Warrior General Games

The more variety the better in terms of entertaining game decisions and repeat play quality.

Why not make Veterans Abilities a little more variable?

Make us get Veteran Points just as we do now, but get two instead of one each 1000 Vxp. So if you would normally have gotten say 45 VPs you would get 90.

And then skew the costs of Veteran Attributes the same way Special Abilities are skewed, with maybe having costs of 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 such that the first point costs 1 VP, the 15th cost 3 and the whole stack of 15 would cost 30 Veteran Points.

Of course you could skew it further, say 111112222333445 or something. But the example I put forward would let you do exactly what you can do now, it would just let you do more total VA points if you wanted to, by not capping off every VA but instead spreading them out more (ie instead of 15 Comeback 15 Possession 15 Mr Reliable you could get 10 10 10 in those and then 10s in three others.

-1 I don't see too much variation happening due to this. Most VA's are going to be bought up to the max anyways. The only time this would come into effect would be when people reach the point where they have 3-7 VA points left at the end of their build. And then what would be the benefit to putting 1 point in 7 different va's that give you almost no benefit at a low value.

A choice without any reason or need isn't really helping anyone. It's like play intensity, sure people have the choice to play on normal or relaxed, but with GLB as it is now, there is no reason to play on anything but intense. This suggestion does the same thing.

There are very few VA's or combinations of VA's really, that are not going to be set to 15 and this wouldn't really affect them much. It would only slightly change the cost.

no thank you.

-1

Someone must have loss all his playoff games if he is in here making crappy suggestions.-100000. you are doing it ass backwards, if you want more variety, you add more VAs that are actually useful so that a single player can't have all the good VAs for a position. Example, if you have ten good VAs for every position, and you can only have 5 full ones, you can have all sorts of combos that would work.

But again you need to add a bunch of good ones that actually work first.

Originally posted by Outlaw Dogs
Someone must have loss all his playoff games if he is in here making crappy suggestions.-100000. you are doing it ass backwards, if you want more variety, you add more VAs that are actually useful so that a single player can't have all the good VAs for a position. Example, if you have ten good VAs for every position, and you can only have 5 full ones, you can have all sorts of combos that would work.

But again you need to add a bunch of good ones that actually work first.

I've suggested more VAs and it was suggested that was NGTH IIRC.

But yes, I would prefer that as well or instead.

But this would be a way to do it without worrying about new VAs. Not as good but better than nothing.

And pffbbbt on the play off games. Meanie.

Originally posted by alindyl
-1 I don't see too much variation happening due to this. Most VA's are going to be bought up to the max anyways. The only time this would come into effect would be when people reach the point where they have 3-7 VA points left at the end of their build. And then what would be the benefit to putting 1 point in 7 different va's that give you almost no benefit at a low value.

A choice without any reason or need isn't really helping anyone. It's like play intensity, sure people have the choice to play on normal or relaxed, but with GLB as it is now, there is no reason to play on anything but intense. This suggestion does the same thing.

There are very few VA's or combinations of VA's really, that are not going to be set to 15 and this wouldn't really affect them much. It would only slightly change the cost.

Hmm, I dunno. I respect your reasoning but did you look closely?

If instead of 15 you could have 12 in the 3rd VA everyone gets and 7 in another VA you wouldn't normally have points for, you don't think some might make that choice? 7 Would not be an insignificant amount I would think. Should make it at least tempting. Trade away a plus 3% of 15% for a new 7% thats something to consider no?

More thought than the simple "not play hard or play hard" anyway imo.

-1

But they are going to add more VA's to the game as it goes on. Just a matter of good ideas for VA's that work for the game and make sense. Currently they are drumming up ideas for oline VA's.

-1

-1

Troll post