Originally posted by Catch22
Wrapping up - five minutes left. Hope everyone enjoyed the Q & A!
Thanks C22 & Bort.
Wrapping up - five minutes left. Hope everyone enjoyed the Q & A!
Thanks C22 & Bort.
Originally posted by DrkSandman
How is Longhornfan1024 not a mod of this site yet?
fyp
How is Longhornfan1024 not a mod of this site yet?
fyp
4thandlong
offline
offline
Originally posted by jamz
Have you ever thought of placing some sort of in game incentive on winning in the Minors? (Small enough to not make the rich 'richer' but large enough to create some excitement about trying to win?)
GLB unintentionally removed the 'win to move up' incentive when moving from Regions / Pyarmids to level tiered minors.
People now often benefit more by not trying for a year, going 4-12, until they hit the absolute max level for caps to then proceed to be at the best possible level/age to win every year, rather than winning every season they can.
Tying MVP awards, to only playoff teams for example is a small incentive with value, but not game breaking. I'm sure there are other possibilities.
Sort of Like This....
http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=1460
In a Cap 18 League...GG Jamz
Have you ever thought of placing some sort of in game incentive on winning in the Minors? (Small enough to not make the rich 'richer' but large enough to create some excitement about trying to win?)
GLB unintentionally removed the 'win to move up' incentive when moving from Regions / Pyarmids to level tiered minors.
People now often benefit more by not trying for a year, going 4-12, until they hit the absolute max level for caps to then proceed to be at the best possible level/age to win every year, rather than winning every season they can.
Tying MVP awards, to only playoff teams for example is a small incentive with value, but not game breaking. I'm sure there are other possibilities.
Sort of Like This....
http://goallineblitz.com/game/team.pl?team_id=1460
In a Cap 18 League...GG Jamz
Edited by 4thandlong on Oct 20, 2010 20:42:54
Originally posted by TrevJo
Are designed QB rollout plays still on the radar?
Is there any plan to give agents more control of their QBs via player tactics in terms of how often they roll out and how often they tuck and run? Right now agents can't make their scrambling QBs tuck and run often, and they can't make their pocket QBs avoid pulling the ball down on 3rd & 15 against coverage-heavy defenses.
1) Yep, we just talked about it briefly.
2) I wonder if maybe separating scrambling and running options for QB tactics would help. Just because the QB is set to move out of the pocket more often doesn't mean he wants to run all the time. I have always tried to balance the two with the one setting; maybe two could allow a lot more freedom. I'm gonna add that to my list.
Are designed QB rollout plays still on the radar?
Is there any plan to give agents more control of their QBs via player tactics in terms of how often they roll out and how often they tuck and run? Right now agents can't make their scrambling QBs tuck and run often, and they can't make their pocket QBs avoid pulling the ball down on 3rd & 15 against coverage-heavy defenses.
1) Yep, we just talked about it briefly.
2) I wonder if maybe separating scrambling and running options for QB tactics would help. Just because the QB is set to move out of the pocket more often doesn't mean he wants to run all the time. I have always tried to balance the two with the one setting; maybe two could allow a lot more freedom. I'm gonna add that to my list.
Originally posted by Catch22
Well the way we see it there are four options:
1) Leave as is - won't really work because 160+ in an attribute breaks some aspects of the game and causes some balance issues.
2) Have attributes have a diminishing effect over 100 like SA's do over 10. This is a possibility we would consider, especially in regards to speed (which is the biggest issue we have with maxed attribs)
3) Have a hard cap on attributes - we don't really want to do this
4) Have a cap on attributes via EQ either by limiting the number of points a player can put into an attrib or reducing the value of EQ.
So really we have to do #2 or #4 and #4 seemed like the most effective means of ensuring players tried to build more well rounded players and thus giving secondary attributes more value (if you can't put points into X attribute, you'll then put them in Y).
As stated before, this is just in discussion, so let's not push the panic button.
Couldn't another option be to link attributes together to reduce how high they could go?
e.g. You can't go higher than 70 in Speed without having 40 in Agility.
You could even at a third attribute to some like the example above you would need a min of 20 in Stamina. Those attributes could be linked all the way up. Then players would be forced to have say 80 in Agility to have 140 in Speed.
