Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Black Peter
Basically, the archetypes were created without much thought involved in the majors/minors process. Have to just deal with it.


The reality is that the archetypes were created with thought to what the player has to do but that another, overriding concern was ensuring that no archetype was beyond argument the best, else why would anyone use any other one? Another consideration is that every archetype has only 8 attributes that get ALGs.

For the most part this is a positive not a negative. Because ALGs are a race against time, the fewer the majors the better. For example, TEs could be built more effectively if they had 4 majors not 5 and even better if they had 3 majors because you could very easily and relatively quickly build a 105/100/100 build with plenty of SPs left over for supporting attributes.

Bort (really catch) would have done us all a favor if he had not made any 5 major archetypes. The idea was to help builds by putting ALGs in more attributes but this hinders builds in actuality. For example, you can build a better returner with a HB using the elusive archetype than with the returner archetype or a better STOP with a SS or DE using a 4 major archetype than with the STer archetype and it's not really even that close.

In other words if you truly have a gripe with TE archetypes it should be that there are too many majors, not that there aren't enough.

lol, TE's and WR's are still putting up absurd numbers despite the 0.4 ALG's.

Originally posted by tpaterniti
Bort (really catch) would have done us all a favor if he had not made any 5 major archetypes.
The idea behind five majors for WRs / TEs but not CBs is that offenses can specialize while defenders need to be able to counter every specialty. Of course, that was back when break tackle WRs still worked.

Originally posted by Homage
Rusty is clearly doing his job.

rusty doesn't like fat dots, yello will lrn

Originally posted by tpaterniti
The reality is that the archetypes were created with thought to what the player has to do but that another, overriding concern was ensuring that no archetype was beyond argument the best, else why would anyone use any other one? Another consideration is that every archetype has only 8 attributes that get ALGs.

For the most part this is a positive not a negative. Because ALGs are a race against time, the fewer the majors the better. For example, TEs could be built more effectively if they had 4 majors not 5 and even better if they had 3 majors because you could very easily and relatively quickly build a 105/100/100 build with plenty of SPs left over for supporting attributes.

Bort (really catch) would have done us all a favor if he had not made any 5 major archetypes. The idea was to help builds by putting ALGs in more attributes but this hinders builds in actuality. For example, you can build a better returner with a HB using the elusive archetype than with the returner archetype or a better STOP with a SS or DE using a 4 major archetype than with the STer archetype and it's not really even that close.

In other words if you truly have a gripe with TE archetypes it should be that there are too many majors, not that there aren't enough.


Hmmm, well there are clearly "best" archs now as you illustrated so, again, back to my point. failure in archetype set-up. I mean if I want a TE power build I'm taking a combo TE not a Pwr TE arch cause the latter is just not worth it. If I'm building a KR/PR I'm taking a eHB usually because otherwise it's a handicap. You're just cementing my point.

Originally posted by Black Peter
Hmmm, well there are clearly "best" archs now as you illustrated so, again, back to my point. failure in archetype set-up. I mean if I want a TE power build I'm taking a combo TE not a Pwr TE arch cause the latter is just not worth it. If I'm building a KR/PR I'm taking a eHB usually because otherwise it's a handicap. You're just cementing my point.



I'm not sure what you're point is. If you are saying that the archetype system has some flaws and imbalances that is not really a novel claim or something anyone would disagree with. Archetypes feed directly into the balance of the sim and the likelihood that anyone could balance them perfectly is very small.

If you are saying that very little thought went into the creation of archetypes that is almost indisputably false and they are light years better than they were before they were redone.

I don't have a real point.

yes, archs have plenty of flaws and imbalances. Not sure I was making a "novel" point as it's been that way since D1 of their introduction. Balance? haha! Most of the game isn't much balanced. So it is and so it will ever be...

