Warrior General Games

Originally posted by ICRockets
Ok, but can you explain to me how nerfing him along with the overpowered HBs is going to change the balance at all? Will you be ok with them going for 200+ yards a game as long as they only do it with +23% break tackle?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

This change isn't about the balance of positions.

This change is about the balance of one AEQ vs another.

Originally posted by Tim26
so 10 SA is better than 11 SA or 11 is like the same as 10?

Nope. Diminishing Returns =/= No Returns.

Originally posted by Tim26
Originally posted by Deathblade

Yeah...SAs over 10 have always had diminishing returns.

so 10 SA is better than 11 SA or 11 is like the same as 10?

what is this i don't even

Originally posted by ICRockets
Ok, but can you explain to me how nerfing him along with the overpowered HBs is going to change the balance at all?
*sigh* I think enough people have already explained this to you. Right now % stacks are so powerful that they can only be countered by other % stacks. So my DE basically can't be blocked by any offensive lineman that doesn't also have at least two pieces of hold block (or someone with a lot in Protector since that gives a hefty bonus to blocking). Making this change will keep from forcing every player to invest in those stacks, and instead allow for diversification.

Originally posted by Catch22
Originally posted by Ronnie Brown 23

That is a good point.

Catch22, what happens to stuff like this? Another example could be +% catch ball and +% intercept chance (although I doubt anyone does that at the pro leagues ).

Those combinations are fine - we're mainly looking to stop the +60% to +70% stacks that are OP'ed. Variety is good.

Why not penalize the third piece.... or not even allow a third piece of same % AEQ?

Originally posted by Tim26
so 10 SA is better than 11 SA or 11 is like the same as 10?

It is like when you go to a baseball game, and you get a hotdog and it kicks ass. Best hot dog ever, and you think to your self, damn that was good so you chase the feeling of how great it was with a 2nd dog, and it isn't as good, so you're like fuck it, and you get a 3rd, and it sucks. Same type of thing.

Originally posted by David Stern
It is like when you go to a baseball game, and you get a hotdog and it kicks ass. Best hot dog ever, and you think to your self, damn that was good so you chase the feeling of how great it was with a 2nd dog, and it isn't as good, so you're like fuck it, and you get a 3rd, and it sucks. Same type of thing.

I lol'd

Did someone mention hotdogs?

Originally posted by Deathblade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

LOL@DB getting trolled.

Originally posted by beenlurken
Why not penalize the third piece.... or not even allow a third piece of same % AEQ?
Because even two pieces can get you up to 46%, which is still enough to be overpowering. Halving the effectiveness each time is a very fair way to reduce the unbalancing effect without removing the option completely.

Originally posted by hydrosmak
LOL@DB getting trolled.

Don't think getting trolled means what you think it means.

Originally posted by Deathblade
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

This change isn't about the balance of positions.

This change is about the balance of one AEQ vs another.

The change is about people being mad that HBs are too good. The perceived reason as to why they are too good is because they are taking advantage of the ability to stack + break tackle % AEQ. HOWEVER, as jdbolick has so helpfully pointed out, his DE stacks the most popular D-Lineman +% AEQ too, and all it gets him is a little over a sack a game and the ability to knock down some linemen (an ability aided by a VA that has nothing to do with this discussion, btw).

Look, if every position could point to stacked +% AEQ and say "See, this guy is affecting the outcome of games way too much" then I'd agree that the proposed change is the right answer. But right now all I'm seeing is one problem, and one problem alone: HBs break too many tackles.