Warrior General Games

I cant wait for the response to that.

Originally posted by Rawlax
I cant wait for the response to that.

Why? I wasn't arguing the debate of 4 AEQ or 3 AEQ.

on a personal addition to the debate about 3 AEQ or 4 AEQ. I feel that a dot that is built right can be very successful with 3 or 4 pieces of AEQ. but most of the success a dot has comes from being with good coordinators. you can have the best built dot in GLB but if that dot is on a team with a crappy owner and crappy coordinators like myself. them the dot is screwed plain and simple. I can see where both Hag and Mwoods are coming from. they both think their ways are the best ways. one uses the success of his group as his argument but to me that argument is a little skewed because those dots play for some of the better coordinators in the game. where as Hag argues his method and I really haven't figured out what he is basing his methods success on. but both make a good argument. but both sides also have to weigh in the caliber of coordinators their respective dots play for.

I say a fair way that both Mwoods and Hag can settle the debate is both make 1 player at the same position. and sign those 2 dots to a team that neither is associated with and see which dot performs better. I would say that a fair owner would be Yello1 he is a well known agent on the game and he has a ton of teams. and from what I could tell neither is associated with Yello1.

Originally posted by
I assumed you were saying that Rhombus was underleveled and when they got even level with everyone else, they would be good.
Well, you should not assume anything. It just makes an ASS of U and ME.

I was saying ANY TEAM that is level 73 is at a technical disadvantage versus any team that is at 79. As I said, I would say the same about ANY team in the same circumstance, and never did I say that rhombus were good or bad. IT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER. It is IRRELEVANT to the point at hand. HOW BLOODY HARD IS IT TO UNDERSTAND THIS ?! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I REPEAT THIS ?!

Originally posted by
This is NOT accurate, as we have had SEVERAL teams make it to the WL before they even reached plateau as a team, so those level 73 dots beat up on a whole lot of level 79 teams...
And those teams managed to overcome the disadvantage they were at. So what? Do you know anything about the scientific method ? Just because something happens 10 times does not mean it happens 100% of the times. In 10000 teams it might have happened 20 times. 100, hell it could have happened 1000 times and STILL The disadvantage is there because given equal build quality on either side, the 79 team HAS AN ADVANTAGE. DUH.

Originally posted by mwoods07
If I read this correctly, you are saying that the only reason the team was ranked low was because they were 73 and lost to 79's. I call B.S. I think the team lost because they have a build advisor who tells them to go with 3 AEQ, and that now that they are level 79, they are still going to get owned by half the teams in the league, losing by 50+ to the top 2-3 teams.
Yeah well learn to read. What I said was that T2's method was flawed. And it was. And it is. Period. I'm not a "build advisor", I'm not a owner, I'm just a player with 3 players on the team, 2 stops and a DT. However, we might get back to this in a little while

Originally posted by
See the problem is you are so narrow minded that you think "my way is the best", when you have ZERO evidence to prove it. What does DS have to prove we know how to build dots? I'd argue plenty, given the number of Pro golds we take each season, and the number of WL golds/silvers under our belts...
As I said, will you admit your ignorance and attempt to improve should I provide evidence that you are wrong? Just say yes, and the evidence will show up.

Originally posted by
Keep building your 3 AEQ dots and keep succeeding in Minors...just stop taking all the new guys down with you and let them learn from teams that have an established winning style.
Blah blah keep showing you are arrogant bastard that doesn't want to improve. Or accept that you don't know anything, open your eyes, and prepare to be amazed

The call is yours, but it is the final call, either you swear to abide by the facts, or you'll be ignored from here on out as another of the vermin that infests this forum, unworthy to even be allowed to be considered the same species as us who want to make everything better.

Cheers! ^_^

:\ Ed, could I ask you to stay out of this? Whether I want my other players to be shown here or not should be MY decision. And I didn't.

you still suck ass, I refuse to read this garbage

Originally posted by Hagalaz
:\ Ed, could I ask you to stay out of this? Whether I want my other players to be shown here or not should be MY decision. And I didn't.

Out. Edited. Hugs.

Originally posted by Hagalaz
:\ Ed, could I ask you to stay out of this? Whether I want my other players to be shown here or not should be MY decision. And I didn't.

lol stfu. how stupid possessive fo you have to be to tell someone defending you to shut up. like wtf who do you think you are? From what Ive read you are nothing more than an ignorant cry baby.

Hatchman, I don't think it all coordinators. I mean we aren't bad, but teams like D9 and other Pro teams go through the season and most of the playoffs with NO scouting and NO gameplanning. That tells me that the builds themselves are good enough to stand on their own.

As for Hag...I think he thinks way more highly of himself and his "scientific method" to a video game than anyone else really does. I think you should just stop trying to help guide peoples builds when you have no success to back it with. How many Gold Trophies have your players won over the years. Either your builds aren't good enough to get on good teams, or you really don't care about the game. In either case, you shouldn't be helping people build in a fashion that has ZERO success.

