Warrior General Games

Each level of the VA reduces the OOP by a percent.

why not? Helps with teams that have a hard time finding players at like o-line and other non-popular positions

I like the concept. I'd go with either 2% or 3%, for a total possible 30% or 45% reduction. For example, if it's a 90% OOP for a DT to play HB, the VA would reduce that OOP to 63% or 49.5%, respectively. For another example, if it's a 5% OOP for a WR to play TE, the VA would reduce that OOP to 3.5% or 2.75%, respectively.

I see this as a way to actually open up a can of worms that I do not think most people would truly want. everyone goes on about not liking stuff that games the system. or the Gimmick players and that is exactly what this would eventually end up being.

so -1 from me as I see it as a way to possibly game the system and get new gimmick stuff.

I would support it, but only if it only worked for similar positions.

In other words, if it reduced the OOP for an OT playing C or scatback playing WR, but not if it allowed for extreme gimmicks like a DT playing HB.

Originally posted by hatchman
I see this as a way to actually open up a can of worms that I do not think most people would truly want. everyone goes on about not liking stuff that games the system. or the Gimmick players and that is exactly what this would eventually end up being.

so -1 from me as I see it as a way to possibly game the system and get new gimmick stuff.

i agree with this, but maybe they could group it so it's only available when changing to certain positions

QB - n/a
RB- WR, FB
WR- TE
TE- WR, FB
G - T, C
C - G
T - G, C

DE - LB, DT
DT - DE
LB - DE, CB
CB - SS, FS
SS- FS, CB
FS- SS, CB

Originally posted by xhail2skinsx
i agree with this, but maybe they could group it so it's only available when changing to certain positions

QB - n/a
RB- WR, FB
WR- TE
TE- WR, FB
G - T, C
C - G
T - G, C

DE - LB, DT
DT - DE
LB - DE, CB
CB - SS, FS
SS- FS, CB
FS- SS, CB

WR at HB as well.

+1 to this,even though it doesnt help me at all.

Originally posted by Footballguy22
WR at HB as well.

+1 to this,even though it doesnt help me at all.

i couldn't decide whether or not to include that, but i guess it does happen every once in a while

Yes and No

Making a generic utility guy would make no sense and also would theoretically cost Bort flex.

However

A set Utility Guy VAs limited to a squad, or positional group, that would make more sense.

Such as

Utility Offensive Lineman. Only available for O Linemen. Each point of the VA reduces the OOP for playing any position on the offensive line, C, G, OT, by 6%. So if you 15 it you would only have a OOP of 10% of whatever it is (if its 10% as speculated this would make it 1%)

Utility Receiver. For Wide Outs and Tight Ends.

Utility Back. For HBs and FBs.

Utlity D Line. For D Linemen.

Utility Secondary. For Cornerbacks and Safeties.

Probably would only really be used for O Linemen, so you could just make that one and skip the rest.

Originally posted by TaySC
I would support it, but only if it only worked for similar positions.

In other words, if it reduced the OOP for an OT playing C or scatback playing WR, but not if it allowed for extreme gimmicks like a DT playing HB.



+1 to quoted

+1, first interesting VA in a while

Originally posted by TaySC
I would support it, but only if it only worked for similar positions.

In other words, if it reduced the OOP for an OT playing C or scatback playing WR, but not if it allowed for extreme gimmicks like a DT playing HB.



I'd be more worried about FB>HB (to save flex) than something like DT to HB

Originally posted by yello1
Yes and No

Making a generic utility guy would make no sense and also would theoretically cost Bort flex.

However

A set Utility Guy VAs limited to a squad, or positional group, that would make more sense.

Such as

Utility Offensive Lineman. Only available for O Linemen. Each point of the VA reduces the OOP for playing any position on the offensive line, C, G, OT, by 6%. So if you 15 it you would only have a OOP of 10% of whatever it is (if its 10% as speculated this would make it 1%)

Utility Receiver. For Wide Outs and Tight Ends.

Utility Back. For HBs and FBs.

Utlity D Line. For D Linemen.

Utility Secondary. For Cornerbacks and Safeties.

Probably would only really be used for O Linemen, so you could just make that one and skip the rest.

That actually sounds pretty cool.

I was actually thinking about FBs and TEs since they cost the same amount of flex and the new formations seem to have doubled the TE plays and reduced the FB plays.

Originally posted by xhail2skinsx
i agree with this, but maybe they could group it so it's only available when changing to certain positions

QB - n/a
RB- WR, FB
WR- TE
TE- WR, FB
G - T, C
C - G
T - G, C

DE - LB, DT
DT - DE
LB - DE, CB
CB - SS, FS
SS- FS, CB
FS- SS, CB

+1

Originally posted by AngryDragon
Originally posted by yello1

Yes and No

Making a generic utility guy would make no sense and also would theoretically cost Bort flex.

However

A set Utility Guy VAs limited to a squad, or positional group, that would make more sense.

Such as

Utility Offensive Lineman. Only available for O Linemen. Each point of the VA reduces the OOP for playing any position on the offensive line, C, G, OT, by 6%. So if you 15 it you would only have a OOP of 10% of whatever it is (if its 10% as speculated this would make it 1%)

Utility Receiver. For Wide Outs and Tight Ends.

Utility Back. For HBs and FBs.

Utlity D Line. For D Linemen.

Utility Secondary. For Cornerbacks and Safeties.

Probably would only really be used for O Linemen, so you could just make that one and skip the rest.

That actually sounds pretty cool.

I was actually thinking about FBs and TEs since they cost the same amount of flex and the new formations seem to have doubled the TE plays and reduced the FB plays.



You could have a Blocker Utility VA that pairs HBs FBs and TEs I suppose in addition to the other ones.