Warrior General Games

Originally posted by DerrekLee24


You should build your own player, and however he ends up, its your fault. YOU MADE THE PLAYER. Do you want every single DE to get to become a strength/agility moster now? Do you want every HB to become a Power HB, then next season a Speed HB, and so on? No, you choose what type of player your player will be, and you stick with it. You dont shit your pants and cry to Bort whenever your player sucks dick. He will suck, and he mite not get 5,000 yards per season. Hell, you mite even lose a fucking game. Big deal. You build your player how you want, and retire him if you want a new one. Bort will be continually changing the game, but solid, rounded, realistically-based builds will consistently produce because that agent didn't stop and go "If I make an LB with 100 speed and 10 agility, then he'll rack up the tackles! He will get a trophy!" They thought hey, I'll make my player like he's real, and he'll be solid every season. Because in reality MD, you and your cohorts in this thread are nothing more than trophy hunters. Whenever you don't get that elusive trophy for most Rushing Yards, or Most Sacks, or winning a League championship, then there has to be something wrong with the game. There's got to. You've found the so-called "bugs" in the game which Bort doesnt fix, or so you think. They arent that noticeable, but you build whole teams around these "secrets". And when Bort realizes that you're succeeding even tho your player has an extremely unrealistic build, then he screw you over, and you dont get that goddamn trophy. Oh well, fuck it. You dont get a trophy, then call your mom down to the basement to read this and cry softly with you, even though you're a grown man. You wasted your time, money and life trying to get that trophy, scouring the forums and finding out secrets, scouting every game and coming up with unique strategies. And what the hell? You dont win? You dont get a trophy? You go to whine on the forums? Well, I for one, am sick and tired of this shit.

DL

To quote Herman Edwards: "You play to win the game."

Its that simple. I built my players to win the game. Now, the game changes and people say "Oh, yeah, you should have been losing at the game, that was the best way to build your player" What? I'm not supposed to try my hardest to win at the game? I'm supposed to adhere to "realism" and lose for 6 seasons, pay out the money to boost my player and have him be crappy so that one day down the line he'll eventually be good? Damn.

Originally posted by MD
Originally posted by DerrekLee24




Why? Because you know you have nothing to argue against it? Because you know, deep down, that you DO absolutely, have to have that trophy? Thats why, isnt it?

No.....more because your starting to sound like jared when he started getting all upset and couldnt help himself and went into little tirades like yours just now.

Lol, you truly dont even have a clue do you. Yes......yes i must have trophies so i can brag about my dots, trophies are what makes this game awesome. Im gonna have to also start taking a million GM roles so i can get more trophies, that would be SO AWESOME.........

Why else do you complain so goddamn much? Because you're player now sucks and you have to retire him because he can't accel, and GLB is more realistic, not all speed? And because its realistic, your players that only focused on 1 or 2 attributes now suck? That is how it is SUPPOSED to be.

Originally posted by TheInfinity
Originally posted by DerrekLee24



You should build your own player, and however he ends up, its your fault. YOU MADE THE PLAYER. Do you want every single DE to get to become a strength/agility moster now? Do you want every HB to become a Power HB, then next season a Speed HB, and so on? No, you choose what type of player your player will be, and you stick with it. You dont shit your pants and cry to Bort whenever your player sucks dick. He will suck, and he mite not get 5,000 yards per season. Hell, you mite even lose a fucking game. Big deal. You build your player how you want, and retire him if you want a new one. Bort will be continually changing the game, but solid, rounded, realistically-based builds will consistently produce because that agent didn't stop and go "If I make an LB with 100 speed and 10 agility, then he'll rack up the tackles! He will get a trophy!" They thought hey, I'll make my player like he's real, and he'll be solid every season. Because in reality MD, you and your cohorts in this thread are nothing more than trophy hunters. Whenever you don't get that elusive trophy for most Rushing Yards, or Most Sacks, or winning a League championship, then there has to be something wrong with the game. There's got to. You've found the so-called "bugs" in the game which Bort doesnt fix, or so you think. They arent that noticeable, but you build whole teams around these "secrets". And when Bort realizes that you're succeeding even tho your player has an extremely unrealistic build, then he screw you over, and you dont get that goddamn trophy. Oh well, fuck it. You dont get a trophy, then call your mom down to the basement to read this and cry softly with you, even though you're a grown man. You wasted your time, money and life trying to get that trophy, scouring the forums and finding out secrets, scouting every game and coming up with unique strategies. And what the hell? You dont win? You dont get a trophy? You go to whine on the forums? Well, I for one, am sick and tired of this shit.

