I know what your thinking but higher leagues pick which position they want the dot to play in the contract
Edited by Chysil on Sep 22, 2013 13:57:31 (correcting typo)
Forum > Suggestions > Have a secondary position in lower leauges
-1 with OOP penalties no need forsecondary position stuff. and the lower level contracts are the same as the upper level contracts unless I have missed something.
I'd think this might open a can of worms... maybe people would want "offensive skill position" that could be WR and HB or something. People wanting LBers and DEs to be paired so they could evolve into that. I wouldn't necessarily be against stuff like that, but that would be a pretty major change, and not sure if they'd want that big of change at this point
Originally posted by Chysil
I'd think this might open a can of worms... maybe people would want "offensive skill position" that could be WR and HB or something. People wanting LBers and DEs to be paired so they could evolve into that. I wouldn't necessarily be against stuff like that, but that would be a pretty major change, and not sure if they'd want that big of change at this point
This is actually a pretty sweet idea. Iv never liked that we had to pen in our builds from day 1, instead of building attributes and move them around. Things like archtypes and out of position penalties are what really limit build experimentation and are what drives a good number of folks away.
I'd think this might open a can of worms... maybe people would want "offensive skill position" that could be WR and HB or something. People wanting LBers and DEs to be paired so they could evolve into that. I wouldn't necessarily be against stuff like that, but that would be a pretty major change, and not sure if they'd want that big of change at this point
This is actually a pretty sweet idea. Iv never liked that we had to pen in our builds from day 1, instead of building attributes and move them around. Things like archtypes and out of position penalties are what really limit build experimentation and are what drives a good number of folks away.
LT56
offline
offline
It would be a major change but IMO would be more realistic and a better game
But unfortunately it's NGTH
But unfortunately it's NGTH
Guppy, Inc
online
online
a simple solution would be to let every player pick a secondary position that simply does not have the OOP applied. that way you could have your lb/de, de/dt, fb/te. te/wr, etc types.
but then what's to stop people building cheap dots with an expensive dot backup so that they dn't have to pay the full flex.... like FB at HB or TE at WR
Hazeee
offline
offline
Originally posted by Chysil
but then what's to stop people building cheap dots with an expensive dot backup so that they dn't have to pay the full flex.... like FB at HB or TE at WR
Why not have an option at Reg Pro age to change, and then pay the appropriate amount of flex to continue?
but then what's to stop people building cheap dots with an expensive dot backup so that they dn't have to pay the full flex.... like FB at HB or TE at WR
Why not have an option at Reg Pro age to change, and then pay the appropriate amount of flex to continue?
Originally posted by Hazeee
Originally posted by Chysil
but then what's to stop people building cheap dots with an expensive dot backup so that they dn't have to pay the full flex.... like FB at HB or TE at WR
Why not have an option at Reg Pro age to change, and then pay the appropriate amount of flex to continue?
I wouldnt be against that... however, like I said, it's a fairly major change for a game that's supposed to be basically done with major changes.
However, I did bring it up for GLB2, so maybe they will think about it for that game and decide if it's worth porting over etc
Originally posted by Chysil
but then what's to stop people building cheap dots with an expensive dot backup so that they dn't have to pay the full flex.... like FB at HB or TE at WR
Why not have an option at Reg Pro age to change, and then pay the appropriate amount of flex to continue?
I wouldnt be against that... however, like I said, it's a fairly major change for a game that's supposed to be basically done with major changes.
However, I did bring it up for GLB2, so maybe they will think about it for that game and decide if it's worth porting over etc
Originally posted by Chysil
I wouldnt be against that... however, like I said, it's a fairly major change for a game that's supposed to be basically done with major changes.
However, I did bring it up for GLB2, so maybe they will think about it for that game and decide if it's worth porting over etc
but that's a more casual game...it's needed here if anywhere
+1 for the OP's suggestion....Mos def make for a more realistic game.
I wouldnt be against that... however, like I said, it's a fairly major change for a game that's supposed to be basically done with major changes.
However, I did bring it up for GLB2, so maybe they will think about it for that game and decide if it's worth porting over etc
but that's a more casual game...it's needed here if anywhere
+1 for the OP's suggestion....Mos def make for a more realistic game.
Edited by Team Nucleus on Sep 26, 2013 17:43:30
Originally posted by schmidyboy
we could have this I the new game
injuries too
we could have this I the new game
injuries too
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
