Warrior General Games

Originally posted by FBGProfessor
To be honest, this attitude is what reminds of DD (and I am not convinced that you have another GLB identity as DD could have many). I confess that as I read what other people write in here I am understanding this better and I am not as negative as I was at first. But your arrogant and condescending attitude really is not a good way to sell the idea. This post is another example of it. Of course Bort can do whatever he wants as he owns this game. But I stopped buying Flex when it became clear to me that as a customer I wasn't respected. The way this is being introduced and your attitude that really you aren't interested in taking suggestions to improve doesn't make feel like things are any different. I'll keep playing with my existing flex and waiting to see if the customer service improves. One can hope...

+1, but oh well, that's life.

Originally posted by FBGProfessor
To be honest, this attitude is what reminds of DD (and I am not convinced that you have another GLB identity as DD could have many). I confess that as I read what other people write in here I am understanding this better and I am not as negative as I was at first. But your arrogant and condescending attitude really is not a good way to sell the idea. This post is another example of it. Of course Bort can do whatever he wants as he owns this game. But I stopped buying Flex when it became clear to me that as a customer I wasn't respected. The way this is being introduced and your attitude that really you aren't interested in taking suggestions to improve doesn't make feel like things are any different. I'll keep playing with my existing flex and waiting to see if the customer service improves. One can hope...

If you really think I don't respect customers or try and help them, you haven't been paying attention. There was a reason for not taking suggestions - because then the whole concept would become one giant suggestions thread and that's not what the purpose of this thread is.

Making customers happy is my number one priority but if there is one thing I know as gospel it is that I will never make every customer happy. I'm more than happy to talk with anyone and everyone about their issues though but sometimes you have to be firm about things and say no to get things done.

Cubslover....stop your crying watch when the next system comes out this game is going to be x10 better. If bort didn't think this would make it better he wouldn't have told catch to make this fourm..

Originally posted by jdros13
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.

Depends what you're building. No vision or tackling for a run stuffer RDE? Hmmm...

Originally posted by Tigam

Are there people who really believe that choosing a Archtype will decrease cookie cutter builds?


within that archetype...no, not really.

But there are different benefits to each arechetype, so there will be different builds.

Originally posted by cwisler
Originally posted by Catch22

all these people thinking this leads to more cookie cutter builds are so far off it's funny. It's WAY less cookie cutter than the current player development system.

First, the system is overly exploitable. Imagine a full defense with Shutdown Coverage or Super Vision as their custom "natural" SA. Then we're going to have to nerf that beyond oblivion because it's way too powerful and teams can't pass without throwing an interception.

Imagine the positions that don't even have a good custom "natural" SA to choose. I can't imagine what I'd want on a Pocket Passer that's outside of the Pocket Passer Tree. It'd just be a waste to me. Oh, and we're going to apply boosts to certain SAs? Does that give them a boost to firing for that person? Mine as well not even both trying to tackle a Powerback, if that's the case, since they can get Lower Shoulder and Power Thru to 10+ and have the boost to firing. We're gonna penalize Power TEs on Route Run, even though it's in the Possession Receiver SA Tree? That makes no sense to me. Don't know how worthwhile Cover Up is gonna be on a TE either, not like they fumble a lot to begin with. Point being, the system is so flawed in the SA aspect, I can't believe this hasn't become a topic of discussion.

As far as the cookie-cutter builds, people have the wrong interpretation. It'd be easier to just explain to them cookie-cutter builds are when players all build the exact same way. Some people have the interpretation that cookie-cutter builds are specialized builds -- which they're not. Cookie-cutter = Only 1 successful way to build. This system allows multiple ways to build successfully.

If this is going to be implemented, the SA part needs a MAJOR overhaul. It shouldn't be a given to give every position a custom "natural" SA. Some positions don't need them, some positions will be too powerful with them. Get rid of the boosts for the SAs. Pretty sure a boost to the natural gain is enough to give a minor boost to that SA to begin with.

I saw somewhere mentioned that it's going to make recruiting easier -- are you kidding me? We're narrowing builds down to a T now if you want to build an effective player. There's no choosing one archetype and deciding to switch your role a bit to fit your new team better. Instead, the team has to fit the player, or else it's a waste of an investment. It's going to make players more salary hungry when they find out their in a 'minority' of archetypes and some teams that need that minority won't have the money to throw at the player just to get them. Therefore, they have to change their whole gameplan, possibly team roster, just to fit the one player they can acquire. This in no way makes gameplanning easier. It makes it even more of a job when bringing new players to a roster because you're going to have to adjust if you don't pick up a player of the exact same archetype you just lost.

Epic post is epic

Originally posted by Tigam

Are there people who really believe that choosing a Archtype will decrease cookie cutter builds?


No not really. All I see it as is a fix to crappy ALGs we have now.

Turns out, people build a certain way because they work. If you get people to stop wanting to copy the successful, then we'll have some real diversity.

Originally posted by reddogrw
can you elaborate on this

if SA's aren't in an archtype, they won't ever be in your store?

or did I miss something here

We're going to be doing a archetype specific SA that will only be available for that archetype.

Originally posted by
Imagine a full defense with Shutdown Coverage or Super Vision as their custom "natural" SA.

You mean... the LBs... because everyone else has this?

Originally posted by BansheeTime
Regarding the Blitzing LB, is there any logic go adding Jumping as a major other than the fact that adding Strength or Vision would be too OP?

I'd imagine it's to cause PDs for when the QB tries to throw it away quickly while the LB is blitzing. A bit like how certain defensive linemen now are getting some PDs (and also the Towering Man VA).

Thanks to Catch and Mat for sticking around to answer questions for so long!

Originally posted by El_Windex
well hot dog

Confidence to the 4th cap and i am there

Added onto my quote for more lulz

Originally posted by Deathblade
I heard the casual leagues are pretty lol like that.

Casual: Doing what it takes to win, as long as it doesn't take too much

Read the original post and a few others but what im most interested in how it affects season 1 DoTs made this season. From what I get we will be able to take advantage of this new system without any long or short term penalty to our players? So the extra refund is set just in case people are upset with a new system or because we actually should redo our characters ?

Originally posted by punkaweedus

Depends what you're building. No vision or tackling for a run stuffer RDE? Hmmm...

they are my minors.

Originally posted by BansheeTime
Regarding the Blitzing LB, is there any logic go adding Jumping as a major other than the fact that adding Strength or Vision would be too OP?

Nope that was pretty much it - as said some of the choices were too balance the archetypes between the position.