Warrior General Games

guess you didnt read my previous post where i said maybe trig because I have never taken a trig class.

But hey bolick

THE WORLD DOES NOT HAVE TO BOW TO YOU AND DO WHAT YOU DESIRE NOR SHOULD GLB. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWERS MY FRIEND

You should consider yourself lucky that he left alone where you said alg, stat, and trig are basic arithmetic.

Originally posted by Donk3yMan
You should consider yourself lucky that he left alone where you said alg, stat, and trig are basic arithmetic.

You didnt comprehend well then because I explained it perfectly. But ill do it again

2X+4=8 is an algebraic formula correct?

The actual actions you do (i.e subtracting 4 fro both sides, then dividing by 2) ARE BASIC ARITHMETIC. You are doin the following 4-4=0, 8-4=4, 4/2=2. Those are all basic math are they not?

Algebra can be hard if you dont know the formula but the actual math is basic. You cant get to the basic math if you havent got to understand the formula.

The "GLB" formula is so complex and hard to find out that you have to know advanced math (generic term, get off my ass for all of you forum trolls) to decipher the formula. You need to have the tools and formulaic knowledge to get to the "6th grade math" as you call it

Originally posted by burn_209
The "GLB" formula is so complex and hard to find out that you have to know advanced math (generic term, get off my ass for all of you forum trolls) to decipher the formula. You need to have the tools and formulaic knowledge to get to the "6th grade math" as you call it.
You do not have to know any advanced mathematics to understand player building in GLB1. The difficulty is in conceiving and executing a many-step plan. Basically, GLB1 is to GLB2 as chess is to checkers. Maybe that will make GLB2 more widely popular, I don't know, but I strongly believe that it will arouse less passionate interest and devotion. The complexity of player building in GLB1 is this game's best attribute.

Originally posted by burn_209
basic math is not difficult. People that say it takes basic math to build a player that isnt worthless by the middle of their career do not know what basic math is. Algebra, Statistics, Trig, all at their core are basic arithmetic. (for example finding the probability that flipping a coin and it landing on heads three times in a row is still basic multiplication as it is .5 X .5 X .5. However, even though it is an easy one. would be difficult to find out for someone that hasnt taken a statistics class and learned the formula.)

But the concepts are difficult and you use many of those concepts (algebra, stats, maybe trig) in building a player. I mean for fucks sake people...some players have to use excel spreadsheets to figure shit out on here and you dont use excel for basic math

I'm living proof that you can build good dots without following a plan or tracking builds on a spreadsheet.

I build a ton of dots, so there is no way I could go and map out every build to maximize it.

I go to my homepage, see that I have X TP to spend and Y SP to spend. I look and see where my attributes are at with respect to the next cap, I look to see how close I am to training them over, and then I make a decision. It isn't going to be mathematically optimal every single time, but it will be pretty close. And "mathematically optimal" building doesn't lead to optimal "builds", it leads to higher SP Values, which are a flawed approximation of value that assign every attribute an equal weight. It tells you that a 108 natural Confidence QB is as good as a 108 Throwing QB... It considers the SP spent in Snarl to be equal to the SP spent in Shed Blocks on a blitzing LB. It doesn't consider AEQ, it doesn't consider height/weight. It doesn't consider VAs.

There are "bad decisions" when building, but if you learn those, then most of the time you will build good dots, so long as you pay attention to what you want your dot to be able to do.

Originally posted by burn_209
You didnt comprehend well then because I explained it perfectly. But ill do it again

2X+4=8 is an algebraic formula correct?

The actual actions you do (i.e subtracting 4 fro both sides, then dividing by 2) ARE BASIC ARITHMETIC. You are doin the following 4-4=0, 8-4=4, 4/2=2. Those are all basic math are they not?

Algebra can be hard if you dont know the formula but the actual math is basic. You cant get to the basic math if you havent got to understand the formula.

The "GLB" formula is so complex and hard to find out that you have to know advanced math (generic term, get off my ass for all of you forum trolls) to decipher the formula. You need to have the tools and formulaic knowledge to get to the "6th grade math" as you call it



Considering that I not only have a masters in astrophysics now as well as an undergraduate degree in mathematics, but I also write math textbooks, let me enlighten you on the comprehension.

The last step that you do under particular circumstances is not definitive of the problem type or method by which you have to solve it. Doing a triple integration down to the point of substituting the boundaries in and performing arithmetic does not mean that it is an arithmetic problem. It is a calculus problem.

