Originally posted by odg62
anybody? not even a flamer?
Post was too long, and thread moving too fast to read it.
sorry
anybody? not even a flamer?
Post was too long, and thread moving too fast to read it.
sorry
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Q&A Archives > Player Archetypes Discussion - Improvements to player development
BansheeTime
offline
offline
Originally posted by Daudy
Originally posted by BansheeTime
Spin would be much more effective for a powerback than Juke would, imo. If powerbacks are building for Juke, than they're probably not great powerbacks, anyway.
While this is true (which as I said, Spin could be penalised due to OP reasons), you forget Agility is still a major for every kind of HB EXCEPT the combo HB but INCLUDING the Power HB. So the chances of Juke firing could be higher for the average powerback built using this archetype than people think. I'm sure other factors such as Vision and Speed (which are minors for powerbacks but majors for Elusive, Scat and Combo) form to be parts of Juke, but from the SA Description agility seems to be the main thing for it.
So no, I don't think it would be unreasonable to see a couple of Jukes if you build using the Powerback Achetype depending on how you build. I'd probably consider building a combo HB using the Powerback Archetype with them being able to keep a normal faking ability but hugely increased tackle breaking ability (with the exception of Spin) and a reduction in acceleration (not top speed, but acceleration). Hell, I'd even consider strapping on some Quick Feet on a Powerback just so it improves his faking ability while somewhat counteracting his penalty for Spin. It would help negate the negative effect of Spin not firing, but won't replace the lost bonus for breaking tackles due to the penalty... but he's a powerback - he won't freaking need that additional bonus (as part of the SA).
Having Agility as a Major does not mean that every Powerback will have Agility as high as Strength. Look at every WR that has Catching as a Major.
Originally posted by BansheeTime
Spin would be much more effective for a powerback than Juke would, imo. If powerbacks are building for Juke, than they're probably not great powerbacks, anyway.
While this is true (which as I said, Spin could be penalised due to OP reasons), you forget Agility is still a major for every kind of HB EXCEPT the combo HB but INCLUDING the Power HB. So the chances of Juke firing could be higher for the average powerback built using this archetype than people think. I'm sure other factors such as Vision and Speed (which are minors for powerbacks but majors for Elusive, Scat and Combo) form to be parts of Juke, but from the SA Description agility seems to be the main thing for it.
So no, I don't think it would be unreasonable to see a couple of Jukes if you build using the Powerback Achetype depending on how you build. I'd probably consider building a combo HB using the Powerback Archetype with them being able to keep a normal faking ability but hugely increased tackle breaking ability (with the exception of Spin) and a reduction in acceleration (not top speed, but acceleration). Hell, I'd even consider strapping on some Quick Feet on a Powerback just so it improves his faking ability while somewhat counteracting his penalty for Spin. It would help negate the negative effect of Spin not firing, but won't replace the lost bonus for breaking tackles due to the penalty... but he's a powerback - he won't freaking need that additional bonus (as part of the SA).
Having Agility as a Major does not mean that every Powerback will have Agility as high as Strength. Look at every WR that has Catching as a Major.
tralaque
offline
offline
Originally posted by herbdawg
Game is the key word here , we have made this too intense for the average player /agent keep it simple stupid or you will lose more players/agents
this isn't a game any longer...once cash has been paid for something it becomes an asset....and civil wars have broken out over assets....haven't they?...lol
Game is the key word here , we have made this too intense for the average player /agent keep it simple stupid or you will lose more players/agents
this isn't a game any longer...once cash has been paid for something it becomes an asset....and civil wars have broken out over assets....haven't they?...lol
jdros13
offline
offline
Originally posted by jktooley
I like the idea in general, but am not a huge fan of the penalties, or having to set your player in one specific role... I still think a better idea would be to allow players upon creation to choose 3 major and 4 minor attributes, as well as just choose their own SA tree... That would lead to MORE diversity, and not force players to build into a set peg.
you player wouldn't be set in a specific role. In fact, I expect people to choose one type and build in a different direction in some cases. Just because you chose "Blitzing LB" because you liked the major/minor/bonus/penalty combos there doesn't mean you are going to build a dot that is close to my "Blitzing LB".
If you give everyone the choice to pick their own 4 majors at LB though, they would all pick from agility, vision, strength, speed, tackling (probably the first 4 in most cases). Where is the diversity in that?
