Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Catch22
really just leaning to getting rid of combo - would be a lot of work to reinvent it and the other three options cover the HB "world"

It should solve the problem of all the FA hb's with 4 in every SA

The thread Benefit of changing to Archetypes? has been merged into this thread

I was just wondering if it would be better to change some of my older players over or keep them to same. Wondering if it will be worth it

I'd say Archtypes would have better builds, because it help people build their players (I assume). But I'd stick with your older, because we don't know how the Archtypes will work out. Wait until we see which is better, then if the Arch is the get rid of the older. Thats what Im doing, anyway.

Originally posted by Osmlol
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread_list.pl?forum_id=4

OMG THAT LINKS TO THE GLB FORUM

Originally posted by David Stern
U need a balanced version of hbs lol , no penalty to either sa like every other position in the game has...

too bad the power back didn't have speed, then if you got rid of combo you'd have it both in one back, and it would be just as balanced as the other 2 with the majors available.

if you were gonna build a true combo back, it would be hard without speed.

i'm just sayin.

Originally posted by RMiller517
too bad the power back didn't have speed, then if you got rid of combo you'd have it both in one back, and it would be just as balanced as the other 2 with the majors available.

if you were gonna build a true combo back, it would be hard without speed.

i'm just sayin.

Current FB is basically what a new Power Back will become. Imaging if I had ANY KIND of level gain in speed, instead of blocking. (All I did was single cap blocking super early)

His AGL/STR/CARRY would be the same, but with about 20 more speed? Looks pretty viable to me.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=684189

I think an opportunity is being missed here to truly improve the SA trees. Either offering completely different sets of SAs per archtype, OR...

Putting in a chinese menu system, where users could choose "two from column A, two from column B and one from column C", for example. That would give some control to keep everyone from jumping on the same handful of SAs. Different archtypes would have different menus of SAs to choose from, but they'd still be allowed some degree of variety within an archtype.

So - was anything offering more SA variety considered under the proposed Archtype player scheme, and if it was rejected, why was it rejected?

Originally posted by Staz
Originally posted by Triple_A

So basically building players is taken out of this game ( since archetypes are some what pre-built). This will sure make it easier for OC's and DC's. You will know what your up against, a DC's dream.

How do you figure it'll make it easier? It'll add more diversity. Imagine how many different types of players there are now with everybody getting the same ALGs. Now, give positions 2-4 types of ALGs to choose from, and let them make variations based off of THOSE? You're looking at quite a few more types.

Thanks, Staz.. Finally someone that understand that it will make it HARDER for OC's and DC's due to all the variations and planning that will go with it.

Originally posted by OttawaShane
I think an opportunity is being missed here to truly improve the SA trees. Either offering completely different sets of SAs per archtype, OR...

Putting in a chinese menu system, where users could choose "two from column A, two from column B and one from column C", for example. That would give some control to keep everyone from jumping on the same handful of SAs. Different archtypes would have different menus of SAs to choose from, but they'd still be allowed some degree of variety within an archtype.

So - was anything offering more SA variety considered under the proposed Archtype player scheme, and if it was rejected, why was it rejected?

Hazy said they'd be revisiting SAs soon, and fixing the broken ones, and balancing between the less effective and overly effective.

This is what we're discussing for Combo (it's either this or get rid of it):

Major Carrying Confidence Speed Vision (+.5)
Minor Agility Catching Stamina Strength (+.25)
Bonus SA's - None
Penalty SA's - None

we should have a neutral archetype for each position no bonus or penalties. this would further the diversification of player builds and not penalize agents who have a change of heart on how they want their player to be built during their careers.

alright 30 more minutes then I'm locking this bad boy up.

Originally posted by Catch22
alright 30 more minutes then I'm locking this bad boy up.

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!