Was gonna read but then I saw a yello +1 so....
-1 for me thanks
-1 for me thanks
Forum > Suggestions > Put a 'dent' in the creation of 'perfect' builds with AEQ prices based off supply/demand
Saris
offline
offline
Or everyone could just stop copying each others build plans and try to innovate a little.
bigtisme
offline
offline
Originally posted by Saris
Or everyone could just stop copying each others build plans and try to innovate a little.
you can be the innovator that goes without MT% on defense and without HB% for the OL
-1 to OP
Or everyone could just stop copying each others build plans and try to innovate a little.
you can be the innovator that goes without MT% on defense and without HB% for the OL
-1 to OP
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
This is a good idea. People just have their build plans and don't want to see them ruined. It would definitely be a cool component, add some complexity to the building game which is way too easy right now.
It's the same idea as each point in speed costing more, so eventually you branch out and do different things. The popular AEQ pieces would be significantly more costly and smart builders would in some cases decide to forego the conventional wisdom piece which is more expensive than it's actually worth.
Of course, this idea is probably too smart for the GLB crowd generally.
It's the same idea as each point in speed costing more, so eventually you branch out and do different things. The popular AEQ pieces would be significantly more costly and smart builders would in some cases decide to forego the conventional wisdom piece which is more expensive than it's actually worth.
Of course, this idea is probably too smart for the GLB crowd generally.
Edited by tjsexkitten82 on Jun 15, 2012 09:19:59
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
Originally posted by DONKEIDIC
I like the idea of randomizing players slightly, but AEQ does not sound like one I'd like to see. Something along the lines of a range of when VPs go up based upon a hidden at creation rolled number and other factors in a career, such as PT and performance.
Such as:
From level 25-29, you will start to receive 150 veteran XP per day.
From level 30-34, you will start to receive 250 veteran XP per day.
From level 35-39, you will start to receive 300 veteran XP per day.
From level 40, you will receive 325 veteran XP per day.
Or even better breakthrough VP.
This idea doesn't randomize players at all. Randomization is something GLB users hate, as they ranted against the X factor for like, ever, and against the reroller for like, ever, and against the AEQ store for like, ever, and...
This idea just requires one to make different calculations for which AEQ piece they want, discourages everyone buying the same piece, and encourages outside-the-box thinking and unique builds.
I like the idea of randomizing players slightly, but AEQ does not sound like one I'd like to see. Something along the lines of a range of when VPs go up based upon a hidden at creation rolled number and other factors in a career, such as PT and performance.
Such as:
From level 25-29, you will start to receive 150 veteran XP per day.
From level 30-34, you will start to receive 250 veteran XP per day.
From level 35-39, you will start to receive 300 veteran XP per day.
From level 40, you will receive 325 veteran XP per day.
Or even better breakthrough VP.
This idea doesn't randomize players at all. Randomization is something GLB users hate, as they ranted against the X factor for like, ever, and against the reroller for like, ever, and against the AEQ store for like, ever, and...
This idea just requires one to make different calculations for which AEQ piece they want, discourages everyone buying the same piece, and encourages outside-the-box thinking and unique builds.
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
Originally posted by tpaterniti
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.
This isn't randomness. Are you people serious? 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. They would be. Ugh.
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.
This isn't randomness. Are you people serious? 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. They would be. Ugh.Edited by tjsexkitten82 on Jun 15, 2012 09:19:12
tjsexkitten82
offline
offline
Originally posted by tjsexkitten82
Of course, this idea is probably too smart for the GLB crowd generally.
Haha, put this down before I read the rest of the thread.
[x]nailed it
Of course, this idea is probably too smart for the GLB crowd generally.
Haha, put this down before I read the rest of the thread.
[x]nailed it
keith_dude
offline
offline
Originally posted by Mat McBriar
when did yello hijack McBriar's account
Suggestion: base AEQ prefix/suffix purchases off supply and demand
To elaborate more, something like a +5% break tackle would go up in price (because everyone favors them), where as something less commonly used, like a +2% intercept would go down in price.
Rolling for AEQ would obviously have to carry a similar weight to the creation prices. I'm sure a simple formula could be created that factored in a prefix and suffix's individual prices based on demand into one unified value (discounted for the shopping effect).
Why: It's still too easy to assemble 'perfect' EQ setups. Adding a supply and demand element to AEQ purchases would invoke a new sense of strategy. Users would really have to decide whether something like a +5% break tackle warranted the high cost. Plus, this would push users to buy less popular AEQ options (because they would be dirt cheap).
Something needs to be done to randomize the game a bit. As it stands, it's too easy for some guy living in Mom's basement to run the VPB for every scenario possible and build the ultimate player. Then, he copies the script and lets his buds know. As a result, this game will continue to devolve into only a bunch of hard core gamers, and a few newbs that stick around for a season or two, then leave.
when did yello hijack McBriar's account
Suggestion: base AEQ prefix/suffix purchases off supply and demand
To elaborate more, something like a +5% break tackle would go up in price (because everyone favors them), where as something less commonly used, like a +2% intercept would go down in price.
Rolling for AEQ would obviously have to carry a similar weight to the creation prices. I'm sure a simple formula could be created that factored in a prefix and suffix's individual prices based on demand into one unified value (discounted for the shopping effect).
Why: It's still too easy to assemble 'perfect' EQ setups. Adding a supply and demand element to AEQ purchases would invoke a new sense of strategy. Users would really have to decide whether something like a +5% break tackle warranted the high cost. Plus, this would push users to buy less popular AEQ options (because they would be dirt cheap).
Something needs to be done to randomize the game a bit. As it stands, it's too easy for some guy living in Mom's basement to run the VPB for every scenario possible and build the ultimate player. Then, he copies the script and lets his buds know. As a result, this game will continue to devolve into only a bunch of hard core gamers, and a few newbs that stick around for a season or two, then leave.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
