Warrior General Games

Originally posted by kretchfoop
My only thing, after reading through as much of this as I could stomach, is that no player should be labeled as such. Granted, the agent would reveal such information, most likely, but that should be their choice. I am just concerned that specialization to this extent will lead to more owner control and less player time. The best teams will load up on specialized talent in certain packages and hinder the enjoyment of player only agents.

Whatever happened to league-based salary caps? I think that is a dimension beyond this idea, but one that needs to be considered within this idea. Once the stadium is maxed, money only matters for equipment. If you made salary caps and less restrictive level caps in the league, it would add an additional level of strategy. Otherwise, you have teams with every type of player archetype for every package they can throw out there. Not very realistic.

Either way, I guess it is a good step forward even if we take a step backwards first.

Kretch, read my sig and you'll understand this thread.

Nevermind me.

Originally posted by cubsluver22
Originally posted by Catch22

OK.

Catch votes yes.

Motion passed.

That's the kinda attitude that's gonna run paying customers like myself off! This is supposed to be about the customer and getting them to spend money! I've noticed a increase in this type of attitude. Wander how long a restaurant would run if they told you their menu is changing pay for it and eat it or go away!

It was a joke cubsluver.

The archetypes as a whole were created by a former customer along with a bunch of other customers. Actual admin involvement in it's development was pretty non-existent.

Originally posted by drake262 DTD
QFwander

What is that?

Originally posted by Daudy

Admittedly, it's only changing what ALGs you get and also giving you an option towards which SAs you want to be able to recieve a boost (at the cost of recieving a penatly in others) and does nothing towards actually changing the way SPs are added or anything like that. I'd say the ability to choose which bonuses and penalties (or neither in some cases) and how your player levels up is a bigger choice than what we have now.

Also, it means HBs no longer automatically gain throwing as they do now and a few other oddball things with other positions

Thanks, that made more sense,

It's been a hugely long day/weekend.

Originally posted by cubsluver22
That's the kinda attitude that's gonna run paying customers like myself off! This is supposed to be about the customer and getting them to spend money! I've noticed a increase in this type of attitude. Wander how long a restaurant would run if they told you their menu is changing pay for it and eat it or go away!

My apologies - it's stated quite clearly in the OP that this is a discussion thread, not a suggestions thread. I've also stated at least five times that we would not be taking a poll or voting on this. I was being funny and it obviously wasn't to you. Sorry...

I asked earlier, but the thread was still exploding at the time, and I may have missed the answer.

What will this do to lolbars?

Originally posted by cubsluver22
What is that?

You made a little typo, just wanted to point that out

Originally posted by kretchfoop
My only thing, after reading through as much of this as I could stomach, is that no player should be labeled as such. Granted, the agent would reveal such information, most likely, but that should be their choice.

Any clarification on labeling? thx

Originally posted by BansheeTime
I asked earlier, but the thread was still exploding at the time, and I may have missed the answer.

What will this do to lolbars?

Make them bigger in most cases.

Originally posted by The Avenger
I think cookie cutter by definition is pick an Archetype (man specialist - CB), cap the mains and voila, now that Archetype will be within 10 SP's in the mains as the other 77 Archetypes in the exact same position on the FA marketplace as the rest of the man specialist CB builds are.

Wouldn't that be a good thing, and realistic to boot? When shopping the free agency market, people are looking for the best of the best in the build they are looking for. Because so many people nerf their players along the way, there are serious gaps in talent between players of the same position. These gaps create competitive imbalance among teams, as only owners that create their whole roster of players, or very organized teams with experienced coaches/coordinators can compete for championships. Much like the NFL, parity is a very good thing. Having a more balanced player pool of free agents will undoubtedly make it easier for newer team owners/coordinators to compete with the big boys.

Originally posted by Mat McBriar
Make them bigger in most cases.

Chicks dig the long bars.

Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by punkaweedus


+1

Catch22 -- Please explain how this idea is going to create LESS cookie cutter builds. From what I've read in this thread, especially with the bonuses/penalties based on build type selected at player creation, it will actually force agents into selecting certain skills/attributes over others because of the penalties. Sure you COULD accept the penalty and dump points into that skill, but you'd be stupid do to so. This is especially the case with SAs. If I build an elusive HB and dump enough SPs to get 10 in Power Thru, I should have 10 in Power Thru... not be penalized to only 8. In fact it sounds like you're penalizing me for NOT having a cookie cutter elusive HB build.

IMO this player development change is limiting builds (because of attribute bonuses/penalties) rather than allowing user creativity to do whatever they want.

I will say that I do like the idea of allowing an additional SA outside of the two standard trees. This is huge for LBs especially, as the SA trees suck. I'd love to see Superior Vision as a standard SA for LBs.

See the excellent quote at the end of the OP.
Thanks I see the addition to the OP, it wasn't there when I started reading this 60+ page thread.

But I'm not referring to natural attribute gains from leveling up. Mabye I phrased it wrong in my intial post, but my major concern is the bonus/penalty applied to SAs; this needs to go. It completely negates any penalized SAs and makes them almost useless, or at best a very costly option in terms of SPs spent. I really really do not like this idea, the value of SAs and VAs should be left as it currently is.

I do like the idea of selecting player build for natural leveling options, as it addresses each build type more specifically. But why not just give the user the ability to pick the major/minor natural attribute gains for themself then? That would create the most ideal situation for eliminating cookie cutter builds... no?

Originally posted by cubsluver22

That's the kinda attitude that's gonna run paying customers like myself off! This is supposed to be about the customer and getting them to spend money! I've noticed a increase in this type of attitude. Wander how long a restaurant would run if they told you their menu is changing pay for it and eat it or go away!

That's what restaurants do anyway. Sonic never held a public vote on whether or not to stop selling hot fudge cream sundaes.

Originally posted by Hugestballs
Are the ALGs going to diminish at the same rate as they did before? I only ask because I noticed that some positions, for instance LBs have gone from majors starting at +.33 to majors at +.5

PM would be appreciated but I'll try to dig a reply out of the thread if I can, sorry if I missed it in OP...

The amount of points you get to spread amongst your majors and minors hasn't changed (to my knowledge). But it's now that with this new system, it's a little more streamlined and there are fewer majors and minors (as it's no longer just a general ALG for every single LB) thus each attribute gets a bigger share of the points.

As for diminishing, the rates given are actually what you get between level 1-21. You just lose 25% every set amount of levels higher than that (just like it is now). I forget exactly when but it's all in the OP.