Well the way we see it there are four options:
1) Leave as is - won't really work because 160+ in an attribute breaks some aspects of the game and causes some balance issues.
2) Have attributes have a diminishing effect over 100 like SA's do over 10. This is a possibility we would consider, especially in regards to speed (which is the biggest issue we have with maxed attribs)
3) Have a hard cap on attributes - we don't really want to do this
4) Have a cap on attributes via EQ either by limiting the number of points a player can put into an attrib or reducing the value of EQ.
So really we have to do #2 or #4 and #4 seemed like the most effective means of ensuring players tried to build more well rounded players and thus giving secondary attributes more value (if you can't put points into X attribute, you'll then put them in Y).
As stated before, this is just in discussion, so let's not push the panic button.
Couldn't another option be to link attributes together to reduce how high they could go?
e.g. You can't go higher than 70 in Speed without having 40 in Agility.
You could even at a third attribute to some like the example above you would need a min of 20 in Stamina. Those attributes could be linked all the way up. Then players would be forced to have say 80 in Agility to have 140 in Speed.
Catch22
offline
offline
Originally posted by DrkSandman
How is JohnnyDollar not an admin of this site yet?
It was on the NGTH list iirc.
How is JohnnyDollar not an admin of this site yet?
It was on the NGTH list iirc.
Originally posted by charwh
I posted this earlier as well, but if you put speed on a nonlinear curve, treating it as kinetic energy and putting velocity on a square root curve as opposed to a logarithmic curve makes more sense imo.
Planning on playing with it this offseason tbh.
I posted this earlier as well, but if you put speed on a nonlinear curve, treating it as kinetic energy and putting velocity on a square root curve as opposed to a logarithmic curve makes more sense imo.
Planning on playing with it this offseason tbh.
Originally posted by DrkSandman
How is JohnnyDollar not an admin of this site yet?
How is JohnnyDollar not an admin of this site yet?
Timetoshine-Metta
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catch22
It was on the NGTH list iirc.
so was deleting forums...
It was on the NGTH list iirc.
so was deleting forums...
Black Peter
offline
offline
Originally posted by LordEvil
Any chance to have a pro bowl of sorts on day 40 after the championship? Have teams vote in the players, the players with the most votes gets a pro bowl game. Pro bowl is played by a sim that no one controls. Just builds vs builds and basic tactics.
Having players "vote" for pro bowlers will just lead to ballot-box stuffing mostly. Needs to be done w/o agent voting to be feasible really otherwise you'd see a popularity contest which would lead to a whole lot of griping all around, IMO. Not feasible.
Any chance to have a pro bowl of sorts on day 40 after the championship? Have teams vote in the players, the players with the most votes gets a pro bowl game. Pro bowl is played by a sim that no one controls. Just builds vs builds and basic tactics.
Having players "vote" for pro bowlers will just lead to ballot-box stuffing mostly. Needs to be done w/o agent voting to be feasible really otherwise you'd see a popularity contest which would lead to a whole lot of griping all around, IMO. Not feasible.
Originally posted by Bort
Planning on playing with it this offseason tbh.
You understood that?
Planning on playing with it this offseason tbh.
You understood that?
Originally posted by LordEvil
Any chance to have a pro bowl of sorts on day 40 after the championship? Have teams vote in the players, the players with the most votes gets a pro bowl game. Pro bowl is played by a sim that no one controls. Just builds vs builds and basic tactics.
This would be cool
Any chance to have a pro bowl of sorts on day 40 after the championship? Have teams vote in the players, the players with the most votes gets a pro bowl game. Pro bowl is played by a sim that no one controls. Just builds vs builds and basic tactics.
This would be cool
ryan_grant-25
offline
offline
Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Originally posted by Bort
Planning on playing with it this offseason tbh.
You understood that?
i heard he got a B- in physics and a A- in Calculus
Originally posted by Bort
Planning on playing with it this offseason tbh.
You understood that?
i heard he got a B- in physics and a A- in Calculus
Originally posted by kiolb
Originally posted by DrkSandman
How is JohnnyDollar not an admin of this site yet?
NO but really he can make this place better. This dude should be admin!
Originally posted by DrkSandman
How is JohnnyDollar not an admin of this site yet?
NO but really he can make this place better. This dude should be admin!
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
