Are they gonna be like GLB 1, or are they different?
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > GLB 2 Archtypes
Archtypes are based on Traits which are defined at creation. I think there are ultimately more types available but you don't necessarily have to fit into a specific role.
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Archtypes are based on Traits which are defined at creation. I think there are ultimately more types available but you don't necessarily have to fit into a specific role.
More types available?
So a WR could be a Speedster, Possession, Power, ???, ???, ???
Archtypes are based on Traits which are defined at creation. I think there are ultimately more types available but you don't necessarily have to fit into a specific role.
More types available?
So a WR could be a Speedster, Possession, Power, ???, ???, ???
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by BadBuc99
More types available?
So a WR could be a Speedster, Possession, Power, ???, ???, ???
Or none of the above.
Traits just give bonuses and penalties.
Example bonuses:
SP Cost of X skill(s) are reduced by Y%.
Maximum cap on skill(s) are increased by X points.
Example penalties:
SP Cost of X skill(s) are increased by Y%.
Maximum cap on skill(s) are reduced by X points.
Base Salary increase by X%.
My beef with the system is that there are powerful traits that offer bonuses with no penalties except for a higher salary. I'm guessing most people will choose those because why wouldn't they want to pass the cost of making their dot better on to the team? Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them. Everyone is going to take those abilities leading to what we capitalists refer to as "the tragedy of the commons". Corndog doesn't agree with me and that's the way I suspect they will be rolled out. I wasted too many pages of text on the GLB2 server trying to explain how to balance the traits, but there were 0 cares.
More types available?
So a WR could be a Speedster, Possession, Power, ???, ???, ???
Or none of the above.
Traits just give bonuses and penalties.
Example bonuses:
SP Cost of X skill(s) are reduced by Y%.
Maximum cap on skill(s) are increased by X points.
Example penalties:
SP Cost of X skill(s) are increased by Y%.
Maximum cap on skill(s) are reduced by X points.
Base Salary increase by X%.
My beef with the system is that there are powerful traits that offer bonuses with no penalties except for a higher salary. I'm guessing most people will choose those because why wouldn't they want to pass the cost of making their dot better on to the team? Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them. Everyone is going to take those abilities leading to what we capitalists refer to as "the tragedy of the commons". Corndog doesn't agree with me and that's the way I suspect they will be rolled out. I wasted too many pages of text on the GLB2 server trying to explain how to balance the traits, but there were 0 cares.
Originally posted by BadBuc99
More types available?
So a WR could be a Speedster, Possession, Power, ???, ???, ???
Yes, you select Traits when you build a player and those traits will define what kind of player you create. You can buck the trend, but it wouldnt be smart...as if you build along w/ your traits the SP cost per raise in attribute is less.
More types available?
So a WR could be a Speedster, Possession, Power, ???, ???, ???
Yes, you select Traits when you build a player and those traits will define what kind of player you create. You can buck the trend, but it wouldnt be smart...as if you build along w/ your traits the SP cost per raise in attribute is less.
Originally posted by BadBuc99
More types available?
So a WR could be a Speedster, Possession, Power, ???, ???, ???
WR has four "archtype" type traits...Speedster, Possession, In Traffic, Dominator. You don't necessarily have to choose one of those traits and you can't choose more than one.
Every position has between 18 and 29 traits available and there are differing benefits and drawbacks to each trait. Some affect salary, some raise the max of one attribute and lower another, some raise attribute caps but make getting there more expensive, some lower attribute caps but make getting there cheaper.
More types available?
So a WR could be a Speedster, Possession, Power, ???, ???, ???
WR has four "archtype" type traits...Speedster, Possession, In Traffic, Dominator. You don't necessarily have to choose one of those traits and you can't choose more than one.
Every position has between 18 and 29 traits available and there are differing benefits and drawbacks to each trait. Some affect salary, some raise the max of one attribute and lower another, some raise attribute caps but make getting there more expensive, some lower attribute caps but make getting there cheaper.
