Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Dee.
So for example this HBs skills add up to 890

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/101243

Therefore before I even consider his traits/attributes we can see he has an average of 235.95 Skill Points per Accumulated Skills (AS?).

Would be interesting to see how everyone stacks up. It would be a PITA right now though.

Not really representative of anything besides "spending points in the cheapest skill".

That said, it would be really easy for someone to write a script that does it when loading an open build.

Originally posted by Corndog
Not really representative of anything besides "spending points in the cheapest skill".

Your ability to effortlessly piss in our cheerios is quite impressive. Your timing and aim is impeccable good sir.

Originally posted by Corndog
That said, it would be really easy for someone to write a script that does it when loading an open build.

Or just put it on the player page? It would take less time than it does to microwave a corndog.

Originally posted by Dee.
So for example this HBs skills add up to 890

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/101243

Therefore before I even consider his traits/attributes we can see he has an average of 235.95 Skill Points per Accumulated Skills (AS?).

Would be interesting to see how everyone stacks up. It would be a PITA right now though.

Random free agent TE: http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/46274
1261 points

As Corndog mentioned it just favors those who spread skills all around. Not a good representation of a good build.

Originally posted by Rob.
Random free agent TE: http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/46274
1261 points

As Corndog mentioned it just favors those who spread skills all around. Not a good representation of a good build.

Eff in GLB1 wasnt the best representation either, But it was a tool that some people found useful.

Originally posted by Rob.
Random free agent TE: http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/46274
1261 points

As Corndog mentioned it just favors those who spread skills all around. Not a good representation of a good build.

I thought we were going to look at weighted discount or something.

For example, if 2K SP was spent on a skill with a 5% discount (due to traits), 2K wa sspnt on a skill with 0 discount, and the final 2K was spent on a skill with a 3% increase in price (due to traits), that would lead to a weighted discount score of (2K * .06 - 2K * .03) / 6K = 1%.

Originally posted by MadCow420
Eff in GLB1 wasnt the best representation either, But it was a tool that some people found useful.

Right but in GLB1 it was useful in terms of people who really did build well though. Here that doesn't mean all that much when skills don't go beyond 100. The only real dictation between builds is their caps and SA's. Which certainly a lot of people in this game fuck up. But it is hard to entirely fuck up pushing your best skills.

Yeah, you'd really just be trying to find out who spent points on skills that were reduced in price the most from their regular, unmodified cost.

Early Bloomer and Egotist type builds pumping sprinting and quickness would be tough to beat. High price skills with big discounts would be calculated as having great skill value and efficiency.

Originally posted by Galithor
Yeah, you'd really just be trying to find out who spent points on skills that were reduced in price the most from their regular, unmodified cost.

Early Bloomer and Egotist type builds pumping sprinting and quickness would be tough to beat. High price skills with big discounts would be calculated as having great skill value and efficiency.

Early Bloomer for sure would be the best using this metric. Egotist - not so sure. On a few builds - yes. But people highly overrate the benefit of Egotist.

You could develop all types of metrics though - you could include salary in the equation and then weight "free" skills a certain amount (i.e. comparative value of 25 free heart from high contract vs taking traits with higher salary bumps).

So K/P with EB would be the "best" builds in the game, yet no one would ever take EB on either position.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
So K/P with EB would be the "best" builds in the game, yet no one would ever take EB on either position.

Well they would be the "best" at getting a certain skill distribution. At the end of the day these are comparatives relating to achievement of certain skill allocations given a certain set of traits. It does not provide a score relating to certain skill allocations being unattainable (due to caps).

Originally posted by FairForever
Early Bloomer for sure would be the best using this metric. Egotist - not so sure. On a few builds - yes. But people highly overrate the benefit of Egotist.

You could develop all types of metrics though - you could include salary in the equation and then weight "free" skills a certain amount (i.e. comparative value of 25 free heart from high contract vs taking traits with higher salary bumps).

Lol? You wanted to build many many players back in time with erkner with egotist and i needed to convince you not to do it. A season later you built your own team and your whole secondary had it

Originally posted by peeti
Lol? You wanted to build many many players back in time with erkner with egotist and i needed to convince you not to do it. A season later you built your own team and your whole secondary had it

Yeah - and two seasons after that almost all of those players are gone. No Name was intended to be a two season test project with no superstars so I could build a team properly (since I didn't learn anything that first season on Erkner) - but then it turned out a lot better than expected.

Ya'll are forgetting how height, weight, and starting attributes affect skill caps and cost per level as well.
One 5'7 165lb WR with 7 stamina and no traits that decrease cost of conditioning takes stamina to 25. Another WR at 220lbs with 2 stamina dominator, and workhorse takes it to 25 as well. Which WR is conditioning cheaper for? The first one has no "discounts" while the second one has a 16% discount to conditioning? Does the heavier one with 1 point in stamina get a higher build value simply because he has traits? The cost difference is almost identical.

For reference
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/170123
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/170189
One is at 73 SP to raise conditioning to 16, the other one I just paid 74 SP to raise conditioning to 16. Not a 16% difference.

Some baseline cost is going to have be determined by position, probably with average height and weight plugged in and all 6 attributes at 6 or something average and no trait discounts. Maybe then comparing the builds cost to the cost of this "normalized" player. Simply using trait discounts isn't enough since height, weight, and points in starting attributes all affect the cost of skills.