Warrior General Games

Originally posted by zamtik
While neither endorsing or condemning 2 aeq dots I do have one if you wish to view some film .http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2484021 Has never played at the highest levels of competition nor am i what anyone would call an elite builder ( i definitely could of improved his build efficiency a bit etc etc. I just built him to hit the 99 lolbar and see if he could produce . I have to say the results haven't been particularly positive or negative . Hes not been terribly low on energy which was a concern nor has he been a very strong performer more of I would say average . if anyone wants to test him out on an experimental team this season or next feel free to contact me . Hes on a cpu team now since I was just too lazy about looking for teams this last offseason .

Ahh, refreshing, someone who answered the purpose of the thread to begin with. Actually, there's been a few others, so a successful effort. Sadly, my team is currently only at the University level. But, if you are wanting to follow the team, I've no qualms to having you aboard. I see you have two WR in the age group, I've not looked to see if they fit what we are doing, but I have one WR on the team now who I'm told there's no flex for boosting, so might need a replacement. Send me a message if you like.

pm sent

Originally posted by Dr. E
Originally posted by Longhornfan1024

The discussion has become whether 2 AEQ dots is a valid strategy. You are the only person in this thread claiming that it is a valid strategy. You have no achievement in this game. All of the other agents in this thread who are telling you that you are wrong have all achieved success in this game. The point of my original post was that you should step back and consider that there might be a reason why they have achieved success and you haven't. Instead of fighting with them and trying to win with a flawed argument, maybe you should listen to their advice and apply it to the way you play the game. Maybe then you will see some success.

Ahh, I understand now. You are trying to give me friendly advice. Noted!

But, when last I was in pro league, there was a team of 2AEQ dots that was doing rather poorly and the Owner was a bit active in the forums and so taking some heat. I took a look at his teams effective level and Wow!! Well, it happened that at the same time I had an Agent on the team who had I think three dots with me and they too were 2 AEQ builds. About this same time, the forums are full of complaints that a LB can't cover a TE and the coverage for HB coming out of the backfield is broken and as we all know later Bort adjusted that portion of the game. IT was no different for me, couldn't cover those routes, except when this Agent's dots were on the TE or HB, covered them then. So that all got me to wondering if the problem with that guys team full of 2AEQ dots was his AI or scouting & game prep. So I had the Agent, my head coach by the way, write up his build method and I presented it too the team and asked who wanted to try a grand experiment. See if 2AEQ dots can get the job done. So there you have it, why we are doing what we are doing. Say it's doomed to failure if you like, but I have already seen dots build under this method are superior in play, the only question now is can it be done with every position or will the small disadvantages of the build system create too many problems. In the mean time, we are doing something different than we did before, much more fun that rinse & repeat.

The argument is that you can build beastly dots with 3 aeq and not take the disadvantage of only having 2.

Originally posted by Dr. E
Ahh, I understand now. You are trying to give me friendly advice. Noted!

But, when last I was in pro league, there was a team of 2AEQ dots that was doing rather poorly and the Owner was a bit active in the forums and so taking some heat. I took a look at his teams effective level and Wow!! Well, it happened that at the same time I had an Agent on the team who had I think three dots with me and they too were 2 AEQ builds. About this same time, the forums are full of complaints that a LB can't cover a TE and the coverage for HB coming out of the backfield is broken and as we all know later Bort adjusted that portion of the game. IT was no different for me, couldn't cover those routes, except when this Agent's dots were on the TE or HB, covered them then. So that all got me to wondering if the problem with that guys team full of 2AEQ dots was his AI or scouting & game prep. So I had the Agent, my head coach by the way, write up his build method and I presented it too the team and asked who wanted to try a grand experiment. See if 2AEQ dots can get the job done. So there you have it, why we are doing what we are doing. Say it's doomed to failure if you like, but I have already seen dots build under this method are superior in play, the only question now is can it be done with every position or will the small disadvantages of the build system create too many problems. In the mean time, we are doing something different than we did before, much more fun that rinse & repeat.

So what you are doing is intentionally building worse dots in order to try something outside of the mold. If you want to do that, build efficient dots that are outside of the norm rather than building dots that are intentionally inefficient. Make your 3 or 4 AEQ dots with a pass deflecting DL and INT back 7. Try a team full of hybrid blocking/strength WRs and a super-speedy back like wise's back. Don't build bad dots on purpose.