Originally posted by Time Trial
My beef with the system is that there are powerful traits that offer bonuses with no penalties except for a higher salary. I'm guessing most people will choose those because why wouldn't they want to pass the cost of making their dot better on to the team? Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them. Everyone is going to take those abilities leading to what we capitalists refer to as "the tragedy of the commons". Corndog doesn't agree with me and that's the way I suspect they will be rolled out. I wasted too many pages of text on the GLB2 server trying to explain how to balance the traits, but there were 0 cares.
Sadly, this.
My beef with the system is that there are powerful traits that offer bonuses with no penalties except for a higher salary. I'm guessing most people will choose those because why wouldn't they want to pass the cost of making their dot better on to the team? Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them. Everyone is going to take those abilities leading to what we capitalists refer to as "the tragedy of the commons". Corndog doesn't agree with me and that's the way I suspect they will be rolled out. I wasted too many pages of text on the GLB2 server trying to explain how to balance the traits, but there were 0 cares.
Sadly, this.
Originally posted by Time Trial
My beef with the system is that there are powerful traits that offer bonuses with no penalties except for a higher salary. I'm guessing most people will choose those because why wouldn't they want to pass the cost of making their dot better on to the team?
Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them. Everyone is going to take those abilities leading to what we capitalists refer to as "the tragedy of the commons".
Corndog doesn't agree with me and that's the way I suspect they will be rolled out. I wasted too many pages of text on the GLB2 server trying to explain how to balance the traits, but there were 0 cares.
So we're going back to a salary based system?
That is going to make it harder to recruit. Everyone and their brother wants to be the highest paid dot on the roster, and as soon as they find out they are getting paid less, they will cry...then ask for a trade...or not resign the next season. HOPEFULLY salaries are only visible to the team owner! That would stop the drama somewhat.
Now as far as Corndog goes...he's a cockologist. I like him, but I wish he was a cunnilinguist instead. You can't get a cockologist to see reason, as they tend to get pocked in the eye more often than not.
My beef with the system is that there are powerful traits that offer bonuses with no penalties except for a higher salary. I'm guessing most people will choose those because why wouldn't they want to pass the cost of making their dot better on to the team?
Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them. Everyone is going to take those abilities leading to what we capitalists refer to as "the tragedy of the commons".
Corndog doesn't agree with me and that's the way I suspect they will be rolled out. I wasted too many pages of text on the GLB2 server trying to explain how to balance the traits, but there were 0 cares.
So we're going back to a salary based system?
That is going to make it harder to recruit. Everyone and their brother wants to be the highest paid dot on the roster, and as soon as they find out they are getting paid less, they will cry...then ask for a trade...or not resign the next season. HOPEFULLY salaries are only visible to the team owner! That would stop the drama somewhat.
Now as far as Corndog goes...he's a cockologist. I like him, but I wish he was a cunnilinguist instead. You can't get a cockologist to see reason, as they tend to get pocked in the eye more often than not.
Originally posted by Time Trial
Or none of the above.
Traits just give bonuses and penalties.
Example bonuses:
SP Cost of X skill(s) are reduced by Y%.
Maximum cap on skill(s) are increased by X points.
Example penalties:
SP Cost of X skill(s) are increased by Y%.
Maximum cap on skill(s) are reduced by X points.
Base Salary increase by X%.
My beef with the system is that there are powerful traits that offer bonuses with no penalties except for a higher salary. I'm guessing most people will choose those because why wouldn't they want to pass the cost of making their dot better on to the team? Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them. Everyone is going to take those abilities leading to what we capitalists refer to as "the tragedy of the commons". Corndog doesn't agree with me and that's the way I suspect they will be rolled out. I wasted too many pages of text on the GLB2 server trying to explain how to balance the traits, but there were 0 cares.
Everyone was always going to pick the best traits.
Adding a penalty to receiving skills on a rushing HB isn't really a counterbalance.
