User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Q&A Archives > 10/20 Q & A Discussion with Bort and Catch22
Page:
 
Bort
Admin
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by sunshineduck
just a quick question

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1373431&pbp_id=11119317

I was wondering if it was possible to maybe have a setting where the CB plays between the WR and the QB during the duration of the route, rather than giving him that much room and basically giving them a free catch? I realize that it is a build issue that my CB didn't make a play on the ball at the last second, but I feel like there should be an option for the CB to play underneath the WR rather than outside all the time so he's always in position to make a play on the ball (and also get burned deep) rather than only having a couple ticks window to make something happen. It would also make being a shutdown corner more meaningful, as the QB potentially wouldn't throw that way if the CB was right on top of the WR.

I've never seen a CB play underneath WR's on a go route when he wasn't getting burned by the WR, which kind of defeats the purpose of my CB's high speed build, since I feel he can run stride-for-stride with most WR's. I know you now have them play the underneath on slants, but wouldn't it make more sense to have an underneath/above option so DB's can select based on their builds?


You want coverage distance to be allowed to go negative maybe?
 
reddogrw
HOOD
online
Link
 
Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by The Avenger

You haven't said why though. Theres ALOT of people getting screwed because you Stand on Level 69 as being the be-all-end-all for additional boosting at plateau except approx half the population does not get to take advantage of this because of big XP tweaks along the way in a build that took 1.5 years to get too!

How can you ignore that. This isn't someone asking for a handout or a slow build "gaming the system" nor any build exploit Catch22...this is a fact that setting a hard number of 69 is THE ONLY way you get to boost 3 more times is not an equal opportunity!

Allowing a minor XP only boost to get to your level 69 is a comprimise in my best opinion. it will 1000% NOT hurt a single thing in GLB. It 1000% does not favor former slow builds and above everything i've stated, it 1000% adds to GLB's bottom line, and thats boosting with paid Flex Points instead of retiring for refunded Xp or worse case scenario......leaving GLB altogether because no one wants to start over for another 1.5 years to correct what wasn't their fault in the first place!

Please respond with more then 10 words Bort or Catch.


Word #1 - We
Word #2 - Figured
Word #3 - Out
Word #4 - What
Word #5 - We
Word #6 - Thought
Word #7 - Was
Word #8 - Best
Word #9 - For
Word #10 - Goal
Word #11 - Line
Word #12 - Blitz

Translation - we don't have to tell everyone the basis for our business decisions. We spent time discussing it, came up with this, and are sticking with it. Last response on this matter. Thanks.


 
Black Peter
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by sunshineduck
If you boosted every season from beginning to end, you would have made level 69 unless you had seriously been screwed out of EXP in a big way. I'm not a fan of one-time SSB dots being able to boost to 72. The 69-cap is fine.


There are many dots that have been on teams that have been "screwed out of XP" and will end at L68 due to that fact even though they've boosted every season. It's not in the players control, TBH.
 
Bort
Admin
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by jpjn94
What causes that cushion? Not that I'm upset about it as an OC, but I'm sure my DC would like to know



Mostly slow reaction due to vision/agility fail. Assuming he's not set to far coverage distance.
 
The Avenger
Hulk Smash
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by sunshineduck
unless you had seriously been screwed out of EXP in a big way.


 
Catch22
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by RMiller517
are endorsements ever going to be changed to fit a player's archetype? like ST endorsements, for example?


Already discussed - would take a bit of coding work but if there is enough support for a suggestion (if one has already been made, send me the link to it via pm) then it might be something we do.
 
jpjn94
doc ock
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by sunshineduck
I'm 99% certain my CB is faster than that WR, so it's because DB's don't really play underneath coverage, especially on go routes. I'm hoping that we can have an option to favor playing underneath/above in player tactics, would make me sooo much happier


So what you're saying is if I make slower WRs, I can burn your defense all day?

 
Longhornfan1024
HOOD
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bort
Mostly slow reaction due to vision/agility fail. Assuming he's not set to far coverage distance.


Set to -100, iirc.
 
bhall43
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by bhall43
Originally posted by bhall43

so why wouldnt the avoid fumble chance of Mr. Reliable work as an anti knocked loose on first and second down?



 
jamz
offline
Link
 
Do you feel each setting for player level tactics have a place in the game? (AKA are working as intended, and a viable option).

You see a lot of hivemind out there these days in what people are utilizing, it tends to be said because X or Y settings are ineffective.
 
TrevJo
offline
Link
 
I've noticed that players set to "cover man" sometimes move to line up in front of the receiver, and sometimes not. Is this intended? Is there some logic to it?

Examples:
-On this goal line defense, the CBs are set to cover man on the HB and FB, and the FS is set to cover man on the TE. The CBs line up over their man pre-snap, but the FS does not. http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1395627&pbp_id=10348163
-On this pro set defense, the ROLB is set to cover man on the TE, and the LOLB is set to cover man on the HB. Neither lines up over his man pre-snap. http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1395627&pbp_id=10348073
 
sunshineduck
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bort
You want coverage distance to be allowed to go negative maybe?


If that means I'll be playing coverage between the QB and WR (giving the WR a lot more room to burn me, obviously) instead of the WR being between the QB and my CB, then absolutely. A 2 yard max cushion in either direction would be perfect, actually.
 
Black Peter
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bort
Mostly slow reaction due to vision/agility fail. Assuming he's not set to far coverage distance.


Ok, how does the player tactic coverage distance/cushion interact with the DPC ability to set a X yds away coverage for a play? Doesn't seem to have a huge effect on the actual player cushion/coverage from what I've seen. Even setting a 3 yd cushion in DPC with a +X cushion on the CB doesn't appear to affect the way the CB jumps a route too much.
 
jpjn94
doc ock
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bort
Mostly slow reaction due to vision/agility fail. Assuming he's not set to far coverage distance.


http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1371564&pbp_id=10940708

That's a costly vision/agility fail! Nothing against that WR, but 90 in Agility, 90 in Vision, and 10 in Super Vision and that still happens?

 
jamz
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by RMiller517

are endorsements ever going to be changed to fit a player's archetype? like ST endorsements, for example?


Already discussed - would take a bit of coding work but if there is enough support for a suggestion (if one has already been made, send me the link to it via pm) then it might be something we do.


Check the test forum, McBriar linked one there long ago that's as old as archetypes themselves.
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.