Warrior General Games

Originally posted by hoshdude7


Other way around??

Originally posted by Corndog
Typo?

You fuckers are too quick.

Originally posted by CyberNinja
SS- coverage
FS- Run Support

They aren't the same build.

Originally posted by Corndog
Typo?

nope. he just doesnt know what either position really is.

You're boring, and the only thing you have on me is I drove a bus whenever a friend of mine needed a driver, and I had time off in 2012, the extra money was good, really not the big of a deal you make it out to be, but I guess in your pathetic little mind it's a big deal, you only make yourself look like a bitch. I mean really, look how mad I got you in what a week, you can't post anything without making a rude comment about me, it's very sad.

It's no more different than the ROLB and LOLB, and those got grouped together as LBs for GLB2. If it's NGTH, would at least be nice to hear why the decision was made not to do the same with Safeties.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
OP has lost his mind,

the 4 upvotes should be IP banned from the GLBs and all future Warrior General games.

Says the guy that's asked me for opinions on Pass Deflection DT builds before

Originally posted by pauly ginsberg
SS and FS are not the same position, you might as well jut have one OLine position and while we're at it lets merge HB and FB to one position as well I'm sure no one playing a game like this is interested in the smaller position differences.

I think he is meaning to say that LB can play all spots without an OOP penalty, so safeties should too. It does make sense, they could technically have the same or flip flopped assignments most of the time depending on personnel. I think the point you are tying to make is that FS and SS, while playing in the same general area or even having the same kind of assignments, are usually slightly specialized and built a different way. This isn't always true and there are many combinations of types of players and plays you can run to be successful, but obviously the most common combination is a pass defending, roaming FS and a SS that is better than the FS in run support.

I agree that FS to SS and vice versa should not have an OOP penalty, if a player is built to be able to do both typical jobs decently then he weakens himself by not be a great FS or SS. If he is a specialized FS playing SS then he is weakening himself by not acquiring typical SS skills to level a SS would usually have them and not be as good as a specialized SS. So the penalty is already there with how the player is built and trying to play two different positions, no need to add another penalty.

If the case is that there should be an OOP for SS to FS, then you could easily argue for an OOP penalty for a LCB or RCB playing as the NB in the slot, and even for a Y receiver playing the Z or X spot. What about a tiny WLB trying to play the run on the strong side? Or a 3-4 Mike vs a 4-3 Mike?

Originally posted by Galithor
there are some trait differences on the O-line though. Tackles get access to the Protector trait for example. So far as I know, Free and Strong safeties are basically exactly the same, other than their title and the fact they incur a minimum OOP penalty when subbed in for each other. I'm basically advocating for eliminating that OOP penalty the way LBs has done for all the different LB positions.

And if you make an Lineman Dot and choose Protector then he just became a "natural" OT. But if the coach plugs him in at Guard, why should there be an "OOP" added on? Why wouldnt the SPs you spent on protector be OOP enough? Or the SPs you spent making him more agile or more speedy than a Guard or Center normally would be?

Get it?

Originally posted by Galithor
Says the guy that's asked me for opinions on Pass Deflection DT builds before

Is this GLB1?

Originally posted by yello1
And if you make an Lineman Dot and choose Protector then he just became a "natural" OT. But if the coach plugs him in at Guard, why should there be an "OOP" added on? Why wouldnt the SPs you spent on protector be OOP enough? Or the SPs you spent making him more agile or more speedy than a Guard or Center normally would be?

Get it?



For once I actually agree with you Yello...

Aside from the obvious penalties from starting attributes and trait selection,
OOP really shouldn't be a enforced mechanism, because in our own way, each users applies its own OOP to a dot/joe while building it.

I seee CBs that went with 2 str at creation, this right here is what I would also consider a "natural" OOP...
There is a price to pay at building to be good at a certain position, and often times, this price makes you worse at other positions just by virtue of improving in your speciality... We see this in real life, and tbh wouldn't be bad in a game...

No one will make full OT teams because the absurd height/weight requirement would nullify OT at most other positions other than the T... Etc.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
For once I actually agree with you Yello...

Aside from the obvious penalties from starting attributes and trait selection,
OOP really shouldn't be a enforced mechanism, because in our own way, each users applies its own OOP to a dot/joe while building it.

I seee CBs that went with 2 str at creation, this right here is what I would also consider a "natural" OOP...
There is a price to pay at building to be good at a certain position, and often times, this price makes you worse at other positions just by virtue of improving in your speciality... We see this in real life, and tbh wouldn't be bad in a game...

No one will make full OT teams because the absurd height/weight requirement would nullify OT at most other positions other than the T... Etc.


I can see why you have a lot of haters. Knowing more about football than most people and then talking with them about football with their lower level of understanding, not only of football but also English and reading comprehension, leads to a bunch of sad, unneeded arguments.

They certainly could have gone with making all players just be players, have access to all skills and traits and SAs and height/weights, and then just have people build whatever and play at whatever position. The downside is that they can't use cost of positions as a mechanism to get more money and promote the building of non-premiere positions due to being cheap.

But, they didn't, so it's not really worth having a suggestions thread over. That bridge was closed in early Alpha. I'd be surprised if they make any changes like merging or splitting positions from this point, either - too fundamental.

Originally posted by Galithor
Says the guy that's asked me for opinions on Pass Deflection DT builds before

blind leading the blind?

As a football fan this thread saddens me

Originally posted by -Phaytle-

I can see why you have a lot of haters. Knowing more about football than most people and then talking with them about football with their lower level of understanding, not only of football but also English and reading comprehension, leads to a bunch of sad, unneeded arguments.

I have 'haters' because I beat the shit out of you idiots without caring.

haters are just that, haters, and they derive no cares from me.

Originally posted by Homage
blind leading the blind?

not really... sorta sent out mass PMs to everyone who had a plateau DT who was getting more than 10 PDs in a season in a competitive league.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
not really... sorta sent out mass PMs to everyone who had a plateau DT who was getting more than 10 PDs in a season in a competitive league.

but there's only one competitive league in GLB1