Warrior General Games

Originally posted by joemalaka
Originally posted by Catch22

qf future payraise

5% commision = $6.50

that's 7 supreme tacos from the Bell

Originally posted by Anarcho
I just want to take this opportunity to say that I firmly believe that you are the best thing to happen to this game.

Thank you.

qf future payraise

Originally posted by rynoryno
What about a Quick SP, BT and VA editor, like Training Points mass submit... so we can avoid constant player drill down for development?

I'll take a PM since it's a little off base.

Originally posted by Catch22
I see people say stuff like that all the time. How do you know? Have you seen the code that shows <if snarl then LB suck>?

I think suck is a loose term for not worth the SP. LBs have to be fast enough to catch a elusive or speedy HB, strong enough to avoid getting trucked, Have enough vision and agility to not get juked or head faked and they need a considerable amount of tackling. I totally think snarl works and makes tackles easier but investing heavy in SAs takes away from all the other needed skills.

Basically Snarl needs to be twice as good as it is now to counter the loss of SP to the overall build.

imo

Originally posted by rynoryno
I'll take a PM since it's a little off base.

more of a suggestion - I'd just tell you to post it there tbh

Originally posted by Catch22
qf future payraise

qf future large amounts of flex mysteriously appearing in my account.

Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by rynoryno

I'll take a PM since it's a little off base.

more of a suggestion - I'd just tell you to post it there tbh

I did and it was locked 3 times... it only makes sense and would net Bort more Flex Points... because then people would be willing to buy a whole new wave of young players.

Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt

The reason I asked, is there are several positions now... That if you looked at some of the 'better dot builders', you would find those particular positions went light on the SA front. For example... Look at Blocking FB's and LB's - in general, they don't have many SA's, if any at all.

Well there are going to be bonuses to two SA's and penalties to two SA's depending on archetype so people will probably want to get SA's more now (and avoid others lol).

That makes sense - the bonus. It will be interesting how you designate which SA's are penalized. I would definitely make that visual - so that people truly understand what they are getting themselves into.

For instance... SA's that play well with your Archetype should possibly have a 'Green' tint or outline.... Whereas an SA that contradicts your Archetype and is penalized, should probably have a 'Red' tint or outline. This makes it crystal clear and then you don't have people saying 'I didn't know!!' 'I want a reset!!'

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
That makes sense - the bonus. It will be interesting how you designate which SA's are penalized. I would definitely make that visual - so that people truly understand what they are getting themselves into.

For instance... SA's that play well with your Archetype should possibly have a 'Green' tint or outline.... Whereas an SA that contradicts your Archetype and is penalized, should probably have a 'Red' tint or outline. This makes it crystal clear and then you don't have people saying 'I didn't know!!' 'I want a reset!!'



Good suggestion - no clue how Bort plans on coding it but I'll mention that to him (I'm assuming he's still not reading this)

Since there has been talk of SA modifications for positions, has there ever been any talk of being able to choose what attributes are your mains and which are your minors? (with some restrictions if necessary -- aka, you need to pick at least 3 mains and 3 minors) because a pulling guard might want different attribute gains than one that never plans to pull or a more extreme example -- blocking TE wants completely different attributes than a receiving TE.

It would be cool if the SA interface was changed to look more like the VA interface so with the Archetype some SAs could simply be grayed out. As a suggestion.

Originally posted by minjit
Since there has been talk of SA modifications for positions, has there ever been any talk of being able to choose what attributes are your mains and which are your minors? (with some restrictions if necessary -- aka, you need to pick at least 3 mains and 3 minors) because a pulling guard might want different attribute gains than one that never plans to pull or a more extreme example -- blocking TE wants completely different attributes than a receiving TE.

I imagine that these archetypes are going to include some type of new ALG system as well. There has been a lot of talk about changing the major/minor system, so it would make sense that it would go along with this.

Originally posted by Anarcho
I imagine that these archetypes are going to include some type of new ALG system as well. There has been a lot of talk about changing the major/minor system, so it would make sense that it would go along with this.

Yup, that's why I figured I'd ask. =P

Originally posted by Anarcho
Originally posted by minjit

Since there has been talk of SA modifications for positions, has there ever been any talk of being able to choose what attributes are your mains and which are your minors? (with some restrictions if necessary -- aka, you need to pick at least 3 mains and 3 minors) because a pulling guard might want different attribute gains than one that never plans to pull or a more extreme example -- blocking TE wants completely different attributes than a receiving TE.

I imagine that these archetypes are going to include some type of new ALG system as well. There has been a lot of talk about changing the major/minor system, so it would make sense that it would go along with this.

Yes, my understanding is when you select the Archetype... The ALG's will vary accordingly.

I am pumped about this Archetype implementation... Seriously, this is long over due - and is going to make this game so much better. I can't wait.