Warrior General Games

He is doing the GLB world a favor by NOT retiring them :-D


My OT will eventually have 11 pancake and 95 strength. He is a run blocking OT, and I stopped spending at 4 on pancake and 68 on strength, I just have equip/VAs on them, and I don't regret the pancake decision as it is easily reversible by selling equip.

I wonder if there is a correlation between high pancake skill and avoiding the "reverse pancake?"

Originally posted by Octowned
He is doing the GLB world a favor by NOT retiring them :-D


My OT will eventually have 11 pancake and 95 strength. He is a run blocking OT, and I stopped spending at 4 on pancake and 68 on strength, I just have equip/VAs on them, and I don't regret the pancake decision as it is easily reversible by selling equip.

you mean the Defenseive End favors

precisely, I have one myself, and run 3 teams. I'd love to face his build

Not really related to this thread, but whats better for pancakes, setting on pass/run or no focus?

Originally posted by iMan
Originally posted by UnderDogs

Originally posted by Daddy Warbucks


1. Pancakes are unreliable so they're impossible to plan for in an offensive system, therefor they may as well not even be occuring
2. Holding your block forever is better
3. Retaining energy/morale is WAY better


^ invest in LG, raise blocking to 100 instead of strength.

We'll see. Bort will probably fix the pancake s.a. to flatten out equal competition better. then guys like us will have an advantage.

no he didnt
he made it so Dlinemans can reverse pancake Olinemans
Guys like you are the reason why DT get 10 sacks a game and DE gets 30 sacks a game

Awesome I am glad its guys like me. He plays right guard. So yeah guys like me are totally giving up sacks to d.t.'s and ends.
Regardless of that no one gets past my guy. And the reason why D.T. and D.E. get sacks is because they know how to build a player. I should know I have both you mentioned.

Originally posted by iMan
Originally posted by FatLoad

I have 13. I got 4 different AE each with pancake SA, I upgraded one of the to 2. My player doesn't get many pancakes, though. I think its because his strength is only 20 and blocking only 30. But its cool having an SA really high even though it doesn't help my player and my team.

OMG
I try not to be mean but Bort should revoke your ability to make an Offensive Lineman
what kind of Olineman has 13 in pancake before he even has softcapped str, blocking, and agility
Please do the GLB world a favor and retire your Olinemans

You really need to quit going on rants. your players aren't that good at ALL.

Don't listen to when people say holding a block is better than a pancake. Because once you get lvl 25 and higher, you'll start moving downfield when you've pancaked someone and block someone else. People will say a DE will get up and chase the RB from behind, but that stops as you get into higher lvls too. The RB gets too fast to be caught once someone has fallen down. So nothing is better on a sweep than for your ROT to pancake the DE then move downfield and hit the MLB or better yet the SS.

Also, Pancake is a run block SA, but you can have a pancake occur on a pass play. It happens all the time. And there's nothing that says it only works when run blocking. I couldn't see building any run block SA above 4-5 except for pancake and get low.

There's still the fact that if you don't spend points in pancake you can spend them elsewhere and be a better lineman.

Like I said before, pancakes can't be planned for so they may as well not be happening. It's sad, but true.

I don't understand the logic. Fumbles and INTs can't be planned for either so they might as well not be happening either. Also, they are part of the game, like a lot of other "random events. There is no way anybody can say they know that any SA doesn't work. They have to do something. Do you think SAs are a crule joke or something? Perhaps once your attributes are double and triple capped they add a multiplier effect that can greatly outweigh the effect of putting the same amount of SP in those maxed out attributes. There does come a point to invest in SAs. When your lvl 50+ you're not going to have a lot of other viable options. Especially consider you get custom EQ and have +1 to a tree from that. Then you get a good piece of ADV EQ after lvl 32 when the good ones become available that has +3 attribute, +1 "last" SA. By the time you upgrade to lvl 40 it will be +6 attribute, +4 "last" SA. So your most expensive SA, the last one on the tree, is already +5, 22 SP will get it to 10, that includes your pre-requisite SA lvls. If you raised it to 10 with SP alone it would cost 54 SP with the pre-requisite SAs. I think getting an SA to 10 would be worth more than spending 22 SP on AGL or something else when it costs 4 SP per point because it's already 3rd capped.

Originally posted by mwindle
I don't understand the logic. Fumbles and INTs can't be planned for either so they might as well not be happening either. Also, they are part of the game, like a lot of other "random events. There is no way anybody can say they know that any SA doesn't work. They have to do something. Do you think SAs are a crule joke or something? Perhaps once your attributes are double and triple capped they add a multiplier effect that can greatly outweigh the effect of putting the same amount of SP in those maxed out attributes. There does come a point to invest in SAs. When your lvl 50+ you're not going to have a lot of other viable options. Especially consider you get custom EQ and have +1 to a tree from that. Then you get a good piece of ADV EQ after lvl 32 when the good ones become available that has +3 attribute, +1 "last" SA. By the time you upgrade to lvl 40 it will be +6 attribute, +4 "last" SA. So your most expensive SA, the last one on the tree, is already +5, 22 SP will get it to 10, that includes your pre-requisite SA lvls. If you raised it to 10 with SP alone it would cost 54 SP with the pre-requisite SAs. I think getting an SA to 10 would be worth more than spending 22 SP on AGL or something else when it costs 4 SP per point because it's already 3rd capped.

You're alright man.

he's right though, if you invest in s.a's you will totally suck. as far as attributes go.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=336057

Originally posted by UnderDogs
he's right though, if you invest in s.a's you will totally suck. as far as attributes go.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=336057

That reads like sarcasm but completely proves my point.

Originally posted by UnderDogs
Originally posted by mwindle

I don't understand the logic. Fumbles and INTs can't be planned for either so they might as well not be happening either. Also, they are part of the game, like a lot of other "random events. There is no way anybody can say they know that any SA doesn't work. They have to do something. Do you think SAs are a crule joke or something? Perhaps once your attributes are double and triple capped they add a multiplier effect that can greatly outweigh the effect of putting the same amount of SP in those maxed out attributes. There does come a point to invest in SAs. When your lvl 50+ you're not going to have a lot of other viable options. Especially consider you get custom EQ and have +1 to a tree from that. Then you get a good piece of ADV EQ after lvl 32 when the good ones become available that has +3 attribute, +1 "last" SA. By the time you upgrade to lvl 40 it will be +6 attribute, +4 "last" SA. So your most expensive SA, the last one on the tree, is already +5, 22 SP will get it to 10, that includes your pre-requisite SA lvls. If you raised it to 10 with SP alone it would cost 54 SP with the pre-requisite SAs. I think getting an SA to 10 would be worth more than spending 22 SP on AGL or something else when it costs 4 SP per point because it's already 3rd capped.

You're alright man.

damn nice C man. he's a pncake maniac.

If I really wanted to be mean I'd point out the 10 level advantage you had on your league last season and I'd link to your first game this season (http://goallineblitz.com/game/compare_teams.pl?team1=1571&team2=1198) as a representation for why the amount of pancakes you get is completely disproportionate to a logical debate on the topic and that pancakes are typically infrequent and useless, even for a heavily run-oriented team.

But I guess I'm not mean.