You are a BAAAD BAAD builder and your teams are also really bad. I think you are the one that can't see the facts...you claimed the level 73 issue as being why you got blown out. Care to explain why you are 1-2 and likely going to miss the playoffs? You defended your team then, lets here some defense about the lack of success so far.

BTW, you should edit more when you type...

Care to put a wager on the D9/Rhombus game? These are some of our lower dots and we won't gameplan...we will even give you a 20 point spread. Any wagers? Or if you would rather, you can play Odessa and see what a team of 4 AEQ dots will do to your "scientific method"!!! Thinking 100+ easily? They are level 79 just like you guys are...

Originally posted by mwoods07
Hatchman, I don't think it all coordinators. I mean we aren't bad, but teams like D9 and other Pro teams go through the season and most of the playoffs with NO scouting and NO gameplanning. That tells me that the builds themselves are good enough to stand on their own.

As for Hag...I think he thinks way more highly of himself and his "scientific method" to a video game than anyone else really does. I think you should just stop trying to help guide peoples builds when you have no success to back it with. How many Gold Trophies have your players won over the years. Either your builds aren't good enough to get on good teams, or you really don't care about the game. In either case, you shouldn't be helping people build in a fashion that has ZERO success.

You are a BAAAD BAAD builder and your teams are also really bad. I think you are the one that can't see the facts...you claimed the level 73 issue as being why you got blown out. Care to explain why you are 1-2 and likely going to miss the playoffs? You defended your team then, lets here some defense about the lack of success so far.

BTW, you should edit more when you type...

Care to put a wager on the D9/Rhombus game? These are some of our lower dots and we won't gameplan...we will even give you a 20 point spread. Any wagers? Or if you would rather, you can play Odessa and see what a team of 4 AEQ dots will do to your "scientific method"!!! Thinking 100+ easily? They are level 79 just like you guys are...

Ok person whose IQ is less than that of a baboon. Have it your way. Fuck off and die, preferably in a painful and humiliating way, like a red hot burning iron shoved up your rectum. Honestly.

How do you people ignore reality so much? Really?

SCREW RHOMBUS!

Get that in your fucking cro-magnon brain!! RHOMBUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOTHING! ZERO! NADA!

I
WOULD
HAVE
SAID
THE
SAME
ABOUT
ANY
TEAM

I do not want to put a wager on ANY game, I do not play the survivor game, I do not give a fuck. RHOMBUS IS NOT ME AND I AM NOT RHOMBUS. (Also, trollycow, this is why I do NOT accept that anyone buts into my conversation and ruins all I'm trying to prove, defending me or not.). You could beat us by 255-0 and what I said would still be right, because it is independent of teams, and independent of results, and only depends one one thing:

COLD.HARD.NUMBERS!

Now, as to the "bad builder", let's prove you wrong then. Ed shouldn't have brought my player in but it's too late now. So let's put your own words to the test, shall we?

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2444767 <- this is your LB
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2472392 <- this is mine.

My player has been MVP for the past two seasons in the pros, and between #1 and #2 global LB in the game. Yours is in the 5000s, and #45 LB in the league. Mine's #1.

My LB has 2 MVP trophies, 2 most sacks trophies, 2 force fumble trophies, all of these from the pros. Yours has jack shit. My LB was a crucial piece of what was the #1 or #2 defense in his league. Yours is the exact definition of "middle of the pack". I mean really, 12 pd 0 kl 0 int in FIFTY FIVE targets ??!? Really? Are you proud of yourself? Are you? That's TERRIBLE.

Your player had 42 tackles, 4 of those (10.5%) for a loss. Mine had 63 tackles, 27 of those for a loss (42.9%).

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. You had 202 plays. I had 127. You had almost twice as much plays and had less than 1/4 of the efficiency. So that means your player is EIGHT TIMES LESS USEFUL than mine, while both are in the pros. I'm not even going to bring in the sacks and force fumbles into the argument. Where's the advantage of 4 AEQ pieces? YES? YEEEES? WHERE IS IT. COME ON. SHOW ME.

So this should prove to you that I am a better builder right? right? WRONG! THIS IS IRRELEVANT. Team mates, opponents and above all the AI and coordinating are much more important than an individual person's build, but from the success you claim to have, looking at your player, I can only say one thing: YOU ARE BEING CARRIED BY BETTER AGENTS.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE.

Remember what I said about proof and evidence? Let's get to that.

If 4 AEQ is better than 3 AEQ all the time, then I cannot possibly show you a build where such is not the case, right? Well I'm about to. In fact, I could pick a lot of different positions and roles Any that doesn't require a huge amount of different roles will be a good choice. Let's think of, say, a NT run stuffer?

