- infinity
Forum > Suggestions > Put a 'dent' in the creation of 'perfect' builds with AEQ prices based off supply/demand
Larry Roadgrader
offline
offline
Originally posted by yello1
I'll take that if it comes with all equipment rolled in the store being appropriate the archtype of the dot doing the shopping.
+1 w/caveat
Proving once again that rather than *getting* the game (in this case the example being that you don't understand that a "inappropriate" roll is the game's way of saying "Sorry, please try again"), that you'd prefer to just blindly hope that somebody will change it for you.
I'll take that if it comes with all equipment rolled in the store being appropriate the archtype of the dot doing the shopping.
+1 w/caveat
Proving once again that rather than *getting* the game (in this case the example being that you don't understand that a "inappropriate" roll is the game's way of saying "Sorry, please try again"), that you'd prefer to just blindly hope that somebody will change it for you.
People even without a lot of money could just create a bunch of non-boosting players and use them to buy crappy eq which would drive down the price of good eq. Imagine a network with 50 people, if even 30 of them committed to build 20 non-boosting players just for this purpose, but probably many networks would do this. I make a non-boosting peewee team each season and that's 55 players. It is not that far-fetched to imagine this scenario nor would it cost that much. Basically it costs 12,000 flex or so to make 55 players and you would get it all back. You could even make them all cheapo O-linemen since GLB loves giving every position every other position's eq and that 12,000 flex instead of making 55 players could make 120.
To me randomness in builds is like injuries. It is very realistic but it will never be popular in games and it will probably never work. The best policy I think is to try and find other ways to create diversity. Probably you could come up with a way to create a superstar but it would have to be something that happens late in a build. Still people would riot about this. It's not real life; it's a game, and it kind of depends on people knowing that they are starting on an even footing with every other user, if not in terms of knowledge, at least in terms of game mechanics.
To me randomness in builds is like injuries. It is very realistic but it will never be popular in games and it will probably never work. The best policy I think is to try and find other ways to create diversity. Probably you could come up with a way to create a superstar but it would have to be something that happens late in a build. Still people would riot about this. It's not real life; it's a game, and it kind of depends on people knowing that they are starting on an even footing with every other user, if not in terms of knowledge, at least in terms of game mechanics.
Edited by tpaterniti on Jun 12, 2012 22:59:28
Edited by tpaterniti on Jun 12, 2012 22:55:53
Torg
offline
offline
Originally posted by yello1
I'll take that if it comes with all equipment rolled in the store being appropriate the archtype of the dot doing the shopping.
+1 w/caveat
+1 totally agree with this..once my DT stops rolling +blocking + bt% pieces we can talk
I'll take that if it comes with all equipment rolled in the store being appropriate the archtype of the dot doing the shopping.
+1 w/caveat
+1 totally agree with this..once my DT stops rolling +blocking + bt% pieces we can talk
I get what Mat is trying for even if the suggestion isn't something that would work. The SIM that is GLB is math based. With each tweak of the game mechanics and dot building mechanics, you get closer and closer to having a game where every dot is a carbon copy of all other dots of it's kind and then there's nothing left to really work for. Sometimes parity can by too much. It is something I watch for every season... build forums basically mapping out the math to build the "perfect dot". What if that's all anyone built? There'd be nothing different about the game and it would be mindless persuit to simple plug in formula A into Dot B, over and over. The closer this game gets to that, the more I lose desire to play. Anyone can copy... innovation takes skill and the ROOM to innovate within the confines of the game.
-1 for the suggestion... +1,000 for the mindset of the idea.
-1 for the suggestion... +1,000 for the mindset of the idea.
But the answer is in theory to make all the archetypes viable so you have different types of matchups in many places. Strong DBs versus fast WRs, Strong WRs versus fast DBs, Quick WRs versus Quick DBs, and so forth with lots of combinations.
Bort intended the game to be kind of paper-rock-scissors which is just a simplified way of saying he wanted it to be about matchups. Maybe your team runs like a beast and has a good run defense, but when they run into my team built to stop the run, but pass the ball on offense they can't run at all and I pass all over them. If I play a team built to pass on offense and stop the pass, I can't do anything. If I play a balanced team I am moderately successful on both offense and defense and so on. At least in theory the game is supposed to be about matchups. The problem is much of the game has been created to where people don't have to trade off very much to be good at everything, so builds become more cookie cutter because it's possible to do. I think builds now will be necessarily worse than before due to much less training which may help this problem by forcing builders to make more difficult choices.
The best RPGs make many choices viable but in a different way. It is a difficult balance to strike, but it can be done with a lot of work. Look at a game like Starcraft and you see three races, all very different with different abilities and even philosophies, but each is viable and many different strategies and abilities are viable if used intelligently, and a lot of your success depends on your build strategy, which in Starcraft is kind of a combo between our building and our game-to-game tactics. What you don't see a lot of is things like GLB VAs that no one ever uses. As I said, there is a balance. If it's never worth it, then get rid of it or change it. If it is a must have, then again get rid of it or change it. Some VAs have fallen by the wayside here (anyone remember Motivational Speaker?) and probably most of the VAs and SAs need to be reworked in my opinion.
