Originally posted by godgib
@hagalaz: still raging as in good old times and still only accepting your own opinion.
Care to explain?
@hagalaz: still raging as in good old times and still only accepting your own opinion.
Care to explain?
edmeeks
offline
offline
Originally posted by godgib
Rhombus making some noise, that is nice. I always enjoyed the forum when I had my 2 guys there, just thought you are not going to make it to the top. Start was not very promising here.
@hagalaz: still raging as in good old times and still only accepting your own opinion.
Hey buddy!
What, we made it to Canadian Pro...that's not the top?!
Hope all is well, except I hope you lose to Rhombus.
Rhombus making some noise, that is nice. I always enjoyed the forum when I had my 2 guys there, just thought you are not going to make it to the top. Start was not very promising here.
@hagalaz: still raging as in good old times and still only accepting your own opinion.
Hey buddy!
What, we made it to Canadian Pro...that's not the top?!
Hope all is well, except I hope you lose to Rhombus.
godgib
offline
offline
Originally posted by Hagalaz
Care to explain?
I do remember some build discussions regarding 3 AEQ vs 4 AEQ.
Originally posted by edmeeks
Hey buddy!
What, we made it to Canadian Pro...that's not the top?!
Hope all is well, except I hope you lose to Rhombus.
Send over some scrims to see who is losing, my players are not in CPL but play in EEPL and WL.
Care to explain?
I do remember some build discussions regarding 3 AEQ vs 4 AEQ.
Originally posted by edmeeks
Hey buddy!
What, we made it to Canadian Pro...that's not the top?!
Hope all is well, except I hope you lose to Rhombus.
Send over some scrims to see who is losing, my players are not in CPL but play in EEPL and WL.
Originally posted by Hagalaz
Still don't get you.
now you know how most of us feel about your rants
Still don't get you.
now you know how most of us feel about your rants
godgib
offline
offline
Originally posted by Hagalaz
Still don't get you.
Originally posted by Hagalaz
Please do not keep repeating bad guides that tell people to go 4-aeq. That's no longer ideal
Only very VERY particular cases should ever go 4-AEQ. Well-rounded LBs, dual-threat QBs and CBs that want to be well rounded as well.
Still don't get you.
Originally posted by Hagalaz
Please do not keep repeating bad guides that tell people to go 4-aeq. That's no longer ideal
Only very VERY particular cases should ever go 4-AEQ. Well-rounded LBs, dual-threat QBs and CBs that want to be well rounded as well.
Hagalaz
offline
offline
Godgib, mathematically proven stuff by over 10 people is not an opinion 
And hatchman, yeah, I've noticed. Which is a pity. And annoying... But what can I do? It's not like I can teach people in a random forum how to think scientifically...
And hatchman, yeah, I've noticed. Which is a pity. And annoying... But what can I do? It's not like I can teach people in a random forum how to think scientifically...
thelanger
offline
offline
u don't think 4 aeq are better than 3 aeq for other positions besides that?
yowza
gotta disagree - imo 22.5% bt and 21% fake and 6 free points into spin and +12 speed is just flat out better than +9 speed 21% bt 15% fake and + 6 spin with hbs for example.
passing qbs need 4 aeq as well.
i guess each to their own.
yowza
gotta disagree - imo 22.5% bt and 21% fake and 6 free points into spin and +12 speed is just flat out better than +9 speed 21% bt 15% fake and + 6 spin with hbs for example.
passing qbs need 4 aeq as well.
i guess each to their own.
Originally posted by thelanger
u don't think 4 aeq are better than 3 aeq for other positions besides that?
yowza
gotta disagree - imo 22.5% bt and 21% fake and 6 free points into spin and +12 speed is just flat out better than +9 speed 21% bt 15% fake and + 6 spin with hbs for example.
passing qbs need 4 aeq as well.
i guess each to their own.
