Warrior General Games

Originally posted by agerm73
What is to keep someone from creating and alt account and feeding on new players?

I don’t think anybody is that much of a dick. Who the hell gets satisfaction from destroying a newb?

My question would be, how would one decide what a templated build should look like?

Let's just use the example of a Dlineman.

Let's say you picked a pass rush template.

Well, whose build is the game going to use to provide this template? Would the devs reach out to us to ask us to make suggested builds for each of those templates?

And presume, that we do - Me and Adder are going to disagree with Xars build who disagrees with Kvothe's build who disagrees with... See what I mean?

And if the devs pick one of those builds in particular, doesn't that kind of tip their hand that that build might be the ultimately correct one?

I think there are a lot of complications with this idea even if it has its heart in the right place.

And the ultimate nightmare scenario from here arises in, what if the build whatever it is and however it's chosen ends up being subpar?

And then we have to explain to newcomers, "Oh yeah, never use this templated build, it's bad."

That would be an even bigger feels bad than if you just did it blind, I would think.

There is a reason there is no guide on how to build players. The main reason Bort @ Company never give any advice is because they want the agents to figure it out on their own...network and work together to figure out how all the skills work.

They purposely do not give much information about how the skills work. Or how to build a "good dot". They want us to (spend flex) and research and find out how to build to best dots for our teams. That is why you can "hide" your players' skills from other.

Originally posted by ellix
And the ultimate nightmare scenario from here arises in, what if the build whatever it is and however it's chosen ends up being subpar?

And then we have to explain to newcomers, "Oh yeah, never use this templated build, it's bad."

That would be an even bigger feels bad than if you just did it blind, I would think.

Pretty much.

I mean, the format of the game basically means if you don't have the best build you get destroyed, and if we just give people the "best" build out of the gate...why continue playing? For the intense gameplay?

The gameplay is the strive to find better and better builds. And then when sim changes happen or the vets find a new breakthrough in player building, those old builds are back to being garbage anyway. It's all relative, the best of the best builds in S4 would get destroyed in the game now.

Not in one post have I suggested that "best build" should be an option. Recommendations. Yes. Guidelines. Yes. But never best build.

I cited Wizards of the Coast, the owners of the D&D game, currently 5th ed. Open up a box and amongst the dice and campaigns there are preset builds. Presets. Are they optimal? No. Are they fun? Depends on the role playing.

But do they guide the player to develop their character? Hell f****** yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that is the point. That's the whole entire point of this thread.

GLB2 is a RPG first and foremost, is it not? It's certainly not a tactical sim as TE Post spams + 3rd round draft pick HBs who can't play 3 downs of football tend to win the day (well-built ones of course).

No doubt gameplay is to strive for a better build. How much time and money should a novice expect to invest to getgud? I returned almost a year ago and I feel that my dot building has regressed. I even give the wrong advice to the coaches I manage.

As I said in OP, the 5,5,5,5,5,5 blank canvas is where the dot can die before a ball is kicked. Beginners will suffer on Player Creation as they fumble with the system. How much time, money and effort do you, as a dev, expect from him?

Presets are usually subpar players/characters/dots, etc., but that does not detract from the point that it's there as a guide to encourage good dot-building for the future. That is what you intend from your player base, is it not? Customer retention?

So long as the presets can consistently beat CPU rosters with all gameplans being equal, then there is a product that is far more polished and recommendable.

I don't think it's a bad idea. Maybe call them tutorial presets. By labeling them "tutorial" people know they aren't meant to compete with good builds. But like Mango said, they guide you toward builds that are better than CPU players.

The focus should be on having caps high enough to prevent critical mistakes, like maxing out at 40 conditioning or WRs maxing out at like 50 hands. Nothing min/maxed like 90 snap reaction in case the meta moves or it gets nerfed.

It's a lot of work so maybe every season a position or two gets a couple of tutorial presets and over time it fleshes out.

I agree that caps ultimately are a good place to put emphasis. You can course correct if your caps have space. But like you say, if someone shows me a WR in his Jman year who is struggling, I open up the build and see he has 43 CIT and 55 hands as his caps - then he and I now have to have a really unfortunate conversation about the future of his dot.

Agreed. The templates could still have a lot of SP left over for users to spend and experiment as they see fit, as long as the fundamentals are taken care of first - reasonable caps but also bare minimums in conditioning, heart, toughness (DL/OL), consistency, balance, etc. It's very likely there are benchmarks for each position that we can, as a community, come to an agreement on about the minimum needed to function, even if we don't always agree on what the maximums look like. I cannot imagine a situation where you wouldn't make a S build with at least 50 tackling tech and pursuit, a man CB with at least 50 deflecting and man awareness, or a defensive end with 50 pass rush tech.

Another option for adjustment that might make things easier is if instead of starting at 5 with 5 free points on player creation you have everything start at 1 with a higher banked points value. That at least makes it clear that you can reduce points below 5.

Originally posted by Adderfist
Another option for adjustment that might make things easier is if instead of starting at 5 with 5 free points on player creation you have everything start at 1 with a higher banked points value. That at least makes it clear that you can reduce points below 5.

This. I can't tell you how many times over the years, I have heard newbs say they didn't know you could go below 5.

Originally posted by Adderfist
Another option for an adjustment that might make things easier is if instead of starting at 5 with 5 free points on player creation you have everything start at 1 with a higher banked points value. That at least makes it clear that you can reduce points below 5.

This makes sense as a starting point. But many newcomers will haven't an iota of an idea on where to begin.

As I mentioned the OP. The Pocket Passer has 10 in agility and confidence and 5 in awareness. That makes no sense in a real-world scenario, especially the low awareness - you're supposed to read the defense, no?

A template/preset like the ones we get in D&D P&P does just that. At least beginners will know where to start and learn to apply these dot-building principles to other dots. You need to teach the logic behind the reasoning.

In my third season after joining GLB2 I wanted to learn the game better but couldn't find a coaching gig. So, I started the Waterboys but had no experience building any position except QB and HB.

So, I opened my Excel spreadsheet and spent a few days entering the top 10 HOF player's stats (that were viewable) for every position. I used the averages to build my initial players and actually went 10-4, winning my division.

Of course, the builds were only okay and not great. However, this exercise gave me a good baseline to understand where stats were allocated for each position's build. Then, after a season, I quickly learned where each player was lacking and what I needed to improve.

Originally posted by Corndog
The gameplay is the strive to find better and better builds.
Corndog is right. Mango is also right. I had to spend days to figure out a baseline for my initial builds and most newbies won't do that. We could have non-S* build examples for each position to, at least, help people understand how to allocate stat points, hgt/wgt, and abilities.

Also, you could automatically open up all the builds of HOF players. They might be older and mostly S* but this will walk the line of giving build help without giving away the "perfect" build formulas.

(I still have all the averaged stats for the HOF players if that's of interest)

Originally posted by Ace of Spades 7
Also, you could automatically open up all the builds of HOF players.
Now that I think about it, if I had enough Flex, I'd love to make a team using the builds of the top HOF players from each position and seeing how well they'd do in today's era.

... ahhh, but, probably too many S* and they wouldn't fit under the salary cap. So, never mind.

Originally posted by Ace of Spades 7

Now that I think about it, if I had enough Flex, I'd love to make a team using the builds of the top HOF players from each position and seeing how well they'd do in today's era.

... ahhh, but, probably too many S* and they wouldn't fit under the salary cap. So, never mind.

The HoF needs work anyways, but a super and non super HoF would be cool, imo.