Math is about understanding the concepts needed to solve a particular problem. Different concepts are required for different types of problems. Algebra has different concepts than arithmetic, namely a variable. Statistics is even more off base and trigonometry is not even relevant. There are no unit circles, triangles, or angles in player building.

The example you gave is pretty much the most basic algebraic equation you could have possibly chose and not representative of the "core." Ask a person with only basic arithmetic skills to solve the equation x^2 + 59x + 814 = 0 or set up any permutation/combination problem (one of the original examples you gave) and they would stare at you blankly.

Upon telling someone that recently, I was told "you proved my point, you need a masters in astrophysics to be good at this game." That is not true though, I do not use any of the advanced math I know for this game whatsoever and there are many builders better than me who don't have a math background. I don't even use basic math, just the VPB. Sure I picked up on how ALGs and player building works very quickly, but I think general intelligence and physically building players are far more important than any knowledge of math outside arithmetic.

Originally posted by jdbolick
The complexity of player building in GLB1 is this game's best attribute.

I could not agree with this statement more and it is the sole reason that I play GLB.

Hah not sure how the 'ole double post got in there.

^^^Post is so good it had to be posted twice^^^
Here's some math for ya Mr. astrophysics....it only takes 1 post

Originally posted by Donk3yMan
I could not agree with this statement more and it is the sole reason that I play GLB.
That's why it boggles my mind when people talk about GLB1 being cookie-cutter. Yeah, there are "best" ways to start out a build, but after the first ~40 days there are many viable options. Even after all this time there are numerous things I still want to try.

Like touching a boob.

Originally posted by jdbolick

The complexity of player building in GLB1 is this game's best attribute.


Your attributes naturally go up as you level up. Your primary attributes more so than your secondary ones. You have some considered unimportant or not as important, that don't go up at all. As you level up, there are certain points where the amount you gain on attributes decreases. So the key is prioritization. The most important attribute of all needs to go up fast so that it sees the biggest gains. Then you cycle in your other attributes based on prioritization. Then, in the end, you take care of SAs since they don't have any natural gains. While there is math that makes it work, you don't need math to understand how it works or to implement a build plan. You just need to practice building with attribute priorities and cycling in other attributes. Looking at WL builds and reading the player building forums, creating an attribute priority list and then practicing with the player builder (VPB) training and capping attributes in good order until you get a good end build based on what you've seen and read is the absolute best way to make good dots as far as I've seen.

So no, no math used in building. In fact, the only time I ever use math is when I'm finishing a build on the VPB and trying to figure out ways to rollover a final attribute while also getting the exact number of BTs I want.

Originally posted by jdbolick

That's why it boggles my mind when people talk about GLB1 being cookie-cutter. Yeah, there are "best" ways to start out a build, but after the first ~40 days there are many viable options. Even after all this time there are numerous things I still want to try.

It's not cookie cutter per se, it's group think as I call it. The "problem" with GLB1 is more the community than the math. At the highest levels your dot has to be pretty in line with what the establishment wants or it is tough to find a dot a home. As the seasons progressed and the sim stabilized, people are pretty set in what the main attributes should be and things such as number of pieces of equipment, SAs, VAs. Heck some teams lay out the build process for everyone and have all the agents follow the "instructions." I used to only build CBs but now just build blitz CBs because I think there isn't as hard and
fast a consensus there. But building traditonal CBs holds little appeal as it is as simple as running the VPB until you get the build you know is demanded by WL DCs. Seems just about every position/archetype has an established build plan, which to say group consensus or cookie cutter.

Originally posted by podger1001
It's not cookie cutter per se, it's group think as I call it. The "problem" with GLB1 is more the community than the math. At the highest levels your dot has to be pretty in line with what the establishment wants or it is tough to find a dot a home. As the seasons progressed and the sim stabilized, people are pretty set in what the main attributes should be and things such as number of pieces of equipment, SAs, VAs. Heck some teams lay out the build process for everyone and have all the agents follow the "instructions." I used to only build CBs but now just build blitz CBs because I think there isn't as hard and
fast a consensus there. But building traditonal CBs holds little appeal as it is as simple as running the VPB until you get the build you know is demanded by WL DCs. Seems just about every position/archetype has an established build plan, which to say group consensus or cookie cutter.


Until people made successful INT CBs, then more people started to build them.

I tried a few KL CBs that failed. I was hoping that they would be fast/strong enough to be good at run coverage and hit hard enough to KL on those speedy/fake builds. They ended up getting caked by the O-line, missing tackles on pure Powerbacks, and not generating nearly as many FFs or KLs as they were allowing passes.

I still experiment, but without a backup, failed experiments can be costly to a team.