ASSUMPTIONS: You will not invest into big sack (not enough sacks to justify it) or D-line general (it's pretty much crap). You will invest all the equipment into strength. You will not get more than 2 pieces of AEQ on a % value.

Here's what we have then (do note that this is an example, not a good end build, it's just to demonstrate a point):

+55 STR +22.5% break block +22.5% make tackle 10 wall 10 break through 10 strong base 5 swat ball (required to get the strong base) 3 shed blocks 2 the glare.

VS

+58 STR +22.5% break block + 22.5% make tackle 10 wall 10 break through 10 strong base (6 of those from AEQ) 2 swat ball (required to get the strong base) 1 shed blocks 1 the glare.

This is the best possible scenario IN YOUR FAVOR, as it showcases the maximum possible SP saving from the AEQ.

First, let's look at the SP value. This extra piece of AEQ requires 300 BT (upgrades) plus creation cost of 125 BT (let's say a +3 speed +5% make tackle) for a total cost of 425 BT. You are saving 24 SP from strong base plus 9 points from swat ball plus 2 points from shed blocks and 1 point from the glare, for a total of 36 SP.

To get the 425 extra BT at a 6 BT per day light training versus 3 BT per day of 4-way multi, you'd need to stop multi-ing 56 days earlier. This means you are losing 14 multi-training sessions. In those 14 sessions, you could be training your primary in the mid 90s (let's say 16 SP cost), two attributes in the high 80s (let's say 8 and 9 SP cost, respectively) and 1 lower attribute in the 50s (2 sp cost).

At 7.4% training gains in the first attribute, 10.4% training gains in the 2nd and 3rd attribute mentioned, 35% gains in the last one (all per session of course) those training sessions will grant you 16,64 + 11,648 + 13,104 + 9,8 for a grand total of 51,192 SP (let's round it ot 51, again in your favor - and just before you complain, we use the comma for a decimal point here, I know some regions over there do not. Just making it clear). If instead we were doing light train, we'd have 1% per session on the first attribute, 2% per session on the 2nd attribute or 9% per session on the final attribute. The best scenario here would be spending those light training sessions on the first attribute for 10,64 SP gain.

51 > 36, meaning you are gaining 15 SP-value just by choosing NOT to go for the 4th piece of AEQ.

But SP value isn't everything. Let's look at the +3 gained on the primary. Assuming 105 natural (do note I am not going into extremes here, as this will be enough AND that I am assuming the half bar we got from light training would get you another point in it, or the difference would be even further in favor of the 3 AEQ setup) the difference would be 160 strength (105 + 55) versus 163 strength (105 + 58). At that point, this is a 1,3% increase (Less if we include attribute-increasing VAs which would bring it to 1,1% if we used them).

That bonus to the primary is costing 1 (it's more like 1,4 since the training bar would be 40% full, but again, rounding down in your favor) point in each of two secondary attributes and 5 points in the last attribute mentioned.

So, even though this is rounding everything out in favor of the 4-AEQ scenario, and assuming the best case scenario for that approach (which isn't going to happen often, let alone all the time), this still means your build is gaining value in general AND ENDING UP AT THE SAME SPOT SA-WISE.

Now what are you going to do? Pretend to be a ostrich, shove your head in the ground and ignore the truth, or are you going to cover your ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" like a little kid?

Something is rotten in the kingdom of denmark... Your attitude!

And I'd like to finish this by quoting monty python...

"Now go away, or we shall taunt you a second time!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY&t=01m14s

thread delivers

Originally posted by hatchman
Originally posted by Rawlax

I cant wait for the response to that.

Why? I wasn't arguing the debate of 4 AEQ or 3 AEQ.

on a personal addition to the debate about 3 AEQ or 4 AEQ. I feel that a dot that is built right can be very successful with 3 or 4 pieces of AEQ. but most of the success a dot has comes from being with good coordinators. you can have the best built dot in GLB but if that dot is on a team with a crappy owner and crappy coordinators like myself. them the dot is screwed plain and simple. I can see where both Hag and Mwoods are coming from. they both think their ways are the best ways. one uses the success of his group as his argument but to me that argument is a little skewed because those dots play for some of the better coordinators in the game. where as Hag argues his method and I really haven't figured out what he is basing his methods success on. but both make a good argument. but both sides also have to weigh in the caliber of coordinators their respective dots play for.

I say a fair way that both Mwoods and Hag can settle the debate is both make 1 player at the same position. and sign those 2 dots to a team that neither is associated with and see which dot performs better. I would say that a fair owner would be Yello1 he is a well known agent on the game and he has a ton of teams. and from what I could tell neither is associated with Yello1.

I should have quoted the post before yours last time, i was referring to the epic flame war that i could see happening....and did

Originally posted by mrmaomao
thread delivers

Compelling and rich.

Thread delivers yet again and hag has had another rant.

wait...we are comparing a cLB v bLB?