User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Suggestions > Scale Veteran Points Accrual to the Number of Abilities Applicable to that Position
Page:
 
yello1
Preacher
offline
Link
 
Scale Veteran Points Accrual to the Number of Abilities Applicable to that Position.

Make it so that every player who boosts normally will gain enough veteran points to have 67% of the VPs needed to get all of the VAs applicable to his position and archetype to 15.

So in other words if there are 10 VAs that are applicable to a position, scale the VXP accrual to players with that archetype such that by plateau he would have obtained 100 VPs total.

Applicable VAs would be Attribute VAs for the archetypes skills and abilities (ie if he has 3 majors then 3 VAs would be considered applicable), and then however many exist that would apply to the position and archetype.

This would set the number of VPS earned. How they would be spent would be up to the player of course.

So, for example, a Run Blocking Guard would have 4 applicable attribute VAs (str blck vis con) and 6 applicable archetype VAs (overpower, powerblocker, goal line blocker, outside blocker, pulling lineman and show boat blocker), and would therefore have 10 Applicable VAs and get 100 VPs over his pre-plateau career to spend on them.

Whereas a Pass Blocking Guard would also have 4 applicable attribute VAs (agi blck vis con) but only 5 applicable archetype VAs (max protect, pocket defender, goal line blocker, pass blocker and show boat blocker), and would therefore have 9 Applicable VAs and get 90 VPs over his pre-plateau career to spend on them.

While a Special Teams Guard would have 5 applicable attribute VAs (Agi, Blk, Spd, Sta, Tck) and 9 applicable archetype VAs (special teamer, distance runner, death grip, helmet crash, sure tackler, power tackler, heavyweight, never give up, show boat blocker), and would therefore have 14 Applicable VAs and get 140 VPs over his pre-plateau career to spend on them.

Now which VAs are "applicable" could certainly be debated and varied from the above examples. And the percentage of the over all used as the target goal would be equally up in the air.

But the notion is to create a VA system that is as least "cookie cutter" as possible yet also give the players who can use more Veteran Abilities in their dots core role be able to use more of them if they want to spread points around, without ruining their build.

Thoughts?
Edited by yello1 on Jun 18, 2012 14:50:38
 
spartan822
offline
Link
 
-1 to VAs being FUBAR
 
Outlaw Dogs
offline
Link
 
Yeah this would not lead to more cookie cutter builds at all.
 
Thundercat_12
offline
Link
 
-1 another horrible idea by yellow
 
hatchman
Goat Father
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Thundercat_12
-1 another horrible idea by yellow


You would think yello1 would finally get a clue and just stop the insanity
 
mandyross
offline
Link
 
Wouldn't it just be easier to try to have roughly the same amount of VAs available for the different positions?
 
GroovyCheetah
offline
Link
 
-1
 
DarkPraetor
This!
offline
Link
 
Please don't.
 
thunderdoozer
offline
Link
 
-2
 
merenoise
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Thundercat_12
-1 another horrible idea by yellow


 
Diamond Spade
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Thundercat_12
-1 another horrible idea by yellow


 
bigtisme
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Outlaw Dogs
Yeah this would not lead to more cookie cutter builds at all.


this was my first thought as well tbh.

for SURE it would NOT get rid of cookie cutter builds.
 
Theo Wizzago
Coyote
offline
Link
 
Wrong direction here, IMO. I would much rather see LESS Va's available to distribute, making choices much tougher for builders, therefore creating more independent building diversity and less "carbon copy builds".
-1
 
Link
 
Originally posted by Thundercat_12
-1 another horrible idea by yellow


Originally posted by hatchman
You would think yello1 would finally get a clue and just stop the insanity


 
Deathblade
offline
Link
 
stupid
 
Page:
 


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