I agree a lot of people get hung up on thos high ELs for some reason. Some players do need the extra EQ others benefit from the 3 AEQ builds. It comes down to the person building the dot for whatever system their player is playing in.
u don't think 4 aeq are better than 3 aeq for other positions besides that?
yowza
gotta disagree - imo 22.5% bt and 21% fake and 6 free points into spin and +12 speed is just flat out better than +9 speed 21% bt 15% fake and + 6 spin with hbs for example.
passing qbs need 4 aeq as well.
i guess each to their own.
I agree a lot of people get hung up on thos high ELs for some reason. Some players do need the extra EQ others benefit from the 3 AEQ builds. It comes down to the person building the dot for whatever system their player is playing in.
Hagalaz
offline
offline
Originally posted by thelanger
u don't think 4 aeq are better than 3 aeq for other positions besides that?
yowza
gotta disagree - imo 22.5% bt and 21% fake and 6 free points into spin and +12 speed is just flat out better than +9 speed 21% bt 15% fake and + 6 spin with hbs for example.
passing qbs need 4 aeq as well.
i guess each to their own.
There can be other positions, I wasn't thorough in my listing, that was just the examples that came to mind, but for most people? Yeah, they're misusing AEQ. There's nothing else to it. Using AEQ in a non-end-of-tree SA or in a SA that they don't have (in tree or bonus) that is exponential are the most common cases of AEQ wasting. When one of your players is doing one of these, then dropping one piece of AEQ turns out better for you in the end.
u don't think 4 aeq are better than 3 aeq for other positions besides that?
yowza
gotta disagree - imo 22.5% bt and 21% fake and 6 free points into spin and +12 speed is just flat out better than +9 speed 21% bt 15% fake and + 6 spin with hbs for example.
passing qbs need 4 aeq as well.
i guess each to their own.
There can be other positions, I wasn't thorough in my listing, that was just the examples that came to mind, but for most people? Yeah, they're misusing AEQ. There's nothing else to it. Using AEQ in a non-end-of-tree SA or in a SA that they don't have (in tree or bonus) that is exponential are the most common cases of AEQ wasting. When one of your players is doing one of these, then dropping one piece of AEQ turns out better for you in the end.
Originally posted by Hagalaz
There can be other positions, I wasn't thorough in my listing, that was just the examples that came to mind, but for most people? Yeah, they're misusing AEQ. There's nothing else to it. Using AEQ in a non-end-of-tree SA or in a SA that they don't have (in tree or bonus) that is exponential are the most common cases of AEQ wasting. When one of your players is doing one of these, then dropping one piece of AEQ turns out better for you in the end.
There is some good points in what you are saying. But you are overlooking a aspect of building players for some players you have to waste a AEQ as you say. Especially on let's say a coverage LBer that is used as a pass rusher in situational defenses. I am not saying you are wrong in your thoughts by any means. But at times a player has to be built a little different than the usual cookie cutter build. And you do this to make the player fill multiple roles with the offense or defensive scheme. Like I said I agree with you to a extent. But sometimes builds need to be maximized to fill certain roles within the concept of the teams needs.
There can be other positions, I wasn't thorough in my listing, that was just the examples that came to mind, but for most people? Yeah, they're misusing AEQ. There's nothing else to it. Using AEQ in a non-end-of-tree SA or in a SA that they don't have (in tree or bonus) that is exponential are the most common cases of AEQ wasting. When one of your players is doing one of these, then dropping one piece of AEQ turns out better for you in the end.
There is some good points in what you are saying. But you are overlooking a aspect of building players for some players you have to waste a AEQ as you say. Especially on let's say a coverage LBer that is used as a pass rusher in situational defenses. I am not saying you are wrong in your thoughts by any means. But at times a player has to be built a little different than the usual cookie cutter build. And you do this to make the player fill multiple roles with the offense or defensive scheme. Like I said I agree with you to a extent. But sometimes builds need to be maximized to fill certain roles within the concept of the teams needs.
Hagalaz
offline
offline
Hmmm... Trust me, I'm one of the players that doesn't follow cookie cutter builds, but exceptions are that - exceptions... The vast majority of players would be better served by choosing the best path with care, instead of just blindly following what everyone else does.