DL

To quite Herman Edwards: "You play to win the game"

Its that simple. I built my players to win the game. Now, the game changes and people say "Oh, yeah, you should have been losing at the game, that was the best way to build your player" What? I'm not supposed to try my hardest to win at the game? I'm supposed to adhere to "realism" and lose for 6 seasons, pay out the money to boost my player and have him be crappy so that one day down the line he'll eventually be good? Damn.



I'm 100% sure Herm Edwards never threw a hissy fit when his team lost because they were not strong enough, and only had speed, or because the Cheif's DEs were neautralized by superb OTs, or even OTs who player average. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember him being a graceful loser.

Originally posted by DerrekLee24
Originally posted by TxSteve

A) MMO sport games are 100% different than WOW or Runescape, so dont even try to argue"

no argument there - as far as I know there aren't any mmo sports games earning hundreds of millions of dollars each year (much less multiple games doing that)


i don't understand why some people are so VEHEMENTLY against ripping off some successful aspects of multi million dollar business....

Because, in a word, GLB is not WOW, and it wont ever be

You're right, its not WOW. Its not the most successful MMORPG of all time. It doesn't have 10 million people paying to play it. It doesn't have its own eBay style markets where accounts and items are sold for hundreds of dollars.

And Bort definitely shouldn't take any cues from a game that has all of that going on for it. Not at all.

Originally posted by DerrekLee24


Why else do you complain so goddamn much? Because you're player now sucks and you have to retire him because he can't accel, and GLB is more realistic, not all speed? And because its realistic, your players that only focused on 1 or 2 attributes now suck? That is how it is SUPPOSED to be.


Yada yada yada.........who are you refering to here? Or are you swtching from the jared approach and taking the Ken approach and deciding that everyone that wants a respec must have something wrong with their build and that their is only one way to build a player "right" and that its gonna be unfair to those who built "right" and that everything is an exploit and on and on.....

Originally posted by DerrekLee24
Originally posted by TheInfinity

Originally posted by DerrekLee24




You should build your own player, and however he ends up, its your fault. YOU MADE THE PLAYER. Do you want every single DE to get to become a strength/agility moster now? Do you want every HB to become a Power HB, then next season a Speed HB, and so on? No, you choose what type of player your player will be, and you stick with it. You dont shit your pants and cry to Bort whenever your player sucks dick. He will suck, and he mite not get 5,000 yards per season. Hell, you mite even lose a fucking game. Big deal. You build your player how you want, and retire him if you want a new one. Bort will be continually changing the game, but solid, rounded, realistically-based builds will consistently produce because that agent didn't stop and go "If I make an LB with 100 speed and 10 agility, then he'll rack up the tackles! He will get a trophy!" They thought hey, I'll make my player like he's real, and he'll be solid every season. Because in reality MD, you and your cohorts in this thread are nothing more than trophy hunters. Whenever you don't get that elusive trophy for most Rushing Yards, or Most Sacks, or winning a League championship, then there has to be something wrong with the game. There's got to. You've found the so-called "bugs" in the game which Bort doesnt fix, or so you think. They arent that noticeable, but you build whole teams around these "secrets". And when Bort realizes that you're succeeding even tho your player has an extremely unrealistic build, then he screw you over, and you dont get that goddamn trophy. Oh well, fuck it. You dont get a trophy, then call your mom down to the basement to read this and cry softly with you, even though you're a grown man. You wasted your time, money and life trying to get that trophy, scouring the forums and finding out secrets, scouting every game and coming up with unique strategies. And what the hell? You dont win? You dont get a trophy? You go to whine on the forums? Well, I for one, am sick and tired of this shit.

DL

To quite Herman Edwards: "You play to win the game"

Its that simple. I built my players to win the game. Now, the game changes and people say "Oh, yeah, you should have been losing at the game, that was the best way to build your player" What? I'm not supposed to try my hardest to win at the game? I'm supposed to adhere to "realism" and lose for 6 seasons, pay out the money to boost my player and have him be crappy so that one day down the line he'll eventually be good? Damn.



I'm 100% sure Herm Edwards never threw a hissy fit when his team lost because they were not strong enough, and only had speed, or because the Cheif's DEs were neautralized by superb OTs, or even OTs who player average. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember him being a graceful loser.

Yeah, and I'm sure Herm Edwards never had to deal with the laws of physics on a football field changing from season to season or from game to game. I'm pretty sure that when his Quarterback could throw a deep ball he didn't suddenly become incapable of doing it the next game. Or that when his running back could break a tackle he didn't suddenly become unable to do it. Or that when his Defensive End could rush around an OT he was suddenly slowed down and the OTs all suddenly became much faster than they ever had been.