And I have achieved like no other

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
So what you are doing is intentionally building worse dots in order to try something outside of the mold. If you want to do that, build efficient dots that are outside of the norm rather than building dots that are intentionally inefficient. Make your 3 or 4 AEQ dots with a pass deflecting DL and INT back 7. Try a team full of hybrid blocking/strength WRs and a super-speedy back like wise's back. Don't build bad dots on purpose.

What you want, is for me and those building with me, to play the game the way you want because you think it will work out better. We don't think we are building bad dots. What we have seen so far, despite knowing the build method has weaker dots early in their life span, is that we are competitive against the best teams building with the classic build methods. As our dots first and second attributes close the gap with classic build dots, we should see more and more rolls going our way and result is one we all know.

Originally posted by zamtik
While neither endorsing or condemning 2 aeq dots I do have one if you wish to view some film .http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2484021 Has never played at the highest levels of competition nor am i what anyone would call an elite builder ( i definitely could of improved his build efficiency a bit etc etc. I just built him to hit the 99 lolbar and see if he could produce . I have to say the results haven't been particularly positive or negative . Hes not been terribly low on energy which was a concern nor has he been a very strong performer more of I would say average . if anyone wants to test him out on an experimental team this season or next feel free to contact me . Hes on a cpu team now since I was just too lazy about looking for teams this last offseason .

that's not even a good 2 AEQ build, but you obviously had different motives

Originally posted by Dr. E
What you want, is for me and those building with me, to play the game the way you want because you think it will work out better. We don't think we are building bad dots. What we have seen so far, despite knowing the build method has weaker dots early in their life span, is that we are competitive against the best teams building with the classic build methods. As our dots first and second attributes close the gap with classic build dots, we should see more and more rolls going our way and result is one we all know.

You can play it however you want... we're just advising you that it's a bad idea. You are free to do what you wish.

Originally posted by Dr. E
As our dots first and second attributes close the gap with classic build dots, we should see more and more rolls going our way and result is one we all know.

The whole point of 2 AEQ dots is that they should be closing in on you with their 2nd attribute...not you closing in on them.

Originally posted by Dr. E
What you want, is for me and those building with me, to play the game the way you want because you think it will work out better. We don't think we are building bad dots. What we have seen so far, despite knowing the build method has weaker dots early in their life span, is that we are competitive against the best teams building with the classic build methods. As our dots first and second attributes close the gap with classic build dots, we should see more and more rolls going our way and result is one we all know.

I'm not telling you that you need to play the game the way I want. I play the game the way I do because it works. I'm telling you that the way you are planning to build your dots is purposefully making them worse. It's not like you're trying a unique build. You're choosing a mathematically less efficient build. Anything you might want to do with 2 AEQ dots you can do with 3 AEQ dots and they will be better. The only reason to build a team full of 2 AEQ dots is to make them worse than they could be.

Originally posted by bhall43
The whole point of 2 AEQ dots is that they should be closing in on you with their 2nd attribute...not you closing in on them.

lulz. I missed that one.

Originally posted by bhall43
The whole point of 2 AEQ dots is that they should be closing in on you with their 2nd attribute...not you closing in on them.

When capping, it's not necessary to run as high as with other build models. For example, with the first attribute pushed, if it's a primary, you go where, 81? Some go higher, but that's probably a safe average. With this 2AEQ, I only need to hit 73 and will end up the same as a dot in the low 80s under the other method. With the second attribute, I will get there sooner, but be passed for a bit by the guy spending skill points, but just as with the first attribute, will close the gap and with the second, exceed it by the time of pro level. Those skill points saved by not pushing to a higher cap mean other attributes end up higher. Net result, two less pieces of equipment, with the attributes worked on later, all higher.

Originally posted by Dr. E
When capping, it's not necessary to run as high as with other build models. For example, with the first attribute pushed, if it's a primary, you go where, 81? Some go higher, but that's probably a safe average. With this 2AEQ, I only need to hit 73 and will end up the same as a dot in the low 80s under the other method. With the second attribute, I will get there sooner, but be passed for a bit by the guy spending skill points, but just as with the first attribute, will close the gap and with the second, exceed it by the time of pro level. Those skill points saved by not pushing to a higher cap mean other attributes end up higher. Net result, two less pieces of equipment, with the attributes worked on later, all higher.

This is just completely wrong.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
This is just completely wrong.

Yea? You using our build method? Ran it on the VPB did ya? Show me!

its really about what you do with the leftovers if you go 2

bonus sa's , training, position/role



in the end though it all comes down to coordinating.....