Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Kircdrb
Then why even ask for opinions? Too humor us? Did you learn that in customer satisfaction class?

Just make a post saying this is how it's going to be. That's how it's always been.

I never asked for opinions. This is a discussion thread, not a suggestion thread. I'm more than happy to listen to your opinion and answer your questions, but this isn't about trying to change the archetypes plan and the OP is pretty clear on that (I don't think anyone reads the OP from the sounds of it).

Originally posted by Catch22
There will be a summary of this discussion posted sometime this week by the Q & A group.

We've spent significant time looking at and figuring out a way to improve the way that players are developed and have come up with a player archetype system that will do just this. This is going to be a long post so I am going to stick around and answer questions for the next couple of hours. Don't turn it into a whine session - if you have a legitimate concern, voice it in a constructive manner and we'll discuss it. This is a huge game changing system and while we've tried to address everything, it is possible we missed something - this is why we're opening it up for discussion now rather than just introducing the improvement. However, we are not taking suggestions to changing archetypes or adding new ones. If you see an unbalanced archetype, by all means bring it up and we'll look at it.

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!

it's more like a dress code to keep people like you away

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!

Order breakfast at McDonalds at 5PM

Originally posted by Daudy
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.

Ah! Thank you, didn't put two and two together there, thank you for clearing that up for me!

Originally posted by Mat McBriar
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.

So the formulas will be staying the same, then?

Originally posted by punkaweedus

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 phased 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?

I like this.

Also, gonna have to read it again, but labels, ie, when we are looking at players is it gonna say, "Agility HB" or "Power HB" or just "HB"

How about this for Balanced OL?
Offensive Line
Balanced:
Major: Blocking, Strength, Agility
Minor: Vision, Confidence, Stamina
Not sure what the SAs should be.


Pass Blocking
(C) 6'0" - 6'4", 230-300 Lbs
(G) 6'2" - 6'5", 290-325 Lbs
(T) 6'2" - 6'6", 280-320 Lbs
Major Agility Blocking Confidence (+.67)
Minor Vision Speed Strength (+.33)
Bonus SA's (C/G) - Pass Block, Foundation
Bonus SA's (T) - Pass Block, Protector
Penalty SA's - Get Low, Pancake

Run Blocking
(C) 6'2" - 6'6", 280-330 Lbs
(G) 6'2" - 6'7", 310-360 Lbs
(T) 6'4" - 6'9", 300-350 Lbs
Major Blocking Confidence Strength (+.67)
Minor Agility Stamina Vision (+.33)
Bonus SA's - Get Low, Pancake
Penalty SA's (C/G) - Pass Block, Foundation
Penalty SA's (T) - Pass Block, Protector

Originally posted by punkaweedus

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?

Because that would make cookie cutter builds worse, not better.

If given the choice of 3 major attributes for your DE, what would you pick? I choose speed, agility, strength.

Cubslover...I bet you haven't spent a dime on this game. If this happens EVERYONE will spend more money. I will this is like having your fantasy player you've always wanted in the game. DREAMS WILL COME TRUE CATCH22 is god

Originally posted by Deathblade
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.

yeah, 10 point differences in attributes are completely insignificant

LOL, some might not be as good at capping is all. The point is its "cookie cutter Archetype" and once we choose one of 4 CB's you better stick to it, no one wants to recruit a rogue builder when these cookie cutter Archetype's are working.

Originally posted by FBGProfessor
How about this for Balanced OL?
Offensive Line
Balanced:
Major: Blocking, Strength, Agility
Minor: Vision, Confidence, Stamina

Only if by "balanced", you mean "far, far better than any other option".

As long as existing players can select an archetype - I'm good

Originally posted by FBGProfessor
How about this for Balanced OL?

Major: Blocking, Strength, Agility

There is nothing about that set of majors that is balanced.

Originally posted by jdros13
Because that would make cookie cutter builds worse, not better.

If given the choice of 3 major attributes for your DE, what would you pick? I choose speed, agility, strength.



Crazy, imo. I pick Strength, Agility, Speed.

Just from reading the OP, a couple things come to mind.... This is very cool stuff btw (though it does assassinate my L25 HB).

1. It seems extremely mean to have one of the two bonuses SA's for deep passers being turn the shoulder....

2. Is height really balanced? O-Linemen and HBs are gonna be (are currently) super shortbags all day just so they don't fall over. In reality, Longer arms (associated with height) is VERY important for O-linemen, and being taller doesn't automatically lead to revcake cite.

3. Please don't give D-linemen an option for both agi and str as majors, but not give that option to O-linemen. I don't care if neither have both or both have both, but balance is the name of the game here.

4. Makes no sense that SS's can be an inch taller than FS's, fwiw.

5. While I like the whole bonus SA idea, I think it is too small. For the past 13 seasons, GLB has consisted of 10 SA's for each position, all of which were made by bort almost 2 years ago. There are some SA's which are widely unused, and also countless idea's for SA's. Imo, it'd be cool to fix some of the trees by throwing out some SA's and adding new ones to replace them. Perhaps a 3rd tree which is somewhat archtype specific with 5 new SA's would be cool as well.

6. Slightly off topic (forgive me) but if you are gonna be retooling character creation and making at least a few SA's, you really should fix the advanced equipment system. Originally when bort made advanced equipment, you simply got the +% or +1 SA and it never went up. He the changed it to people getting a +1 SA each level and a +2% each level. People then complained that the SA Adv equipment would be overpowered, so bort cut the SA bonuses to every other level on AE.

By doing so (which the community is now realizing) Bort simply made all the +% equipment greatly overpowered. Due to the bonus token cost, advanced equipment should be better than regular equipment, but the fact that a +% is>>>>> any SA is a bit retarded and unnecessary.

Imo, all the +% equipment should be removed (it just screwbags up the sim because it gives huge bonuses to rolls which happens frequently). Also, all advanced equipment should give +1 SA per level up. This makes it the clear winner over non-AE, but since everyone has an equal opportunity to get AE, it'll be fine. Also imo, a very solid number of perhaps AE only SA's should be made (perhaps some rarer than others since we never got any rare AE in the store). Giving people the opportunity to get 1-2 fairly rare SA's that make their player feel more unique and customized. If you are worried about people getting +30 in a SA, simply remove all SA's on their trees from the store for a given position.

This would be a huge improvement over the current "everyone should have 2 pieces of +% AE, and even if you limited people to 1 piece of +% AE, everyone will still have 1, which defeats the whole purpose of using AE to customize, individualize, and make your player cooler. Furthermore, obviously some of the new SA's could do some of the roles of current +% AE, but while being less powerful (an avoid fake SA is needed imo, among other things).

7. Regardless of what is done with new SA's, it is VERY important that the userbase is not defining exactly what +1 SA does. They can feed bort the wording and SA purpose, but as far as what each point does, it should be vague, and bort should have full control to balance it as he sees fit (just like with current SA's). Part of the HUGE debacle we got in with VA's, is bort basically let users tell him what each point in a VA would do, and as such we ended up with this small component giving huge bonuses to thing and making the sim perform in a lot of very very goofy ways.

I know my point 6 is a bit of a tangent, but imo it is related.