I like the idea in general, but am not a huge fan of the penalties, or having to set your player in one specific role... I still think a better idea would be to allow players upon creation to choose 3 major and 4 minor attributes, as well as just choose their own SA tree... That would lead to MORE diversity, and not force players to build into a set peg.
you player wouldn't be set in a specific role. In fact, I expect people to choose one type and build in a different direction in some cases. Just because you chose "Blitzing LB" because you liked the major/minor/bonus/penalty combos there doesn't mean you are going to build a dot that is close to my "Blitzing LB".
If you give everyone the choice to pick their own 4 majors at LB though, they would all pick from agility, vision, strength, speed, tackling (probably the first 4 in most cases). Where is the diversity in that?
FBGProfessor
offline
offline
Originally posted by Anarcho
Again, you can't have a balanced game if you allow free reign on the choices.
There are just certain things that will lead to ultimate cookie cutter builds.
There are basically three options:
1. Allow no choices. Make all players the same.
2. Allow some choices. Some players are the same.
3. Allow all choices. All players eventually choose to be the same.
Number 3 is the most popular choice (myself included) but it isn't reasonable and it certainly isn't good for the game.
We currently have ZERO choices for our players. This will allow us at least some level of customization.
This makes NO sense. If we all all choices how does that lead to all players being the same? That's only the case if the basic game design is flawed. If SAs really worked and players could create their own SA tree for example, why would we all choose the same tree?
Why not all people to create their own SA trees? This will make the game even more boring IMO for players. There is practically nothing to do now and the only fun that exists is in trying to figure out how best to build your player. The archetypes will take all the individualism out of our builds. An archetypes is the DEFINITION of cookie cutter. They mean the same thing.
cookie cutter = Archetype
Again, you can't have a balanced game if you allow free reign on the choices.
There are just certain things that will lead to ultimate cookie cutter builds.
There are basically three options:
1. Allow no choices. Make all players the same.
2. Allow some choices. Some players are the same.
3. Allow all choices. All players eventually choose to be the same.
Number 3 is the most popular choice (myself included) but it isn't reasonable and it certainly isn't good for the game.
We currently have ZERO choices for our players. This will allow us at least some level of customization.
This makes NO sense. If we all all choices how does that lead to all players being the same? That's only the case if the basic game design is flawed. If SAs really worked and players could create their own SA tree for example, why would we all choose the same tree?
Why not all people to create their own SA trees? This will make the game even more boring IMO for players. There is practically nothing to do now and the only fun that exists is in trying to figure out how best to build your player. The archetypes will take all the individualism out of our builds. An archetypes is the DEFINITION of cookie cutter. They mean the same thing.
cookie cutter = Archetype
Boogie21
offline
offline
Originally posted by chief c
Originally posted by Mat McBriar
Basically is why a poll isn't necessary. No plausible idea will ever be 100% loved, but this is one of those things that is pretty much favorable to everyone.
To those worried about having to 'learn' a new system, it's basically the same system with positions (being split into mini-positions) having different majors/minors.
No, its not the same system.
This idea is to have two to four types of proto-type players at each position and make it super simple to build one.
So instead of a Darwinistic approach of trial and error by the agent determining which players survive you guys want to homogenize it.
This is going to change the GLB experience in more ways than you can imagine. The 2nd and 3rd order effects will be immense.
has a point
Originally posted by Mat McBriar
Basically is why a poll isn't necessary. No plausible idea will ever be 100% loved, but this is one of those things that is pretty much favorable to everyone.
To those worried about having to 'learn' a new system, it's basically the same system with positions (being split into mini-positions) having different majors/minors.
No, its not the same system.
This idea is to have two to four types of proto-type players at each position and make it super simple to build one.
So instead of a Darwinistic approach of trial and error by the agent determining which players survive you guys want to homogenize it.
This is going to change the GLB experience in more ways than you can imagine. The 2nd and 3rd order effects will be immense.
has a point
F8n4tune
offline
offline
Originally posted by jktooley
I like the idea in general, but am not a huge fan of the penalties, or having to set your player in one specific role... I still think a better idea would be to allow players upon creation to choose 3 major and 4 minor attributes, as well as just choose their own SA tree... That would lead to MORE diversity, and not force players to build into a set peg.
I like the idea in general, but am not a huge fan of the penalties, or having to set your player in one specific role... I still think a better idea would be to allow players upon creation to choose 3 major and 4 minor attributes, as well as just choose their own SA tree... That would lead to MORE diversity, and not force players to build into a set peg.
