Warrior General Games

Has anyone thought that at some point you can have too many changes at one time? Not that it's a bad or a good change, but that you could lose a lot of people from pushing all these changes too fast

Originally posted by jamz
The game is still in development, they're trying to get it fine tuned, so that it's a more fluid experience.

There's going to be changes, and every change will have a group of people that hates them.

You can't make progress toward a better product without change, and I think anyone could agree we're not at a point in the sim / game where things are perfect and won't need change.

I still have yet to have anyone answer why we cant just be limited to one % AEQ piece (no stacking of same % piece) except instead of a 2% gain between upgrades we would ge a 3%. Forces players to try and find that 5% piece and to upgrade it to a high level to be effective. Also forces them to try other AEQ options.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Pretty much.

Every game in history could have continued getting improvements. To actually wish that the development crew would stop attempting to improve the game is just mindblowing.

some games are just better off as classics tho...

Originally posted by Outlaw Dogs
Has anyone thought that at some point you can have too many changes at one time? Not that it's a bad or a good change, but that you could lose a lot of people from pushing all these changes too fast

I think the opposite is what we are seeing here. We've waited too long to make the overhaul changes to business as usual.

Originally posted by Outlaw Dogs
Has anyone thought that at some point you can have too many changes at one time? Not that it's a bad or a good change, but that you could lose a lot of people from pushing all these changes too fast

Probably...but honestly, they aren't THAT huge of changes. It's not like we are adding a dozen new attributes with cryptic descriptions and changing the number of players on the field to 17 per team.

Originally posted by bhall43
some games are just better off as classics tho...

Not GLB lol

Originally posted by beenlurken
I still have yet to have anyone answer why we cant just be limited to one % AEQ piece (no stacking of same % piece) except instead of a 2% gain between upgrades we would ge a 3%. Forces players to try and find that 5% piece and to upgrade it to a high level to be effective. Also forces them to try other AEQ options.

The same reason that it isn't increased to +20% per upgrade.

There's no reasoning behind it.

Originally posted by jamz
The game is still in development, they're trying to get it fine tuned, so that it's a more fluid experience.

There's going to be changes, and every change will have a group of people that hates them.

You can't make progress toward a better product without change, and I think anyone could agree we're not at a point in the sim / game where things are perfect and won't need change.

VERY GOOD POINTS !!!!

The question is --
Will these changes make for a better product?
Is the way it is being done the best for the game?
Is it the best for the consumer / customer?

It just appears that it is "one person's doing" and not the creator/owner (Bort). IF that is the way it is going to be.. so be it... BUT perception is greater than the actual content.

Originally posted by Lancer1997
Hardly.

The game changing is fine and necessary. However when implementing sweeping changes as a result of something being successful to make it specifically less successful...is dumb.

Some of the changes have been made to make the game a little more "fair" (for lack of a better term).

DE's were improved for a bit, then nerfed because they were getting 2-3 sacks a game on a good team and now I think they have found a decent medium.

There's apparently a problem with the % chance. If this change wasn't made, then people would probably start threads in GLB main crying about the unfairness of it after everyone caught on. I think this change was probably proactive and for the better.

Originally posted by Deathblade
So you would suggest that instead of the strongest builds get nerfed...the weaker ones get nerfed?

I'm not following here.

I would suggest the weaker players adjust their builds and adapt to the successful players.

Scenario: high agility DE's get 100+ sacks a year.
Solution: Adjust OT's with higher agility to combat high agility DE's and if necessary keep a FB in to block.

I dont see Jared Allen or Dwight Freeney magically lose their speed and agility year over year.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by beenlurken

I still have yet to have anyone answer why we cant just be limited to one % AEQ piece (no stacking of same % piece) except instead of a 2% gain between upgrades we would ge a 3%. Forces players to try and find that 5% piece and to upgrade it to a high level to be effective. Also forces them to try other AEQ options.

The same reason that it isn't increased to +20% per upgrade.

There's no reasoning behind it.

Can I get someone who isnt a dbag (that includes you too jdbolick) to answer this?

Originally posted by Hate Sighed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PBvOxicz-0

omg it's dooley in his prime >_>

Originally posted by Deathblade
Not GLB lol

touche

Originally posted by Lancer1997
I would suggest the weaker players adjust their builds and adapt to the successful players.

Scenario: high agility DE's get 100+ sacks a year.
Solution: Adjust OT's with higher agility to combat high agility DE's and if necessary keep a FB in to block.

I dont see Jared Allen or Dwight Freeney magically lose their speed and agility year over year.

Way to avoid the question.

I give you a gold star in incompetence.