Warrior General Games

Originally posted by tpaterniti
Then Mission Accomplished!

You get 3 respecs so as DB said, as long as you don't screw up your base attributes initially you will have lots of flexibility to deal with sim changes.

You don't get three full respecs anymore.

You can only respec to your last "tier", and each after the first costs unrefunded flex.

Edit: I coded it to make it easy to give out free respec points after a major change though

So help me out here. How much does it cost to make a full D?

Is that possible?

has this all been answered elsewhere and I'm late to the party?

TIA

Originally posted by kurieg
So help me out here. How much does it cost to make a full D?

Is that possible?

has this all been answered elsewhere and I'm late to the party?

TIA

I'd guess a rough estimate of about 40k.

Originally posted by bhall43
That would be pretty awesome. Would definitely escalate my interest if done right.

+1 to the vertical field

Ditto the vertical. There is a reason coaches watch the all22 and not the TV broadcast. I'd love a coaches mode (vertical w dots) and a spectator (horizontal w sprites) mode.

Originally posted by tpaterniti
Ditto the vertical. There is a reason coaches watch the all22 and not the TV broadcast. I'd love a coaches mode (vertical w dots) and a spectator (horizontal w sprites) mode.

I wouldn't get your hopes up too much. I'd guess it would take pabst or someone awhile to reverse engineer the encapsulated code and ajax requests, and there's not going to be much focus on an official version for awhile if ever.

Originally posted by Corndog
Honestly, I think defense would make more sense with just a playbook for the number of WRs.

The advanced tactics thing with zone percentage and blitz percentage and stuff is just confusing to me.

I agree. The advanced tactics part was more for when you have a full playbook that you can't create yourself and you are trying to mix the right set of plays in. You don't really need that when you are picking and choosing the plays.

But as I said it is sort of confusing not knowing off hand what LB/S/CB is covering TE, HB, FB on a given play without actually playing a sim and watching it unfold.

Would also be nice if plays were separated by how many WR's they are for. And also more plays down the line will make that part more interesting, especially when Superstars hit the scene and as a DC I can look at a depth chart and gamefilm and wrap a gameplan around that. Brings back the cat and mouse game of the early days imo.

Originally posted by bhall43
I agree. The advanced tactics part was more for when you have a full playbook that you can't create yourself and you are trying to mix the right set of plays in. You don't really need that when you are picking and choosing the plays.

But as I said it is sort of confusing not knowing off hand what LB/S/CB is covering TE, HB, FB on a given play without actually playing a sim and watching it unfold.

Would also be nice if plays were separated by how many WR's they are for. And also more plays down the line will make that part more interesting, especially when Superstars hit the scene and as a DC I can look at a depth chart and gamefilm and wrap a gameplan around that. Brings back the cat and mouse game of the early days imo.

Well, we have talked about a "more info" pop up for defensive plays.

I'd guess that is still a feature Bort wants to do after release, because it makes a lot of sense.

Sometimes not having as much control can make things more complicated for the coordinator. Unless u enjoy RNG

Originally posted by bhall43
I can only play against Corndog and myself so many times before it gets old. I am sure GLB wouldn't be much fun to you if me and you played each other 20 times a day in scrimmages and then they made a change that wiped all those scrimmages to meaningless nothing. With no league competition people just kind of check out after not so long.
You would be wrong. Furthermore, what's the point of testing if 95% of the testers quit. I really doubt you have that kind of attrition in other games. People probably stopped testing because GLB2 lacks complexity or anything that makes it interesting.

Originally posted by jdbolick
You would be wrong. Furthermore, what's the point of testing if 95% of the testers quit. I really doubt you have that kind of attrition in other games. People probably stopped testing because GLB2 lacks complexity or anything that makes it interesting.

GLB1 test server had about a 95% attrition rate.

There was like 2-3 people ever invited to it that actually tested.

Originally posted by jdbolick

You would be wrong. Furthermore, what's the point of testing if 95% of the testers quit. I really doubt you have that kind of attrition in other games. People probably stopped testing because GLB2 lacks complexity or anything that makes it interesting.


I haven't stopped testing so I can only attest for what I believe. I played GLB1 in the early days and enjoyed it and this is a similar concept to those days.

I hope you guys have built a winner but you have to understand all the doubts this user base has. We know how WG operates

Originally posted by Corndog
GLB1 test server had about a 95% attrition rate. There was like 2-3 people ever invited to it that actually tested.
Setting aside the fact that this isn't actually true, repeated failure would say something about how testers are chosen.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Setting aside the fact that this isn't actually true, repeated failure would say something about how testers are chosen.

Well, you enjoy that bolicking.