Originally posted by beenlurken
Forgive me if this has been asked (dont really feel bad for asking because if has been asked it should have been updated into the OP)...
Anyway... how much FP for STOP player?
It's not a STOP player, but a STOP archetype. You aren't literally restricted to only special teams play.
Forgive me if this has been asked (dont really feel bad for asking because if has been asked it should have been updated into the OP)...
Anyway... how much FP for STOP player?
It's not a STOP player, but a STOP archetype. You aren't literally restricted to only special teams play.
jediknight7491
offline
offline
Originally posted by jktooley
I like the idea in general, but am not a huge fan of the penalties, or having to set your player in one specific role... I still think a better idea would be to allow players upon creation to choose 3 major and 4 minor attributes, as well as just choose their own SA tree... That would lead to MORE diversity, and not force players to build into a set peg.
I think this is the right idea...complete freedom leads to diversity. Bort would just have to work overtime to even out all the attributes and SAs. So each attribute and SA has its own stengths and weaknesses.
I like the idea in general, but am not a huge fan of the penalties, or having to set your player in one specific role... I still think a better idea would be to allow players upon creation to choose 3 major and 4 minor attributes, as well as just choose their own SA tree... That would lead to MORE diversity, and not force players to build into a set peg.
I think this is the right idea...complete freedom leads to diversity. Bort would just have to work overtime to even out all the attributes and SAs. So each attribute and SA has its own stengths and weaknesses.
caspian44
offline
offline
Originally posted by Mavooo
I must be missing something because to me it looks like this will encourage mass cookie cutter builds.
Maybe a power back might want first step now if its considered a penalized SA every power back will build the same way with power thru and lower shoulder maxed out.
Maybe a strength based NT might wanna try having shed blocks as a SA, with this system its now penalized and NT
s will all max out break thru and wall because thats whats basically being encouraged.
Unless im missing something or dont understand, all I see happening is everyone being encouraged to build players the same way.
+1
I must be missing something because to me it looks like this will encourage mass cookie cutter builds.
Maybe a power back might want first step now if its considered a penalized SA every power back will build the same way with power thru and lower shoulder maxed out.
Maybe a strength based NT might wanna try having shed blocks as a SA, with this system its now penalized and NT
s will all max out break thru and wall because thats whats basically being encouraged.
Unless im missing something or dont understand, all I see happening is everyone being encouraged to build players the same way.
+1
Deathblade
offline
offline
Originally posted by jediknight7491
I think this is the right idea...complete freedom leads to diversity. Bort would just have to work overtime to even out all the attributes and SAs. So each attribute and SA has its own stengths and weaknesses.
Complete freedom leads to everyone having the "darwin" build.
I think this is the right idea...complete freedom leads to diversity. Bort would just have to work overtime to even out all the attributes and SAs. So each attribute and SA has its own stengths and weaknesses.
Complete freedom leads to everyone having the "darwin" build.
BansheeTime
offline
offline
Originally posted by vike fan 4 life
will players be labeled with their new archtypes like they are now?
for example will a Recieving Tight End be labeled as such, because if not this could be a way to make tagging more important
There was discussion earlier (maybe even in the OP) about players being tagged by their archetypes, so that you don't have to continually reset your AI each game.
will players be labeled with their new archtypes like they are now?
for example will a Recieving Tight End be labeled as such, because if not this could be a way to make tagging more important
There was discussion earlier (maybe even in the OP) about players being tagged by their archetypes, so that you don't have to continually reset your AI each game.
Originally posted by Mat McBriar
It's not a STOP player, but a STOP archetype. You aren't literally restricted to only special teams play.
I seriously think people aren't getting what the archetype means.
It's not a STOP player, but a STOP archetype. You aren't literally restricted to only special teams play.
I seriously think people aren't getting what the archetype means.
jdros13
offline
offline
Originally posted by beenlurken
So basically the STOP archetypes were made for Bort to make more money...
you don't need to use OLinemen built as special teamers now to have a good special teams unit (declining dots at various positions work great tbh). You won't need 200 flex dots to have a good special teams unit either. You just won't get the bonuses.
So basically the STOP archetypes were made for Bort to make more money...
you don't need to use OLinemen built as special teamers now to have a good special teams unit (declining dots at various positions work great tbh). You won't need 200 flex dots to have a good special teams unit either. You just won't get the bonuses.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
