Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Time Trial
Until people made successful INT CBs, then more people started to build them.

That is exactly what I was thinking.

Also, if a dot is built well (not meta, just efficient in its purpose) then it can get a job on a decent PL team. If the dot performs well there maybe it gets a chance in WL.

Originally posted by Time Trial
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.

True. I'm not saying the best builds have all been found. But to your two points it is hard getting someone to give a new build a chance (especially if you are not known within a network) and if it fails it was a long/expensive lesson to learn.

To my point, once the "successful" INT build is "found" then it reverts back to cookie cutter and people start to expect the end build to look a certain way. And it becomes less about math and more about replicating a build.

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.


That "group think" as you like to call it only magnifies in GLB2 where there are no ALG's and the ability to almost completely copy someones player with one swift respec.

As far as every arch having an established plan that is kinda small minded. There are certainly different ways to make players and have success. Though I do however find building to be really boring myself in GLB1. Granted I don't see anything about GLB2's building process that is going to recapture the magic of that aspect of the game for me.

Originally posted by podger1001
True. I'm not saying the best builds have all been found. But to your two points it is hard getting someone to give a new build a chance (especially if you are not known within a network) and if it fails it was a long/expensive lesson to learn.

To my point, once the "successful" INT build is "found" then it reverts back to cookie cutter and people start to expect the end build to look a certain way. And it becomes less about math and more about replicating a build.

It really isn't that hard. Especially when you have guys like me just looking to fill a team out in WL. I will generally take on just about anything and see if I can make it work.

Originally posted by bhall43
It really isn't that hard. Especially when you have guys like me just looking to fill a team out in WL. I will generally take on just about anything and see if I can make it work.

I think there is a difference currently between what Pro and WL is today (with CPU teams invasive in both) then back in the day.

Originally posted by bhall43
Though I do however find building to be really boring myself in GLB1.

I agree. I think when people refer to math it is sometimes a proxy for complexity. Not that building is rocket science, but there are many hoops to jump through to maximize your effort. And many people would rather jump into a game than read the directions so to say.

I've wondered if incorporating the VPB into the game and letting people just pay to have a day 280 dot (i.e build it in VPB, pony up the 6000 flex of whatever and have a day 48 level 73 dot) wouldn't be of value. The dot then could go to 76 during the next preseason and be 79 day 1. I realize this would kill a lot of the minors, but it would give builders a choice. For most people the minors represent nothing more than a waiting game until level 79 with little cares to stats and championships.

Originally posted by podger1001
I agree. I think when people refer to math it is sometimes a proxy for complexity. Not that building is rocket science, but there are many hoops to jump through to maximize your effort. And many people would rather jump into a game than read the directions so to say.

I've wondered if incorporating the VPB into the game and letting people just pay to have a day 280 dot (i.e build it in VPB, pony up the 6000 flex of whatever and have a day 48 level 73 dot) wouldn't be of value. The dot then could go to 76 during the next preseason and be 79 day 1. I realize this would kill a lot of the minors, but it would give builders a choice. For most people the minors represent nothing more than a waiting game until level 79 with little cares to stats and championships.

I have to say as a person on the current testing of GLB2 that something like that would absolutely destroy GLB. The boredom factor really kicks in when you can just build a dot like that a lot quicker than you think.

Originally posted by bhall43
I have to say as a person on the current testing of GLB2 that something like that would absolutely destroy GLB. The boredom factor really kicks in when you can just build a dot like that a lot quicker than you think.

I can imagine this to be true. I am probably one of the few people that like the building process as is. Part of the reason I care so much about my plateau dots in the time and effort I have put into them.

Perhaps. And you may know better. But GLB may implode either way. I'm the opposite side of that coin.

Right now I have 4 dots, the two level 79 dots I tune in and care about the other two I really won't until they are at 79. The build process is boring and the change rate so incremental. Allowing it to be a choice probably would bolster the upper leagues and help accelerate of the churn of flex. Don't know about others, but the "enjoyment" of daily training, boosting etc is nowhere near the that of watching a dot perform in WL or Natty Pro fully built out. With the VPB, I pretty much know where my dot will be day 280, so the journey isn't much more than a waiting game.