Yes, I'm AM saying very little "critical" thought went into their creation - more like here it is and roll away. "Light years better than they were before" ??? Didn't even have them before, just positions ABCDE and no archs. Right? So, how they were better than before is a mystery to me. Since archs were introduced (AFAIK) they have never been adjusted after the fact of introduction. Have they? Did I miss that boat? Just wondering because far as I see archs are the exact same now as D1 of archs being unveiled.

But it's all a wash and semantics now.

Originally posted by Black Peter
"Light years better than they were before" ??? Didn't even have them before, just positions ABCDE and no archs. Right? So, how they were better than before is a mystery to me.


uh im pretty sure you said the exact reason they were better than before right there

the fact that it allowed specialization

Originally posted by Timetoshine-Metta
uh im pretty sure you said the exact reason they were better than before right there

the fact that it allowed specialization

Hmmm, how to compare straight 1-type position builds w/ archs? can't really. fact remains (the same) that many of the archs created are just not thought out very well.

My story and I am sticking to it.

(but I'll try them all because otherwise things get boring - doesn't mean there is any lol"balance" in the scheme though.)

I just wish that they'd taken the chance to re-do the SA trees when they created the Archetypes

Originally posted by oaklandraider
I just wish that they'd taken the chance to re-do the SA trees when they created the Archetypes



I wish they'd let a dot pick it's own SA trees, but never happening.

How are they better than before? I can give you just a few examples but there are more than I will list. First, think about O-line. They all do pretty similar stuff right? Well Cs were 2 major positions Gs were 4 OTs were 5 which put them at a huge disadvantage to DEs. O-linemen also had weird minors like tackling. But mostly you had no control over your ALGs. Whether you wanted to build a power back elusive or scat you had the same starting point which was only so so for any of them.

I would say the archetypes has done more than anything to introduce a lot of fun and strategy into the player building system that simply wasn't there before. I don't think it would be going too far to call it the most successful feature GLB has ever added. I can't think of any other that was more successful. I didn't even mention the bonus SA system and new training that were introduced together with it.

Originally posted by Homage
lol, TE's and WR's are still putting up absurd numbers despite the 0.4 ALG's.

That's why they put penalty on LB coverage?

Originally posted by Black Peter
I don't have a real point.

yes, archs have plenty of flaws and imbalances. Not sure I was making a "novel" point as it's been that way since D1 of their introduction. Balance? haha! Most of the game isn't much balanced. So it is and so it will ever be...

Yes, I'm AM saying very little "critical" thought went into their creation - more like here it is and roll away. "Light years better than they were before" ??? Didn't even have them before, just positions ABCDE and no archs. Right? So, how they were better than before is a mystery to me. Since archs were introduced (AFAIK) they have never been adjusted after the fact of introduction. Have they? Did I miss that boat? Just wondering because far as I see archs are the exact same now as D1 of archs being unveiled.

But it's all a wash and semantics now.


Do you remember the day C had 1 ALG on STR and BLK, but DT only have .67 on STR?
Now they all have .5, really more balance now.

Originally posted by tpaterniti
How are they better than before? I can give you just a few examples but there are more than I will list. First, think about O-line. They all do pretty similar stuff right? Well Cs were 2 major positions Gs were 4 OTs were 5 which put them at a huge disadvantage to DEs. O-linemen also had weird minors like tackling. But mostly you had no control over your ALGs. Whether you wanted to build a power back elusive or scat you had the same starting point which was only so so for any of them.

I would say the archetypes has done more than anything to introduce a lot of fun and strategy into the player building system that simply wasn't there before. I don't think it would be going too far to call it the most successful feature GLB has ever added. I can't think of any other that was more successful. I didn't even mention the bonus SA system and new training that were introduced together with it.

Look, I'm not going to argue that archetypes were needed/better for builders. I just believe that the archetype scheme was not thought out properly prior to implementation. It was rushed- in regards to maj/min and SA fav/pen, is all.

So it goes and so it will be and remain. Doesn't mean it was all apples as opposed to oranges.

Think I am done with this circular argument though.