Warrior General Games

In after Jed

Also without positions all players would have to be 200 or 300 fp.

Therefore there'd be little to no reason to create O-line. I see the reasoning behind this...but It will never work.

Yeah, you can't eliminate positions.
However somewhere down the road, it would be interesting to be able to "convert" positions.
Honestly, it would realistically apply to "LB to DE" or in offenses QB to RB or something like that.
I am thinking of when players go from college to pro.

Many players go from DE to LB, some QB's play WR's (yeah, I know it sounds weird, but it happens).

Was reading this and maybe a "convert position" option at level 18ish would make it interesting.
Would keep the same skill points and such.

I totally agree with this tbh.

.... just going to be selfish on a couple lines here. AND I GET BURNED BY THE "REALISM FTW" CREWS?! .. unique and compelling idea, would be very very interesting but if this passes the "realism" muster while SA Re-Specs and Fast DEs are things I have to argue tooth and nail for under "realism" I'm deeply troubled.

Either way, the size class stuff for skills is exaggerated.

Good tacklers at CB: Nate Clements, Rod Woodson
Good tacklers at Safety: Ronnie Lott, Brian Dawkins (Some of the hardest hitters ever)

- That covers the small guys.

Also, two way players just wouldn't be all that viable. The lineman with both blocking and tackling to play both sides of the ball is simply a not as good as you could be D-Lineman and a not as good as you could be O-Lineman. Same just about everywhere else.

Everything Jed mentioned above is extremely relevant as to the wrench this could throw in.

And, finally, that lack of structure would lead to there actually being 180lb. guys playing DE with 100speed/100agility with how the simulation works. Speed/Agility still work too much better than Strength/Tackling for anyone to really want to go the heavier routes. Before we throw this massive kind of change into the game, lets get the game working properly.

Originally posted by -boz-
Originally posted by pottsman

So what about all those automatic points we've already gotten? I don't like that my fullback and guard already have ones in tackling, do I get those back?

And what about things I trained already? What if I accidently put things in an attribute I'm now getting rid of? This wouldn't work without a complete wipe, and that better not happen.

i dont get it. your FB has tackling?

All fullbacks have tackling. Its a minor. My point is that some positions would immediately demand the ability to respec (which I'm completely against) if this happened, since those points aren't being added to people anymore.

pottsman


uhhhhhhhhhhhh

if a fullback tackled, it would be holding.

ya lost me.

Originally posted by TheInfinity
.... just going to be selfish on a couple lines here. AND I GET BURNED BY THE "REALISM FTW" CREWS?! .. unique and compelling idea, would be very very interesting but if this passes the "realism" muster while SA Re-Specs and Fast DEs are things I have to argue tooth and nail for under "realism" I'm deeply troubled.

Either way, the size class stuff for skills is exaggerated.

Good tacklers at CB: Nate Clements, Rod Woodson
Good tacklers at Safety: Ronnie Lott, Brian Dawkins (Some of the hardest hitters ever)

- That covers the small guys.

Also, two way players just wouldn't be all that viable. The lineman with both blocking and tackling to play both sides of the ball is simply a not as good as you could be D-Lineman and a not as good as you could be O-Lineman. Same just about everywhere else.

Everything Jed mentioned above is extremely relevant as to the wrench this could throw in.

And, finally, that lack of structure would lead to there actually being 180lb. guys playing DE with 100speed/100agility with how the simulation works. Speed/Agility still work too much better than Strength/Tackling for anyone to really want to go the heavier routes. Before we throw this massive kind of change into the game, lets get the game working properly.



LMAO @ Clements being a tackler


I kinda like the idea but would rather see it this way.

If your building a d-lin or o-line, why do we even need kicking, punting, carry, throwing, and catching?

Let us put those SP's where they need to be. I really don't plan on playing my DT as my backup QB, HB, K or P.

Originally posted by rat9771

LMAO @ Clements being a tackler


Nate Clements is known as one of the better tackling CBs in the NFL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3etNiSelik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wesXgqoIN6c

Originally posted by JTsNiners
Originally posted by rat9771


LMAO @ Clements being a tackler


Nate Clements is known as one of the better tackling CBs in the NFL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3etNiSelik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wesXgqoIN6c


Gotta love it when someone takes one of my points and butchers it with complete and total lies. Thanks for the support JTsNiners. Tried to back it up further with that amazing tackle Clements made on Adrian Peterson in 2007 for a six yard loss, can't find it though.

NFL has taken off alot of vids from youtube.

Originally posted by moepoker
Originally posted by rebelwr88

stupid idea TBH

Agreed. Now I gotta recruit players by height and weight? Or sizes?

Positions are needed.

They do that in the NFL all the time. QBs recruited to be WRs...they choose people based on their physical and mental abilities as well as their role-specific experience and talent.

Originally posted by oronis
Originally posted by moepoker

Originally posted by rebelwr88


stupid idea TBH

Agreed. Now I gotta recruit players by height and weight? Or sizes?

Positions are needed.

They do that in the NFL all the time. QBs recruited to be WRs...they choose people based on their physical and mental abilities as well as their role-specific experience and talent.



Very true. But no one plays two positions on opposite side of the ball. Last person to try was Deion Sanders and as great as he was as a Corner Back, he couldn't quite cut it as a Wide Receiver and in truth it was because his Vision as a Wide Receiver was way way too low. He had the physical skills and the hands, just not the experience/knowledge/skill to play the position well and instinctively (Which is what I assume Vision gives you).

terrible idea

Well, I'll tell you one thing that might be a possibility would be like in college football how they have an 'athlete' position. The coach then determines where they are best suited to play. However, there skills do not necessarily all transfer over.

Going with an 'athlete' position would allow you to charge additional flex for the position since it is similar to a 'jack of all trades' type position.

It would be a possibility that would allow you to create a multi-position player without actually losing your positions that I agree are very important to the game.

However, in order to avoid everybody creating these types of players, they would need to be pretty expensive or eventually you would have no positional players anymore.

You would have to create negatives and positives to creating this type of player.

Possible. Yes.

Likely. No.

id like the idea.... i could see people still building punters/kickers just because there would be a lack of them, and they'd want to secure a starting position...

but i doubt glb would ever do it