Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by reddogrw

have you considered capping attributes (with or without equipment) to reduce the extreme nature of builds or is making the secondary attributes more important happening at other positions besides WR?

thinking things like vision for OL (not highly regarded even though it is a major for all OL)

Actually, yes we have. Discussed this today and it's something we're strongly considering. Going to discuss internally a bit more first though.


Could you do this sooner rather than later? I have wanted to quit for a long time, and controlling the way I build players is the easiest way to get me out of here.

Originally posted by bigtisme
Is this something we will get a poll or some sort of vote on? I'm be surprised if the majority would support this change.

EDIT: the change being making a hard cap on attributes

Wouldn't be a hard cap on attributes, would be a cap on the number of points you could put into an attribute via EQ.

And no it would not be voted on. If we think something needs to be done to improve the game, we're going to do it.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by Ubasstards

Originally posted by Ubasstards


people keep complaining that WRs dont fumble enough. Is it because CBs arent built to force fumbles or something in the code where WRs fumble less.


And no, DONT INCREASE WR FUMBLES



Nothing special that makes WR's fumble less. There just aren't a lot of good opportunities for a WR to get hit with a fumble causing hit. Most of the time they only touch the ball 4 or 5 times in the game and get tackled while moving slowly by a weak CB.

Got to get that passing fixed bro for 900 flex a season.

Originally posted by Toriq
I think this should be a priority or at least there should be some sort of diminishing returns for the super-high attributes that are semi-game breaking. There is no reason that players should be able to have 160+ SPD on a build with-out incorporating diminishing returns on atts going over 100 or 110 or something. These "super-freak" builds are breaking the game, IMO.

All builds in the future will break the game. The answer isn't capping attributes at some arbitrary level, it's to make the secondary attributes that they neglect more important, so that there is an actual weakness to an extreme build. 170 speed WR with 30 strength and 50 carrying? Fumble machine.

The deviations created by going extreme should also be lessened so that defensive dots who have to be more well-rounded can still cover the extreme offensive dots to some extent.

Originally posted by Real LT
Are there any plans to improve the game planing controls for casual teams?

yeah it's called dish out 600 more flex and buy a real team

Originally posted by jamz
Do you feel each setting for player level tactics have a place in the game? (AKA are working as intended, and a viable option).

You see a lot of hivemind out there these days in what people are utilizing, it tends to be said because X or Y settings are ineffective.

Some are meant to be more for special case scenarios, like loose coverage because your defender is really slow, etc. I don't expect very many people to use it, but it's there just in case. Play intensity is probably the biggest one, where everyone just plays on hard, even though we did change it a couple seasons ago to be +0%/+5%/+10%.

I think the slider-based items get a lot of different settings in use.

Any chance of the team scrimmaging itself?

Originally posted by Catch22
a cap on the number of points you could put into an attribute via EQ.

:|

Originally posted by TrevJo
I've noticed that players set to "cover man" sometimes move to line up in front of the receiver, and sometimes not. Is this intended? Is there some logic to it?

Examples:
-On this goal line defense, the CBs are set to cover man on the HB and FB, and the FS is set to cover man on the TE. The CBs line up over their man pre-snap, but the FS does not. http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1395627&pbp_id=10348163
-On this pro set defense, the ROLB is set to cover man on the TE, and the LOLB is set to cover man on the HB. Neither lines up over his man pre-snap. http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1395627&pbp_id=10348073

Yes, it depends on where they start out. If they start out "in the box" they will stay put. If they are outside like a CB, they'll reposition themselves.

Originally posted by Catch22
Wouldn't be a hard cap on attributes, would be a cap on the number of points you could put into an attribute via EQ.

And no it would not be voted on. If we think something needs to be done to improve the game, we're going to do it.

oh ffs...

Originally posted by Catch22
If we think something needs to be done to improve the game, we're going to do it.

Removing the best aspect of glb =/= improving the game

Originally posted by Toriq
Originally posted by Catch22

Actually, yes we have. Discussed this today and it's something we're strongly considering. Going to discuss internally a bit more first though.

I think this should be a priority or at least there should be some sort of diminishing returns for the super-high attributes that are semi-game breaking. There is no reason that players should be able to have 160+ SPD on a build with-out incorporating diminishing returns on atts going over 100 or 110 or something. These "super-freak" builds are breaking the game, IMO.

Agreed.

Originally posted by bhall43
Originally posted by jamz

That's what I'm getting at really. Needs to be more than the NEED FOR SPEED, I'd like to see different 'spec lines' excel in different areas, requiring different attributes. Especially for WRs/TEs

u and me both

Kind of defeats the purpose of Archetypes as well if you ask me.