I'm not complaining about losing, I started off in this game losing and studied it so that I could build my players to win. It worked and now I'm playing in one hell of a tough league and enjoying every game because its very competitive. But, its annoying to get through all of that then have your success pretty much wiped out because what worked for so long is suddenly crap. And then someone comes along and says "Oh yeah, you build an All-Pro, you should have been building a worse player and waited for Bort to change things" Well, I'll tell you something, I do just as Herm Edwards said someone should do in sports, I played to win. And now that's backfired on me and I'm sure its going to backfire on more people in the future and that constant chain of backfires is what is going to make people not want to play anymore. I want to win, I want to have trophies, I want to be the best, isn't that the most realistic thing in football? Or should I be wanting to be mediocre and ignoring the competitive advantages I could have by building my player in a better way?

Originally posted by MD
Originally posted by DerrekLee24



Why else do you complain so goddamn much? Because you're player now sucks and you have to retire him because he can't accel, and GLB is more realistic, not all speed? And because its realistic, your players that only focused on 1 or 2 attributes now suck? That is how it is SUPPOSED to be.


Yada yada yada.........who are you refering to here? Or are you swtching from the jared approach and taking the Ken approach and deciding that everyone that wants a respec must have something wrong with their build and that their is only one way to build a player "right" and that its gonna be unfair to those who built "right" and that everything is an exploit and on and on.....

That's not my approach, although I've been in a lot of gaming communities of sports sims and I've never seen a more selfish crowd than here.

I don't believe there is one way to build a player "right" or realistically. I believe there are wrong ways to build a player, and I think no one would question that. I'd consider one wrong way, however, one who could never succeed in real life. You may disagree. The goal here is realism through realistic player interactions. Create the realistic interactions and the model will take care of it.

I came to support a limited respec of 10 points, with a significant in-game cost, because I recognized that it may take more than boosting and equipment if, say, all-Speed LB's are to gain the Tackling and Strength not to be killed by power backs.

But if you need more than that, a total of about 50 points that could be moved or added through a 10 SP re-spec, 15 SP's from boosting, and moving eq around (at high levels, that's about another 25), then you have such a messed up build that you deserve to suck. If you built someone on defense with Speed 95, Agility 80, Strength 25, Tackling 25, and he wasn't a CB, you should have known you were exploiting something that wouldn't always be there as the game became more realistic. and even then, move/add the 50 points you could with this plan to Strength and Tackling, and you're largely okay.

As much as I tend to disagree with Ken1 a lot of the time, I will say that he has been reasonable in allowing for a limited Re-Spec. The point is clear that everyone wants the players in the game to suffer consequences for having extreme builds, I'm included there. Now, Ken1 and I disagree on whether or not people should just be barred from making the extreme builds or should operate on the "All-or-Nothing" approach, basically including a "Nothing" for the "All" that Speed/Agility can get you. The game has started to do that by making Strength/Tackling important on Defense and hopefully increasing that importance somewhat on the lines while making bull rushing better. But that's Bort's area.

My main point against the people that yell at people for having built unrealistic players is that those players did what the game told them to do. If a game says "Do what makes sense" "Follow the guides" and "Get advice from your fellow players" and they hit the boards and watch games for information (think the smartest most cautious newbie who wants to be good) only to see 1) Speed/Agility dominating, 2) People saying Speed/Agility is the best at many positions all over the guides and 3) People telling them to build with Speed/Agility.... can you really blame them for building that way?

They're playing a game and like anyone playing a game, they want to win. Even more so if they were paying to boost their players, own a team or have more players. They did what they honestly thought was right because people were telling them to do it and the game was making those people right by the results that those builds show. Sure, they could have just built totally realistic players, heck I did that for the most part with each of my guys, but I'm not going to crucify them for not doing what I did. That's why I'm for Re-Specs. The complete one is probably impossible unless its very costly (perhaps an acceptable trade off) and the SA one is easier. Not only that, the SA one is a limited one already and more limitations can be put in (15SPs moving cap) to satisfy everyone.

Of course, the SA Re-Spec also has the supporting fact that what "makes sense" with SAs is very hard to determine and that some did not produce as advertised or only produce in certain situations/positions, which realistically would change. (i.e. Champ Bailey was an elite return man but no longer performs that job, its fairly easy to say that over time he has been lessening his abilities at Returning (Return Spec SA) and increasing his Coverage Skills (probably Super Vision or Shutdown). Also, applies to the guy that starts his career as a MLB then has to move to OLB as he moves up through the leagues (think a guy in AA that can't get to AAA and the appropriate level of play unless he goes from MLB to LOLB), just makes life easier if he could take some of his D-General points and move them into another skill. Same for a LOT that has to become a ROT or a NT that has to move to DT.

