Warrior General Games

I think it would reduce player frustration with the game, and increase player understanding and over all enjoyment, if you Allow Player Control of More Auto Adjust Variables.

For example.

For every Auto Adjust setting window:

Add another window that allows one to select the criteria for success, failure and by choosing them neutral results that would trigger autoadjustment up, down, or not trigger it at all. Thus within an input or within a package I could say "A Success here is a Three Yard Gain, a Failure is a No Gain or less", and by elimination gains of .5 to 2.5 yards do not trigger an adjustment. Within another package I could make it any gain, and no gain, et cetera et cetera. Have a window for each layer of success (slight success, medium success, big success etc) so that a three yard gain is one, a five yard gain the second and a ten plus yard gain a major success etc.

Add a window that sets the amount of the adjustment made for a success or failure. Rather than the vague Quickly etc, let players set the increase themselves within a range or percentage upticks and down ticks.

Add a drop down that allows a package to have its interior adjustments (ie chance of plays in the package being called) be set separately for each call of the package or globally for the entire game (ie if your Blitz 43 package is called against I formations short and pro sets 3rd and long you could have a failure in the I formation coverage not effect spread calls, or it could effect spread calls).

Giving the player hands on control over stuff like that is a plus because it makes us feel like we know whats going on and creates less opportunities to kick the computer and cuss the server when things seem to not do what we expected them to do.

-1 simply due to adding a ton of extra time to the major player builders in going through and making these adjustments on a ton of players. Time is very precious on this game so I would rather spend my time gameplanning and building my players right. rather than spend alot more time on stuff like this that really isn't needed.

Originally posted by hatchman
-1 simply due to adding a ton of extra time to the major player builders in going through and making these adjustments on a ton of players. Time is very precious on this game so I would rather spend my time gameplanning and building my players right. rather than spend alot more time on stuff like this that really isn't needed.



I think either you misunderstood or I mispoke.

I am talking about autoadjust on packages and inputs in the OAI and DAI. Nothing to do with player numbers.

Yes would add more time to OC DC duty though, but only if you wanted it to.

Originally posted by yello1
I think either you misunderstood or I mispoke.

I am talking about autoadjust on packages and inputs in the OAI and DAI. Nothing to do with player numbers.

Yes would add more time to OC DC duty though, but only if you wanted it to.

you must have misspoke because because your initial rambling spoke of player control. which means the actual players if you are meaning OC/DC control than you need to clarify that aspect more clearly. but as your initial suggestion reads I take it as you mean more individual player (Dot) controls.

And -1 to which ever way you meant it. the suggestion is trying to make a already time consuming job and make it even worse. you have made a couple other suggestions in the last few days trying to have the game implement stuff to lessen your burden on coordinating because you can't get it. then you make this suggestion wanting to add even more time to the drudge work. I seriously wish you would think this stuff out more. I understand you are trying to help the game and you are trying to make things easier on yourself and possibly a few others. but you seriously go from one extreme to another in suggesting some of this stuff.

and before you say that you said that it would add more work to a OC/DC only if they wanted to use it. I will add this OC's and DC's would have to use it to counter other teams using it or they would fall behind. so the suggestion if implemented wouldn't give you a edge it would make the teams that are beating you now even stronger. and essentially would make your problems of not being able to win and beat the top teams even more evident.

Originally posted by hatchman
you must have misspoke because because your initial rambling spoke of player control. which means the actual players if you are meaning OC/DC control than you need to clarify that aspect more clearly. but as your initial suggestion reads I take it as you mean more individual player (Dot) controls.

And -1 to which ever way you meant it. the suggestion is trying to make a already time consuming job and make it even worse. you have made a couple other suggestions in the last few days trying to have the game implement stuff to lessen your burden on coordinating because you can't get it. then you make this suggestion wanting to add even more time to the drudge work. I seriously wish you would think this stuff out more. I understand you are trying to help the game and you are trying to make things easier on yourself and possibly a few others. but you seriously go from one extreme to another in suggesting some of this stuff.

and before you say that you said that it would add more work to a OC/DC only if they wanted to use it. I will add this OC's and DC's would have to use it to counter other teams using it or they would fall behind. so the suggestion if implemented wouldn't give you a edge it would make the teams that are beating you now even stronger. and essentially would make your problems of not being able to win and beat the top teams even more evident.

Yes, the whole player human versus player dot thing can make for some confusion at times. I meant throughout "OC/DC" when referring to the player control issue. This idea is solely about making the coach have more control over and therefore also more information on how autoadjust is implemented.

My suggestions have not been because "I can't get it", they have been because the GLB system is rife with time wasting drudge work that the computer could erase in seconds. Its merely applying the medium of the game to make the game more fun to play. I said the same thing about the scout tool before it was made. You probably said the same thing you are saying now. Do you hate the scout tool? Do you think every one else does too?

That said, yes this idea goes the other way in that it adds some work. But its not drudge work, its fun work - its control over the game "pieces" which IS the entire point of playing a game. More game control is an acceptable reason to add more work. If folks do not like that, there is always casual. And besides, its only a few clicks and only when you want to change the settings in a package or input.

As for having to use it if its there, not really. The function - auto adjust - would still work even if you did not customize its settings. The same tool we have now would be there to set the function into default mode. I am not so sure that this feature would make an AI "better" all that much, but that it would make it less frustrating and unpredictable. That said to the extent it might become "necessary" I am okay with that. Its an improvement on the interface and game, the same way the work adding Autoadjust was and other game control features. Its a fun feature and therefore a net plus IMO.

But that is certainly something that you can disagree with as a matter of opinion and not be deemed a luddite for doing so.

-1

+1