Warrior General Games

Originally posted by FBGProfessor
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

Bolded for the entire point.

Not to turn this into a game design bashing fest, but it's pretty easy to see that certain aspects of player building are unbalanced by nature. This game will never have a rock/paper/scissors design. As such, certain things need to be limited in order to create balance.

42 page

Labeling bothers me. [ex] If the opponent sees a team has OL "Pass Blockers" and a QB "Deep Passer" ; it makes a team one dimensional or at least vulnerable.

Lastly, I agree with a few that mentioned Height and Weight factoring in on abilities seems irrelevant. It adds a rpg feel, but silly for the most part.

ty and good night

Originally posted by Mat McBriar
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.

Come on... do you really think any of those defensive STOPs would be effective at the higher levels having been penalized with blocking as a major and maybe even pumped blocking?

The STOPs will be played on ST's (the only reason they would ever see plays on regular O or D is for max XP).

200 pts is ridiculous...

Originally posted by drake262 DTD
I seriously think people aren't getting what the archetype means.

Well, I gotta admit. I've been reading this post off and on for over an hour now
and you guys have explained it about as well as Obama explained nationalizing health care

I am thinking the better return of flex is an incentive to make agents produce more players down the road.

How many seasons will this take to see this working etc 2 seasons maybe?

I have finally gotten through all 39 pages (maybe 40 by the time I get done).

Thanks for the 300 Flex - I don't want to seem ungrateful.

My suggestion - every active agent gets a free player to test this out with for a season in either the D league or a special league - God knows there are enough CPU teams we should be set there. This will give every agent interested in testing it out (Beta remember) the opportunity to test it and the GLB Team can determine what works and what doesn't from results and input from these agents.

Here is my opinion on why things in GLB get flamed as above - "here you go, new stuff". There are a select few in the testing stage, as there should be. The next step should be Beta, roll it out to a larger group to try to exploit it and find issues. As the game is currently run, it feels that Beta is an excuse to have some of the issues but not enough input in solutions. There were several suggestions that got the NGTH tag and no explanation. Kinda like my dad used to say, "because I said so".

We are all here spending our hard earned money and want the best for this site. Please treat us as guests rather than pests.

So if I wanted to build a quick strike offensive QB who passes alot of short accurate passes in a spread offense, I would want to build a scrambling QB and ignore speed for the most part, just so I get a bonus to Dump Pass?

Originally posted by jediknight7491
What does this truly improve upon? Basically it boils down to a way to create more specialized players. It won't free anyone up to create unique players, it will just give them a few more templates to start from. The end result is a bigger array of different players, but it does nothing to improve the art of building a player.

In time every archetype will have an "optimal" cookie cutter, there will just be more cookie shapes.

If cookie cutter means "efficient" yeah, you will have that in every game where you have to build something. I think though you will find that there are a lot more possible "cookie cutter shapes" than they realize.

That bonus SA that can be selected is the wild card in the whole thing. Being able to add an SA to any archetype makes a world of difference in possible build combinations, and that is before you add AEQ bonuses on top. Just because an archetype is called one thing, doesn't mean you can't take advantage of what the archetype gives you in terms of building options and can't build something different.

Once the shock and awe wears off and people start to look closely at the numbers they'll realize just how much more depth this brings to player building.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by FBGProfessor

Yes, this is what I want. Let us pick our own Major and Minors and SAs. That will add true diversity to builds and will reward those who are most creative and best at building.

Can someone please explain how the archetype plan as proposed will lead to more build diversity? How will it give players more to do? I just don't see the advantage at all.

Originally posted by jdros13

ok, I'm going to build a HB. I want my 4 majors to be speed, agility, strength, carrying. What do you want?



This. The reasons have been carefully laid out in this thread. No offense or anything, but it seems like some people are confusing not seeing the advantage with not WANTING to see the advantage.

Originally posted by Octowned
Any thought to spreading the influence of casual style leagues, but using archtype based AIs?

Basically make the AI simpler... Pre-set packages called long pass, medium pass, short run, etc., the obvious stuff, then use basic settings to work the AI from there, with the understanding that the AI will use your packages as the backbone.

The playbook selections could be used by selecting RB: (drop down for archtypes on your team). So this medium-styled OC system would allow specialized play calling, etc., without the burden of massive AI structures. Sounds like a much more user friendly but still flexible environment.

I think cookie-cutter shelled AIs are the way to go. Allow quarter or down specific basic %s, a few basic package selections, and incorporate archtypes smartly.

On the defensive side, allow customization of defensive plays and packages, and keep the "tag the archtype" concept, but again force plays into specific packages.

Sounds genius to me.

Would this require additional leagues? The leagues would probably have to be capped too, because an uncapped league would have all these older dots without an archetype. I also don't think most teams who currently have the full AI would appreciate dumbing things down nor do I think the Casual teams who are there for the fact that it's just basic AI would want added complications.

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it can replace one type of league or another. It'd have to be another seperate league :/

I like where this idea is going...

There needs to be more individuality

Originally posted by odg62
also, if you read my too long post (thanks for replying), it was another way to counter everyone going for the same build and promote people doing diffrent things and trying to build diffrent guys for specific roles...

To add to this point, it also allows different builds not to be "penalized" by owners who are looking for a specific build.

Personally, I think this archtype helps with the team creation more than it hurts it. I am looking forward to the new changes next season...when do we get the free 300 Flex Points?