It's expected that most people will take the mutually exclusive top tier traits...that isn't really a knowledge bomb, they were designed with that in mind. At least with a salary increase attached to them, the "min/max" players actually cost more than the average joe.
Or none of the above.
Traits just give bonuses and penalties.
Example bonuses:
SP Cost of X skill(s) are reduced by Y%.
Maximum cap on skill(s) are increased by X points.
Example penalties:
SP Cost of X skill(s) are increased by Y%.
Maximum cap on skill(s) are reduced by X points.
Base Salary increase by X%.
My beef with the system is that there are powerful traits that offer bonuses with no penalties except for a higher salary. I'm guessing most people will choose those because why wouldn't they want to pass the cost of making their dot better on to the team? Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them. Everyone is going to take those abilities leading to what we capitalists refer to as "the tragedy of the commons". Corndog doesn't agree with me and that's the way I suspect they will be rolled out. I wasted too many pages of text on the GLB2 server trying to explain how to balance the traits, but there were 0 cares.
Everyone was always going to pick the best traits.
Adding a penalty to receiving skills on a rushing HB isn't really a counterbalance.
It's expected that most people will take the mutually exclusive top tier traits...that isn't really a knowledge bomb, they were designed with that in mind. At least with a salary increase attached to them, the "min/max" players actually cost more than the average joe.
Edited by Corndog on Dec 2, 2013 14:39:55
Originally posted by BadBuc99
So we're going back to a salary based system?
Salary is one of three values. High, medium, or low. It can be difficult to fill a roster at medium salary if traits aren't just right. The majority of bots will have a medium salary with some low salaries in certain roles if traits make it necessary.
So we're going back to a salary based system?
Salary is one of three values. High, medium, or low. It can be difficult to fill a roster at medium salary if traits aren't just right. The majority of bots will have a medium salary with some low salaries in certain roles if traits make it necessary.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Time Trial
Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them.
I wouldn't necessarily say they end up with a better sprite because they chose those routes.
Why should someone get to pay the same amount of flex as me, but they get to build a better dot because they went the selfish route and let someone else pay the penalty for them.
I wouldn't necessarily say they end up with a better sprite because they chose those routes.
Originally posted by Corndog
At least with a salary increase attached to them the "min/max" players actually cost more than the average joe.
But when everyone builds min/max players we're suddenly left with teams that can't carry a "complete" roster of 43. That means less bots built which means less revenue for the game.
At least with a salary increase attached to them the "min/max" players actually cost more than the average joe.
But when everyone builds min/max players we're suddenly left with teams that can't carry a "complete" roster of 43. That means less bots built which means less revenue for the game.
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
But when everyone builds min/max players we're suddenly left with teams that can't carry a "complete" roster of 43. That means less bots built which means less revenue for the game.
Not everybody builds min/max players.
But when everyone builds min/max players we're suddenly left with teams that can't carry a "complete" roster of 43. That means less bots built which means less revenue for the game.
Not everybody builds min/max players.
Originally posted by .spider.
Yes, you select Traits when you build a player and those traits will define what kind of player you create. You can buck the trend, but it wouldnt be smart...as if you build along w/ your traits the SP cost per raise in attribute is less.
That sounds pretty cool. It will definitely allow for more of a building challenge. as hopefully a team owner from the start, I can get my team on the same page build-wise...altho that is gonna be very difficult until I see what each position requires.
The 1st season might be a test season, which means re-rolling, which means wasted flex.
Yes, you select Traits when you build a player and those traits will define what kind of player you create. You can buck the trend, but it wouldnt be smart...as if you build along w/ your traits the SP cost per raise in attribute is less.
That sounds pretty cool. It will definitely allow for more of a building challenge. as hopefully a team owner from the start, I can get my team on the same page build-wise...altho that is gonna be very difficult until I see what each position requires.
The 1st season might be a test season, which means re-rolling, which means wasted flex.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