Heck, some of my players are 4-aeq or are using AEQ in less than ideal scenarios, simply because they have to for their builds. But 4-AEQ is no longer the default, most players would be better built in a different way.
Heck, some of my players are 4-aeq or are using AEQ in less than ideal scenarios, simply because they have to for their builds. But 4-AEQ is no longer the default, most players would be better built in a different way.
Originally posted by Hagalaz
Hmmm... Trust me, I'm one of the players that doesn't follow cookie cutter builds, but exceptions are that - exceptions... The vast majority of players would be better served by choosing the best path with care, instead of just blindly following what everyone else does.
Heck, some of my players are 4-aeq or are using AEQ in less than ideal scenarios, simply because they have to for their builds. But 4-AEQ is no longer the default, most players would be better built in a different way.
oh I agree personally I use mostly 3 AEQ builds on most players. except for a couple that I still use 4 on. I would actually say that O-linemen could be done with 2 AEQ and still be good players. but again alot of the AEQ depends on the schemes of the teams and the role the players will be used in.
Hmmm... Trust me, I'm one of the players that doesn't follow cookie cutter builds, but exceptions are that - exceptions... The vast majority of players would be better served by choosing the best path with care, instead of just blindly following what everyone else does.
Heck, some of my players are 4-aeq or are using AEQ in less than ideal scenarios, simply because they have to for their builds. But 4-AEQ is no longer the default, most players would be better built in a different way.
oh I agree personally I use mostly 3 AEQ builds on most players. except for a couple that I still use 4 on. I would actually say that O-linemen could be done with 2 AEQ and still be good players. but again alot of the AEQ depends on the schemes of the teams and the role the players will be used in.
Serg2108
offline
offline
Originally posted by hatchman
oh I agree personally I use mostly 3 AEQ builds on most players. except for a couple that I still use 4 on. I would actually say that O-linemen could be done with 2 AEQ and still be good players. but again alot of the AEQ depends on the schemes of the teams and the role the players will be used in.
A 2 piece AEQ would result in a +6 Main Attribute short change [13x4 vs (13x2 + 10x2)]. In a linemen that's a difference between say a 165+ Strenght OL and a 159 Strength one.
In a hold block/break block roll where strength is one of the critical factors (I forget the exact formula now) you'd be silly not to max out on Strength
oh I agree personally I use mostly 3 AEQ builds on most players. except for a couple that I still use 4 on. I would actually say that O-linemen could be done with 2 AEQ and still be good players. but again alot of the AEQ depends on the schemes of the teams and the role the players will be used in.
A 2 piece AEQ would result in a +6 Main Attribute short change [13x4 vs (13x2 + 10x2)]. In a linemen that's a difference between say a 165+ Strenght OL and a 159 Strength one.
In a hold block/break block roll where strength is one of the critical factors (I forget the exact formula now) you'd be silly not to max out on Strength
Hagalaz
offline
offline
Originally posted by Serg2108
A 2 piece AEQ would result in a +6 Main Attribute short change [13x4 vs (13x2 + 10x2)]. In a linemen that's a difference between say a 165+ Strenght OL and a 159 Strength one.
In a hold block/break block roll where strength is one of the critical factors (I forget the exact formula now) you'd be silly not to max out on Strength
It'll end up being a 5 point difference in your primary, no more. And you'd get substantially higher secondaries. Don't dismiss it without first calculating it. It is not smart.
A 2 piece AEQ would result in a +6 Main Attribute short change [13x4 vs (13x2 + 10x2)]. In a linemen that's a difference between say a 165+ Strenght OL and a 159 Strength one.
In a hold block/break block roll where strength is one of the critical factors (I forget the exact formula now) you'd be silly not to max out on Strength
It'll end up being a 5 point difference in your primary, no more. And you'd get substantially higher secondaries. Don't dismiss it without first calculating it. It is not smart.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
