Warrior General Games

I'm going to be taking questions/answers on this for a couple hours for the people that were unable to take part in the discussion last night. Please make sure you read the OP of the following thread: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3760560 and the summary of that thread: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3762512 before asking questions that have been asked countless times already.

We are NOT taking suggestions to changing the archetypes. If you continue to spam suggestions, you will receive a temporary forum ban until this discussion is over (at which time I'll reinstate you).

I will lock this thread at 3 p.m. Pacific Time.

::Crickets::

What are your thoughts on this issue?

14 of the 28 archetypes (minus QB/K/P/ST), all lack speed as a major attribute. This is a considerable issue IMHO. All the good builders are efficient builders, so we should expect to see many of these archetypes dealing with what FBs/OL have been dealing with since the beginning... not adding SP to speed, due to the inefficiency of it, until level 30+ (once 3 majors have all been addressed). We're talking about a -100% drop off in efficiency by working a minor before a major and the good builders build dots for the end of their career, not the beginning of it. This will only exasperate the issues we're already facing in the lolminors, since logically speaking, we won't see speed being added to half of the dots until their 4th or 5th season. That or we just won't see certain archetypes ever used by knowledgeable builders.

On top of that issue, it's not really good business to encourage players to sit around for half of their career building (we're talking about 6 months of real life time). It wouldn't be a big deal if players developed much faster... I like GLB, but I'm honestly starting to get bored out of my mind waiting on my young players to develop.

Originally posted by TxSteve
::Crickets::

Give it a minute, I'm sure that'll change soon.

Originally posted by nixa37
Well I addressed the post you quoted, though I still don't quite understand why it was necessary. The archetypes we're getting are essentially balanced with different strengths and weaknesses. If you allow people to choose whatever they want, at most positions its obvious what's best, so they end up with the strengths of the other archetypes combined without the weaknesses. Why is this so hard to understand?

As for the issue with your system, well its not really backwards compatible with existing players. Without redoing a lot of stuff, there is no way to let already created players go back and create custom SA trees, and if you did they'd have unfair knowledge as to what AEQ they already rolled, thus allowing them to better leverage their AEQ with compatible custom SA's. That's the difference between what's happening and what you're proposing. The only thing that changes for current players is a new one time option to switch over to the new system by simply choosing an archetype and an SA. You're system requires them to undo all the SA's they've already done, completely rebuild their SA tree's, and then refill them with SP's they may or may not get back. See the difference in complexity?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is really only complex if you feel you need to allow older players to adjust. There is nothing written in stone that says this has to happen. We hear all the time that "this is a beta". The game changes every season, multiple times per season.

That is very weak reasoning not to do something that would allow far more creativity.

But I'll play the game -- why not have different SA trees for the different archetypes? That still keeps things in a nice, tidy little box for the people worried about exploits, but offers more variation based on archetype chosen.

Now get out of the box, and allow different sets of SA's to be chosen (trees built) based on archetypes. Now get further out of the box and have the trees built over the course of a players career (levels unlocking the next part of the tree). -- and depending on how you chose to build within the archetype, certain SA's would be available and certain ones would not.

See where I'm going here. Far more fun than the current method and would lead to great customization among builds.

Now you do the same with VA's (more unlockable stuff based on archetype, build, etc.) and heck, you could even do it with AEQ (what we all wouldn't give to get rid of the number of useless items -- have items showing up for some based on archetype, based on build, based SA's chosen, etc.)

You can really get into some exciting customization and have truly unique(ish) players if you take some time to set up the system.

Originally posted by Warlock
What are your thoughts on this issue?

14 of the 28 archetypes (minus QB/K/P/ST), all lack speed as a major attribute. This is a considerable issue IMHO. All the good builders are efficient builders, so we should expect to see many of these archetypes dealing with what FBs/OL have been dealing with since the beginning... not adding SP to speed, due to the inefficiency of it, until level 30+ (once 3 majors have all been addressed). We're talking about a -100% drop off in efficiency by working a minor before a major and the good builders build dots for the end of their career, not the beginning of it. This will only exasperate the issues we're already facing in the lolminors, since logically speaking, we won't see speed being added to half of the dots until their 4th or 5th season. That or we just won't see certain archetypes ever used by knowledgeable builders.

On top of that issue, it's not really good business to encourage players to sit around for half of their career building (we're talking about 6 months of real life time). It wouldn't be a big deal if players developed much faster... I like GLB, but I'm honestly starting to get bored out of my mind waiting on my young players to develop.

It's not an issue - it's intentional. All the archetype majors/minors were discussed/reviewed.

A longer plateau is a completely separate matter.

How does everyones current higher level players benefit froom the new changes?
Doesn't it instead screw them over?

I'm not reading walls of text - if there's a question you want answered, please try and keep it to one paragraph.

what the lastest on the Returner Archetype, are you still considering getting rid of it or going on with it as planned

The different weight values, are they set in stone or will they be tweaked?

Originally posted by Team Nucleus
How does everyones current higher level players benefit froom the new changes?
Doesn't it instead screw them over?

It shouldn't affect them at all - they won't be competing against the newly created players.

Originally posted by Catch22
It's not an issue - it's intentional. All the archetype majors/minors were discussed/reviewed.

A longer plateau is a completely separate matter.

I know it was intentional, what are your thoughts on the side effects that will happen due to the changes?

Also, I didn't say anything about a longer plateau... I was commenting on the length of player development. Granted it's still a separate matter, but it does relate to the archetype system to some degree.

Originally posted by vike fan 4 life
what the lastest on the Returner Archetype, are you still considering getting rid of it or going on with it as planned

Was never considering getting rid of Returner, was considering getting rid of STOP.

Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by Team Nucleus

How does everyones current higher level players benefit froom the new changes?
Doesn't it instead screw them over?

It shouldn't affect them at all - they won't be competing against the newly created players.

No benefit to current players right?

Originally posted by crazy454
The different weight values, are they set in stone or will they be tweaked?

Not set in stone, that was actually the very last thing we added and didn't have a ton of discussion on - if you have ideas on some that should be changed, pm Mat McBriar.