Bort intended the game to be kind of paper-rock-scissors which is just a simplified way of saying he wanted it to be about matchups. Maybe your team runs like a beast and has a good run defense, but when they run into my team built to stop the run, but pass the ball on offense they can't run at all and I pass all over them. If I play a team built to pass on offense and stop the pass, I can't do anything. If I play a balanced team I am moderately successful on both offense and defense and so on. At least in theory the game is supposed to be about matchups. The problem is much of the game has been created to where people don't have to trade off very much to be good at everything, so builds become more cookie cutter because it's possible to do. I think builds now will be necessarily worse than before due to much less training which may help this problem by forcing builders to make more difficult choices.
The best RPGs make many choices viable but in a different way. It is a difficult balance to strike, but it can be done with a lot of work. Look at a game like Starcraft and you see three races, all very different with different abilities and even philosophies, but each is viable and many different strategies and abilities are viable if used intelligently, and a lot of your success depends on your build strategy, which in Starcraft is kind of a combo between our building and our game-to-game tactics. What you don't see a lot of is things like GLB VAs that no one ever uses. As I said, there is a balance. If it's never worth it, then get rid of it or change it. If it is a must have, then again get rid of it or change it. Some VAs have fallen by the wayside here (anyone remember Motivational Speaker?) and probably most of the VAs and SAs need to be reworked in my opinion.
Edited by tpaterniti on Jun 13, 2012 01:37:51
Edited by tpaterniti on Jun 13, 2012 01:35:51
hey guys imma build a dot but then find out the AEQ costs too much BT and Ive just wasted a year
-1
-1
Originally posted by Thundercat_12
-1 horrible idea!
this is why Mods dont belong in the game
lol. Nice rage.
-1 horrible idea!
this is why Mods dont belong in the game
lol. Nice rage.
Originally posted by tpaterniti
But the answer is in theory to make all the archetypes viable so you have different types of matchups in many places. Strong DBs versus fast WRs, Strong WRs versus fast DBs, Quick WRs versus Quick DBs, and so forth with lots of combinations.
Bort intended the game to be kind of paper-rock-scissors which is just a simplified way of saying he wanted it to be about matchups. Maybe your team runs like a beast and has a good run defense, but when they run into my team built to stop the run, but pass the ball on offense they can't run at all and I pass all over them. If I play a team built to pass on offense and stop the pass, I can't do anything. If I play a balanced team I am moderately successful on both offense and defense and so on. At least in theory the game is supposed to be about matchups. The problem is much of the game has been created to where people don't have to trade off very much to be good at everything, so builds become more cookie cutter because it's possible to do. I think builds now will be necessarily worse than before due to much less training which may help this problem by forcing builders to make more difficult choices.
The best RPGs make many choices viable but in a different way. It is a difficult balance to strike, but it can be done with a lot of work. Look at a game like Starcraft and you see three races, all very different with different abilities and even philosophies, but each is viable and many different strategies and abilities are viable if used intelligently, and a lot of your success depends on your build strategy, which in Starcraft is kind of a combo between our building and our game-to-game tactics. What you don't see a lot of is things like GLB VAs that no one ever uses. As I said, there is a balance. If it's never worth it, then get rid of it or change it. If it is a must have, then again get rid of it or change it. Some VAs have fallen by the wayside here (anyone remember Motivational Speaker?) and probably most of the VAs and SAs need to be reworked in my opinion.
But then you just get Zerg rushed by the people who are willing and able to find and use an exploit in the game.
But the answer is in theory to make all the archetypes viable so you have different types of matchups in many places. Strong DBs versus fast WRs, Strong WRs versus fast DBs, Quick WRs versus Quick DBs, and so forth with lots of combinations.
Bort intended the game to be kind of paper-rock-scissors which is just a simplified way of saying he wanted it to be about matchups. Maybe your team runs like a beast and has a good run defense, but when they run into my team built to stop the run, but pass the ball on offense they can't run at all and I pass all over them. If I play a team built to pass on offense and stop the pass, I can't do anything. If I play a balanced team I am moderately successful on both offense and defense and so on. At least in theory the game is supposed to be about matchups. The problem is much of the game has been created to where people don't have to trade off very much to be good at everything, so builds become more cookie cutter because it's possible to do. I think builds now will be necessarily worse than before due to much less training which may help this problem by forcing builders to make more difficult choices.
The best RPGs make many choices viable but in a different way. It is a difficult balance to strike, but it can be done with a lot of work. Look at a game like Starcraft and you see three races, all very different with different abilities and even philosophies, but each is viable and many different strategies and abilities are viable if used intelligently, and a lot of your success depends on your build strategy, which in Starcraft is kind of a combo between our building and our game-to-game tactics. What you don't see a lot of is things like GLB VAs that no one ever uses. As I said, there is a balance. If it's never worth it, then get rid of it or change it. If it is a must have, then again get rid of it or change it. Some VAs have fallen by the wayside here (anyone remember Motivational Speaker?) and probably most of the VAs and SAs need to be reworked in my opinion.
But then you just get Zerg rushed by the people who are willing and able to find and use an exploit in the game.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
