Warrior General Games

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.

How can anyone ever call you a troll with strokes of brilliance like this?

Originally posted by ICRockets
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.

Have you actually read this link? It is actually pretty good.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Originally posted by OneGiantLeap


My linebacker's AEQ is the following:

+8 speed, +5 Wrap Up Tackle SA
, Break block chance +21%

+5 speed, +3 tackling, +5 Superior Vision SA
, Break block chance +18%

So... with this new change, am I going to be allowed to have a +7 Speed, +5 Wrap Up, +5 Shed Blocks? Because that would be great, but I don't even think that's currently possible. And if not, I think that disadvantages me against players who may have bought equipment like +3 Speed, 5% Break bock.

Could I potentially get +3 speed, to make up for my break block? Or will I be forced to not get any SA's since I was already lucky enough to get SA/% piece equipment?


I'm iffy on attempting to answer this being as I just found out like the rest but from the announcement it sounds like the Shed Blocks is possible. Wait for another to confirm (tester or Catch).

Originally posted by jdbolick
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.

So now we go from 60+% being the problem to 46% being the problem...

Originally posted by JcWildcat
Originally posted by OneGiantLeap



My linebacker's AEQ is the following:

+8 speed, +5 Wrap Up Tackle SA
, Break block chance +21%

+5 speed, +3 tackling, +5 Superior Vision SA
, Break block chance +18%

So... with this new change, am I going to be allowed to have a +7 Speed, +5 Wrap Up, +5 Shed Blocks? Because that would be great, but I don't even think that's currently possible. And if not, I think that disadvantages me against players who may have bought equipment like +3 Speed, 5% Break bock.

Could I potentially get +3 speed, to make up for my break block? Or will I be forced to not get any SA's since I was already lucky enough to get SA/% piece equipment?


I'm iffy on attempting to answer this being as I just found out like the rest but from the announcement it sounds like the Shed Blocks is possible. Wait for another to confirm (tester or Catch).


Break Block takes the place of an attribute on AEQ, Catch already answered that BB% could be transfered into an attribute bonus (Likely for base 2% = +1, 3%= +2, 5% = +3)

Therefore, nobody will be selling BB% equipment for the most part because it is still hilariously and absurdly better than any other option.

Originally posted by beenlurken
So now we go from 60% being the problem to 46% being the problem...

How dare you think so far ahead. That is not the GLB way! This is something that will be corrected 3 seasons from now...

Can we pick our own intense training combo's yet??

I know, its off topic, but Catch22 is on a mission this offseason to change ALOT of player building investments, I might as well address another pet peeve?

What happens to a 4th piece?

Originally posted by beenlurken
So now we go from 60+% being the problem to 46% being the problem...

Some weird maths there

Originally posted by Jiddy78
What happens to a 4th piece?

Causes you to fall down

Originally posted by ICRockets
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.

the bottom line is that power HBs need to break tackles to keep up with their elusive counterparts. go take a look at the yards per rush that some of the good current WL HBs have right now and tell me that powerbacks break too many tackles. fact is that they need to break tackles to be effective, since they can't run right the hell by defenders.

that being said, i see nothing wrong with this change... it needed to happen. just realize this will effect how good positions are based on their roles and if they used %AEQ. (Like Elusives vs PBs)

Originally posted by ICRockets
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.

If you think this problem only applies to HBs you're sadly mistaken.

BB %+ Shed Block
Or
Think about a LB who stacks DvG + 3 Make Tackler pieces + Sure Tackler. See what I'm saying?

Originally posted by beenlurken
So now we go from 60+% being the problem to 46% being the problem...

It's not even worth it, dude. All they're doing is looking at an arbitrary number and saying it's too high. Results on the field don't even mean anything to them if they're not talking about HBs. Which, also, they've conveniently tried to bring every disagreement in the thread back to.

Originally posted by IggyWH
Originally posted by beenlurken

So now we go from 60% being the problem to 46% being the problem...

How dare you think so far ahead. That is not the GLB way! This is something that will be corrected 3 seasons from now...

The point of this isn't to make % AEQ unusable, it is to make taking different AEQ a valid option.

ie. the difference between 35% in one ability, or 30% in one ability and 20% in another, etc.

Originally posted by beenlurken
So now we go from 60% being the problem to 46% being the problem...
I don't understand why you refuse to accept the reality of your mental deficiencies even when so many people point them out over and over again. They do so because of posts like this. 46% is less impactful than 60%, but only by a quarter.