Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Rawlax
Productivity is a flawed way to compare dots, regardless of what dots are used for comparison. Too much of productivity is a result of a combination of the co-ordinator, the team and the opposition.

The only real way to compare is for the both of you to provide an example of the 'optimum build' that is achieveable for 3AEQ vs 4AEQ and get a consensus about which player people would prefer. The builds would need to be identical (or at least very similarly built) up until the point where the 4AEQ build stopped multi training to start saving BT's

Oh, I agree with you..I am just saying that it was silly for him to rant off on comparing dots at different positions At least, if he was trying to be serious, he could have picked 2 dots at the same position...but I think the problem with that was he saw he couldn't make an argument there, so went to the LB slot...that's all I'm saying.

Even your way is somewhat flawed. By "getting a consensus". Which consensus would we use? All WL teams? A mix of Pro and WL teams? If you choose agents who don't have dots in WL and never have, their opinion of a good dot might not be optimal.

I think most will agree that the best teams in GLB are WL teams, despite what people want to argue. Yes some really good Pro teams to, but most of them make their way in and out of WL.

Maybe we can agree that Hag builds dots good for a Pro team, but in order to build good WL dots, you have to have a different philosophy than his? I don't want to knock anyones goal if they aren't trying to make it to the WL...some still think the WL isn't all that, but I disagree...

Originally posted by Hagalaz
Crap, I seem to have missed this, glad it was brought to my attention. Is this still valid? Do you still want a comparison between 3 AEQ and 4 AEQ HB? Elusive or power? What spread of SAs do you want?
neither
i want a combo back that will optimize break tackle and fake pieces as best you can.

Originally posted by mwoods07
Oh, I agree with you..I am just saying that it was silly for him to rant off on comparing dots at different positions At least, if he was trying to be serious, he could have picked 2 dots at the same position...but I think the problem with that was he saw he couldn't make an argument there, so went to the LB slot...that's all I'm saying.
If only you could stop saying something that was wrong, but noooo, I guess it is asking too much.

Did you notice me saying that all I said was irrelevant? Why did I go to the trouble of writing something that is irrelevant? Care to use your brain on it? Nope? Fine, I'll tell you. To show you how ridiculous you are being. And the point sailed right through you, as expected. Oh well. Can't make a stubborn person see the truth.

Originally posted by
Even your way is somewhat flawed. By "getting a consensus". Which consensus would we use? All WL teams? A mix of Pro and WL teams? If you choose agents who don't have dots in WL and never have, their opinion of a good dot might not be optimal.
I'm quite certain that if you'll ask 5 of the top builders in the game, all 5 will tell you that choosing 4 AEQ all the time is wrong. So choose your own method AND APPLY IT, then come back and share the results with us. Go to rage kinard, tautology, dpride, jdbolick, timthorn, hell, even deathblade, whatever. Go to whomever you want. You take your pick.

Originally posted by
I think most will agree that the best teams in GLB are WL teams, despite what people want to argue. Yes some really good Pro teams to, but most of them make their way in and out of WL.
And despite your absolute stubbornness in ignoring this obvious fact, PLAYERS ARE NOT TEAMS. Can't you for ONE SINGLE TIME separate the things as they should?

Originally posted by
Maybe we can agree that Hag builds dots good for a Pro team, but in order to build good WL dots, you have to have a different philosophy than his? I don't want to knock anyones goal if they aren't trying to make it to the WL...some still think the WL isn't all that, but I disagree...
This isn't about my dots, and isn't about WL dots. It's about your building method being wrong. Period. Don't bring anything else into this, this is all there is.

Go ask whomever you want from the top teams and networks and whatever and ask them one single question: "Should I use 4 pieces of AEQ in all positions, archetypes and roles?" and tell me their answer. I'm sure you'll be UNPLEASANTLY surprised.

Originally posted by Sugar Kapaa

neither
i want a combo back that will optimize break tackle and fake pieces as best you can.

Ok, but I need the SA spread. How high do you want each one?

Originally posted by Hagalaz
Go to rage kinard, tautology, dpride, jdbolick, timthorn, hell, even deathblade, whatever

These are your top builders?

Originally posted by JoeRule124
These are your top builders?

Those ones are very good builders that are easiest to reach through public forums. But yes, I consider rage one of the best builders in this game.

Look I don't care. Choose your own top builders and ask them. I'm fine either way. I know what the answer is.

EDIT: If I might then be so bold as to inquire, which are your parameters to determine a good builder, anyway? Please tell me it has nothing to do with world league or team trophies or I'm gonna get one hell of a migraine here >_<

Top builders = most forced fumbles, regardless of position.

Originally posted by edmeeks
Top builders = most forced fumbles, regardless of position.
sweet so if i make a dot with FF% and Big Hit i can be a top builder

Originally posted by Hagalaz
Ok, but I need the SA spread. How high do you want each one?
i want Juke to 10
i want Spin to 10
i want Power Thru to 10
...expensive...

Well, the most efficient way to do that implies using AEQ for spin. Since you want juke to 10, the actual amount saved on SAs there is only the final 6 points in spin (I'm not counting the +1 to a tree from CEQ here, didn't in the previous example either, as using it would increase the advantage of 3-AEQ). That costs 30 points. Every other assumption stands, you can get something like 22.5% break tackle and 15% fake, or spend one of the pieces in avoid fumble% if you consider that essential. Otherwise, the same conclusion stands, except that you save 30 instead of 36 points, so 6 more SP in favor of the 3-AEQ approach.

Originally posted by mwoods07

Even your way is somewhat flawed. By "getting a consensus". Which consensus would we use? All WL teams? A mix of Pro and WL teams? If you choose agents who don't have dots in WL and never have, their opinion of a good dot might not be optimal.


I would suggest that both builders send the build to a neutral party who would post them as Build A vs Build B so that people could judge them independent of the number of AEQ. But i dont think this will happen so its a moot point.

As to the 3AEQ v 4AEQ argument, i get the feeling that the difference between the two is so slight it is academic. I imagine that any advantage gained/lost due to the number of AEQ is insignificant compared to the overall quality of the build. As the average build quality in this league is pretty high (my crap dots excluded, i'm only here because i have compromising photos of Edmeeks with a goat), this whole argument is pretty much over a technicality.

Originally posted by Rawlax
I would suggest that both builders send the build to a neutral party who would post them as Build A vs Build B so that people could judge them independent of the number of AEQ. But i dont think this will happen so its a moot point.

As to the 3AEQ v 4AEQ argument, i get the feeling that the difference between the two is so slight it is academic. I imagine that any advantage gained/lost due to the number of AEQ is insignificant compared to the overall quality of the build. As the average build quality in this league is pretty high (my crap dots excluded, i'm only here because i have compromising photos of Edmeeks with a goat), this whole argument is pretty much over a technicality.

Good idea

VPB GO!

-_- doing that would move away from the build method and more into the actual build. That is irrelevant to the matter at hand, unless we are both trying to reach the same goal in the build!

ok so how about i give ye both a goal of making a man2man cb with end build of
speed 160+
agility90+
vision 85+
jumping 70+
tackling 70+
stamina 60+
strength and confidence 50+

change direction, swat ball, supervision and sdc 8+ preferably 10+
deflect ball 15+
make tackl15%+
avoid fake 12%+

ye should both be able to go well over the targets there imo

interested to see the results tbh

Well, that should be easy, I'll be on to it tonight.