Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Homage
look at all these mofuckas tryna copy my PD D-line

The PD D-line I am a part of was born independently of yours out of curiosity. Sure you may have done it first but we had no knowledge of it. Mr. Newton, meet Mr. Leibniz.

Originally posted by bhall43
pretty sure that was his way of saying % AEQ is just amazing.

well think about how many skill points you'd have to have for the +3's and to equal the %

Originally posted by aaasahi
Originally posted by Longhornfan1024

So what you are doing is intentionally building worse dots in order to try something outside of the mold. If you want to do that, build efficient dots that are outside of the norm rather than building dots that are intentionally inefficient. Make your 3 or 4 AEQ dots with a pass deflecting DL and INT back 7. Try a team full of hybrid blocking/strength WRs and a super-speedy back like wise's back. Don't build bad dots on purpose.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=74
deflecting DL, yes.
INT CBS, yes.
Blk/ str ERs, yes.
Just see if these combo will work.

i think half the teams in rookie right now are building PD D-lines with INT secondary

Originally posted by foshizzel17
i think half the teams in rookie right now are building PD D-lines with INT secondary

We're trying an INT D-Line, and a PD secondary. Is that new and exciting?

Originally posted by Dr. E
What I see is a guys so sure of himself that he is ready to insult another before a build can even finish to be tested. That you have made the decision the thread is mean to show everyone I'm a brilliant builder when it's stated it was meant to find others building like dots. So, try to relax. Sit back and watch. Should you see us losing, have a laugh, and when we win, tell yourself it's luck, that at the next level we will lose.
There is no test to make. Your 2 AEQ build that you posted not only has less equipment points and hold block than my OT, but also far less strength and less agility. It's worse in every single way, aside from your misguided fascination with vision. Look, you do this a lot where you post something ridiculous and then stubbornly defend your ridiculousness instead of just learning from people who know a lot more than you do. If you don't stop to learn from others, how will you ever become more knowledgeable?

Originally posted by Dr. E
Be asked to be a tester, did that.
Thank you for highlighting this because I think the rest of GLB needs to know that they choose testers who are wholly incompetent and do not possess the slightest clue about how this game works. The fact that you actually became a tester is an indictment of the absurd way that this game is run. And that's not Catch's call or Mike Rogers'. It's Bort's. He wants testers with clean forum records as opposed to ones who might actually know something about the game.

Originally posted by Dr. E
With this 2AEQ, I only need to hit 73 and will end up the same as a dot in the low 80s under the other method.
That's not even remotely close to being true. You won't come within five points of the 3 AEQ dot.

Originally posted by Dr. E
Yea? You using our build method? Ran it on the VPB did ya? Show me!
Did you not click on the link to my player? My attributes obliterate yours even without considering the extra piece of AEQ.

i feel like im learning so much from this thread when in reality im not.

Here's all anyone really needs to know about 2 AEQ builds: it's an unnecessary handicap. Dots with only two pieces of AEQ can still be good enough to play in the WL, but there is absolutely no possible way to make a 2 AEQ dot better than a 3 AEQ dot would be, unlike the very valid debate between 3 AEQ and 4 AEQ. The extra multi-training from 2 AEQ is minimal, and converting bonus tokens to skill points wouldn't make nearly enough difference to compensate for the lost bonuses from AEQ. If you screw up and end up with two, make the best you can out of it, but never plan to finish with just two pieces.

Originally posted by foshizzel17
i think half the teams in rookie right now are building PD D-lines with INT secondary

all wanna be me

Originally posted by skeels
The PD D-line I am a part of was born independently of yours out of curiosity. Sure you may have done it first but we had no knowledge of it. Mr. Newton, meet Mr. Leibniz.

O K

I wasn't the first to make a PD D-linemen... but I was the first to make it a team defensive concept and put it into action and make it successful. You may consider your ideas independent, but we went balls out with it.

Originally posted by Homage
O K

I wasn't the first to make a PD D-linemen... but I was the first to make it a team defensive concept and put it into action and make it successful. You may consider your ideas independent, but we went balls out with it.

OMG, whatever, you were not the "First" to have this concept. Lots of agents do not even post in the main forum that have tried this concept long before you had.

I was the first with balls out, for the record.