling you that you are wrong and acting like a petulant child chances are you are wrong and acting like a petulant child.

The only time the real flame wars seem to start is when you get involved. YOU stop posting, and then the rest of us CAN get this settled like adults.

lots of discussion for some reason. INTs and Fumbles should be allowed to be returned on occasion, nothing really to argue about

Originally posted by Ubasstards
lots of discussion for some reason. INTs and Fumbles should be allowed to be returned on occasion, nothing really to argue about

About as clear as you can make it.

Originally posted by Ken1
The only time the real flame wars seem to start is when you get involved. YOU stop posting, and then the rest of us CAN get this settled like adults.

except you are just being a jackwagon...there that is real life

Originally posted by MileHighShoes
I can't believe this conversation is still going on.

Bort just needs to make the fall down thing a roll based on dot attributes and how easy the interception was to make, then he can just adjust how hard the roll is to pass from there on out. The all or nothing fixes he created with the auto-fall down don't leave any room to find a middle ground, it's an all or nothing solution that isn't based in player attributes. Different builds should be able to do different things, and I see the ability of a player to stay on his feet when intercepting a ball as something that should purely be build related. I can't understand how anyone could even think of a different solution for this problem. He can tweak the rolls every season and it will be much more realistic than if it's just an automatic game mechanic.

+1

Originally posted by Ubasstards
lots of discussion for some reason. INTs and Fumbles should be allowed to be returned on occasion, nothing really to argue about

+1

S28 Changelog out. No solution to this issue provided.

And if this is going to be pointed to
Originally posted by

- Fall down prone base time reduced a little

it does NOT address the issue. A clean INT by a defender moving in a positive direction should NEVER fall down.