It sounds real great. In fact it is really cool for a span of a week. But if everyone in GLB just started building insta dots with the VPB the mystique would fade very quickly. What is great about having to go through and build a player vs. using the VPB is you will notice with people constantly churning out VPB builds and posting them. They all look so damn similar it is ridiculous. However going through the process of building, the odds of them coming out with those exact builds is minimal. The beauty of actually having to go through a career and building a character is that your plans can change at a whim often times. Just being able to create insta pro dots is a quick way to get really bored of doing so.

The bigger problem obviously is that lower levels aren't fun to watch. But not really anything is going to change that at this point.

Honestly people probably haven't even scratched the surface on most builds in GLB as to what is the best build for any position. It would be a very short ride to that if given a insta level shot. In fact a guy like taut would have completely worked us all 10 times over if there was that ability by now.

Originally posted by bhall43
I have to say as a person on the current testing of GLB2 that something like that would absolutely destroy GLB. The boredom factor really kicks in when you can just build a dot like that a lot quicker than you think.

Depends how it's implemented. I generally prefer choice. Would love an insta plateau dot feature where that dot just has a lower potential then a normally leveled dot. Like no breakthroughs for however many training sessions you use with the insta leveling, 5 SP on boost levels during insta and less of a 25th boost bonus based on how many days you instaleveled. Make it clearly preferable to build out normally. But if my Reg Minor team has their blocking TE retire and the market sucks it would be nice to be able to make a player to fill that spot going forward. Or yeah, if I find some wicked SA combo and I have the $ I can throw that right into Pro/WL and not have to wait 6 months (and probably have the sim move away from that anyway).

Originally posted by Donk3yMan
I can imagine this to be true. I am probably one of the few people that like the building process as is. Part of the reason I care so much about my plateau dots in the time and effort I have put into them.

I don't think this is true. I think many of the players who are still here at this point feel that way. Or they coordinate.......and there ain't many coordinators.

Originally posted by bhall43
Honestly people probably haven't even scratched the surface on most builds in GLB as to what is the best build for any position. It would be a very short ride to that if given a insta level shot. In fact a guy like taut would have completely worked us all 10 times over if there was that ability by now.

Only if those dots have the same (or close to) potential as a normally leveled dot, and there would be no reason to set up the system for them to be.

Originally posted by threadkiller
Depends how it's implemented. I generally prefer choice. Would love an insta plateau dot feature where that dot just has a lower potential then a normally leveled dot. Like no breakthroughs for however many training sessions you use with the insta leveling, 5 SP on boost levels during insta and less of a 25th boost bonus based on how many days you instaleveled. Make it clearly preferable to build out normally. But if my Reg Minor team has their blocking TE retire and the market sucks it would be nice to be able to make a player to fill that spot going forward. Or yeah, if I find some wicked SA combo and I have the $ I can throw that right into Pro/WL and not have to wait 6 months (and probably have the sim move away from that anyway).

The only reason you would prefer a non insta dot in that respect is if you were shooting for a perfect SP Value. Which is relatively meaningless when you could just make 55 insta dots built perfectly around your plan of attack.

Much like the respec idea surrounding GLB2. It is just a good way to ruin any of the mystique building has left.

Originally posted by bhall43
The bigger problem obviously is that lower levels aren't fun to watch. But not really anything is going to change that at this point.

True. Which I'm sure was the reason for getting rid of ALGs in GLB2, to balance builds. Not sure watching slow balanced builds beats slow unbalanced builds. But it is what it is at this point.

Originally posted by bhall43
What is great about having to go through and build a player vs. using the VPB is you will notice with people constantly churning out VPB builds and posting them. They all look so damn similar it is ridiculous. However going through the process of building, the odds of them coming out with those exact builds is minimal. The beauty of actually having to go through a career and building a character is that your plans can change at a whim often times.

I actually think if people could insta-build you might get more experimentation since people could immediately test at Pro level rather than waiting 9 months to see if it works out. With 70% return, you might build and test for a ouple of seasons and retire if the expeirment fails. Right now it takes a year to experiment. It would be 10 days from concept to experiment with instabuilding. But again, I'd keep it an option and people could choose which style they prefer.