They made the players that way knowing it was a Beta game, and that a large reason it was a Beta game was that Bort wanted to get things balanced realistically.

I still remember posting in a thread where someone was telling people that DE's only need Speed and Agility-- no Strength, Tackling, or Vision, "Go ahead and build that way if it works for you, but don't complain when that type of player gets nerfed, because as the game moves toward realism that will have to be done."

The tradeoff should be to use the imbalance now and pay for it later, or build a real football player now and pay for it earlier, but have it pay off later.

Originally posted by Ken1
They made the players that way knowing it was a Beta game, and that a large reason it was a Beta game was that Bort wanted to get things balanced realistically.

I still remember posting in a thread where someone was telling people that DE's only need Speed and Agility-- no Strength, Tackling, or Vision, "Go ahead and build that way if it works for you, but don't complain when that type of player gets nerfed, because as the game moves toward realism that will have to be done."

The tradeoff should be to use the imbalance now and pay for it later, or build a real football player now and pay for it earlier, but have it pay off later.

Whether the build should have been nerfed (making it impossible for Speed/Agility) to get you a sack or have been made extremely weak in another facet of the game like run defense is our never ending debate. I feel that's what should be developed though, because anyone in GLB that can't defend the run is going to lose, just like in the NFL. Sure, you could sack my QB 5 times with that amazing LDE you have, but I'm just going to run at him all day and get a free 4+ yards per carry because he sucks in run defense. I find that to be a good trade.

I honestly don't feel that any form of Re-Specs is going to break the game in the long run. Due to the complexities of the game though, I'm thinking keeping it to SAs is the thing to do. Players can slowly redefine themselves if they want to and can fix mistakes made at the later stages of building along with going with the flow of changes in the game. While the Strength/Speed/Agility realism argument can go on, there is no realistic or non-realistic choice with SAs.. just what works. And with that changing per season, people should be allowed to compensate somewhat.

Originally posted by TheInfinity
Originally posted by Ken1

They made the players that way knowing it was a Beta game, and that a large reason it was a Beta game was that Bort wanted to get things balanced realistically.

I still remember posting in a thread where someone was telling people that DE's only need Speed and Agility-- no Strength, Tackling, or Vision, "Go ahead and build that way if it works for you, but don't complain when that type of player gets nerfed, because as the game moves toward realism that will have to be done."

The tradeoff should be to use the imbalance now and pay for it later, or build a real football player now and pay for it earlier, but have it pay off later.

Whether the build should have been nerfed (making it impossible for Speed/Agility) to get you a sack or have been made extremely weak in another facet of the game like run defense is our never ending debate. I feel that's what should be developed though, because anyone in GLB that can't defend the run is going to lose, just like in the NFL. Sure, you could sack my QB 5 times with that amazing LDE you have, but I'm just going to run at him all day and get a free 4+ yards per carry because he sucks in run defense. I find that to be a good trade.

I honestly don't feel that any form of Re-Specs is going to break the game in the long run. Due to the complexities of the game though, I'm thinking keeping it to SAs is the thing to do. Players can slowly redefine themselves if they want to and can fix mistakes made at the later stages of building along with going with the flow of changes in the game. While the Strength/Speed/Agility realism argument can go on, there is no realistic or non-realistic choice with SAs.. just what works. And with that changing per season, people should be allowed to compensate somewhat.

Compensate somewhat, which was why I'm for very limited re-specs.

Complete re-specs fly in the face of realism, until the day happens when Jamal Lewis is evading defenders like Reggie Bush or Bush is pounding through them like Lewis, or Kellen Winslow Jr. becomes a great blocker but not much of a pass receiver.

The type of player a player is should pretty much be etched in stone, for realism reasons, so not everyone follows the latest fad, and to reward people who didn't, some of whom built as they did in expectation of such a reward (as with my LB builds).

Originally posted by Ken1


Compensate somewhat, which was why I'm for very limited re-specs.

Complete re-specs fly in the face of realism, until the day happens when Jamal Lewis is evading defenders like Reggie Bush or Bush is pounding through them like Lewis, or Kellen Winslow Jr. becomes a great blocker but not much of a pass receiver.

The type of player a player is should pretty much be etched in stone, for realism reasons, so not everyone follows the latest fad, and to reward people who didn't, some of whom built as they did in expectation of such a reward (as with my LB builds).

I agree there. Which is why I think the SA re-spec is good. It would require a player to have been built in the proper way attribute-wise to get into their new role (i.e. Reggie Bush wouldn't have enough Strength to use Power Thru so adding it on to him would be useless). Basically, you can slightly alter your skills (15SPs per season) but you don't get the chance to completely overhaul your physical/mental/football attributes.

