Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
I understand that you are only in discussion. I'm not one of those agents who thinks you just throw a dart at a wheel and that is your future GLB change. I actually respect how you guys put thought into your game changes.
My point is that you're choosing between one method that allows more choices, but with different costs, versus a method that forces some build aspects. Putting a cap on how much EQ can go into an attribute will force agents to go certain routes. Allowing them to choose in a cost/benefit scenario will open up build variability. You just have to prevent the super-extreme builds from being so effective in their choice of strengths that they can exploit the sim. That is where changing the deviations comes in. This might be a moot point, however. To just go with speed as an example (since that is the attribute most at issue), most elite man coverage CBs in the future will have around 140 speed and most hard hitters will have around 125-130 speed. If that 140 speed is enough to keep up decently with 160-170 speed WRs, then all is good. If those 160-170 speed WRs will break a guaranteed 1-2 TDs per game, then changing the difference between those speeds might be needed. This doesn't mean that you should use diminishing returns, but that you should shrink the range of possible speeds, so that higher speed will mean something, but not so much that it is exploitable.
Same difference as implementing diminishing returns over 100 (or some other higher number) isn't it?