Originally posted by dmfa41

Customizable Special Ability Sets
Reference: Many threads, esp. TheInfinity, http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=1285115

The ability to alter which special abilities a player would have would multiply player diversity manifold. A current obstacle to this is the current Tree system where one must augment an SA in order to be able to place any SPs in the next SA in the tree.

One means to accomplish this would be to keep the trees intact, yet allow a player at time of creation to remove one of the innate SA trees for that position for another. A popular instance would include an HB ditching the Power Back tree in favor of the WR's Possession Receiver tree or an LB ditching the Pass Coverage tree in favor of the DE's Pass Rushing tree. This could come at the creation cost of the position whose SA tree you seek with which to replace yours; e.g. to create a HB with a Elusive Back and Possession Receiver would cost 600 FP (300 for HB creation, 300 for a WR's tree to replace an HB's). This could only occur at creation and would not necessitate a change to the current SA allocation system.

Another means would be to replace current SAs individually with desired SAs; for example, exchange "Dive 4 Yds" with "Sticky Hands" or "Defense General" with "Tunnel Vision." This could occur at the cost of 100 FP for "normal" skills and 200 FP for "premium" skills, e.g. "Pancake" and "1-Handed Catch." These substituted skills would have to come at an increased cost (+1 or double) as compared to the innate SAs. This does pose an affront the the current tree system which would have to be modified to accommodate "alien" SAs or abolished altogether and exist as sets instead of trees.

Another minor adjunct would be to change the order of the non-premium SAs at time of creation for a FP cost (100 FP?).

If SA re-rolls happen.

Originally posted by dmfa41
Originally posted by dmfa41


Customizable Special Ability Sets
Reference: Many threads, esp. TheInfinity, http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=1285115

The ability to alter which special abilities a player would have would multiply player diversity manifold. A current obstacle to this is the current Tree system where one must augment an SA in order to be able to place any SPs in the next SA in the tree.

One means to accomplish this would be to keep the trees intact, yet allow a player at time of creation to remove one of the innate SA trees for that position for another. A popular instance would include an HB ditching the Power Back tree in favor of the WR's Possession Receiver tree or an LB ditching the Pass Coverage tree in favor of the DE's Pass Rushing tree. This could come at the creation cost of the position whose SA tree you seek with which to replace yours; e.g. to create a HB with a Elusive Back and Possession Receiver would cost 600 FP (300 for HB creation, 300 for a WR's tree to replace an HB's). This could only occur at creation and would not necessitate a change to the current SA allocation system.

Another means would be to replace current SAs individually with desired SAs; for example, exchange "Dive 4 Yds" with "Sticky Hands" or "Defense General" with "Tunnel Vision." This could occur at the cost of 100 FP for "normal" skills and 200 FP for "premium" skills, e.g. "Pancake" and "1-Handed Catch." These substituted skills would have to come at an increased cost (+1 or double) as compared to the innate SAs. This does pose an affront the the current tree system which would have to be modified to accommodate "alien" SAs or abolished altogether and exist as sets instead of trees.

Another minor adjunct would be to change the order of the non-premium SAs at time of creation for a FP cost (100 FP?).

If SA re-rolls happen.

I'm against SA re-specs; but if they did happen on a one-time basis to allow players to customize their own trees, that might be a trade-off worth making, because the tyranny of the tree structure is awful as well.

I would not let most SA's from other positions be brought into the trees. I would allow, if there were a one-time SA re-spec, people to re-order the non-premium SA's in the tree and switch the trees SA's are in. I'd also change the required 1 for every 2 in the following SA to 1 for every 3.

Newly created players, or any others with none in SA's, would also get to re-order their SA's and switch their trees as such (and automatically have the 1 for every 3 instead of 1 for every 2), at any point before they began adding SA's.

If Bort wanted to charge FP's for the re-ordering, I'd have no problem with that; although I don't think he should, and doubt he would want to. He recognizes, I think, that we pay plenty already.

Wow, lots of intense debate in here over the last couple days.

There will never be a full-respec option. Partial maybe, but not full, so don't bother going down that route.

SA's certainly would be easiest angle to approach the idea from, since the math for attributes is a nightmare to figure out. A friend of mine made a suggestion while I was eating dinner with him a while ago, though, which sounded sorta interesting. I haven't done the math for exploitability, but the idea is: give the ability to de-train one attribute while training something else up. No SP assignments; just reverse training in exchange for training another skill. It could cost training points, and would allow you to respec your player naturally over time.