Originally posted by Homage
but there's only one competitive league in GLB1
Rookie 6 i know
but there's only one competitive league in GLB1
Rookie 6 i know
Forum > Suggestions > Merge FS and SS into Safety
daryls61
offline
offline
Another option could be to eliminate any OPP penalty for the 2 safety positions. That way they would be interchangeable and still maintain their original build specification.
Originally posted by daryls61
Another option could be to eliminate any OPP penalty for the 2 safety positions. That way they would be interchangeable and still maintain their original build specification.
The point is safeties are not interchangeable....
This suggestion is as stupid as it gets, and of course you guys love it.
Another option could be to eliminate any OPP penalty for the 2 safety positions. That way they would be interchangeable and still maintain their original build specification.
The point is safeties are not interchangeable....
This suggestion is as stupid as it gets, and of course you guys love it.
Galithor
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jampy2.0
The point is safeties are not interchangeable....
This suggestion is as stupid as it gets, and of course you guys love it.
LBs aren't any more/less interchangeable either, yet there they are, all piled into the LB category for GLB2. What would be so bad about creating a "safety" and then the user molding them into more of a SS or FS the same way a LB agent is molding his guy to play ROLB, LOLB, or ILB/MLB?
FWIW, I'm not against doing the same thing on the O-line. They're all the same cost tier, and the differences aren't huge. It'd be easier to manage depth if we killed OOP at the O-line level as well.
The point is safeties are not interchangeable....
This suggestion is as stupid as it gets, and of course you guys love it.
LBs aren't any more/less interchangeable either, yet there they are, all piled into the LB category for GLB2. What would be so bad about creating a "safety" and then the user molding them into more of a SS or FS the same way a LB agent is molding his guy to play ROLB, LOLB, or ILB/MLB?
FWIW, I'm not against doing the same thing on the O-line. They're all the same cost tier, and the differences aren't huge. It'd be easier to manage depth if we killed OOP at the O-line level as well.
Edited by Galithor on Jan 10, 2014 10:18:44
Galithor
offline
offline
Originally posted by Homage
blind leading the blind?
Seeing as how none of mine every did as well as any of yours, Pretty much.
I was full of more "what I don't think works" advice than "What I do think works" when folks asked.
blind leading the blind?
Seeing as how none of mine every did as well as any of yours, Pretty much.
I was full of more "what I don't think works" advice than "What I do think works" when folks asked.
Originally posted by Galithor
What would be so bad about creating a "safety" and then the user molding them into more of a SS or FS the same way a LB agent is molding his guy to play ROLB, LOLB, or ILB/MLB?
Because you can think of MLB and OLB as different positions, its just the fact that we umbrella them all under LB that this suggestion has any merit.
If your MLB can play OLB and MLB equally well, you are not building him to be a good enough MLB imo.
What would be so bad about creating a "safety" and then the user molding them into more of a SS or FS the same way a LB agent is molding his guy to play ROLB, LOLB, or ILB/MLB?
Because you can think of MLB and OLB as different positions, its just the fact that we umbrella them all under LB that this suggestion has any merit.
If your MLB can play OLB and MLB equally well, you are not building him to be a good enough MLB imo.
Homage
offline
offline
Originally posted by Galithor
Seeing as how none of mine every did as well as any of yours, Pretty much.
I was full of more "what I don't think works" advice than "What I do think works" when folks asked.
well mine have been open for a while now... ha
Seeing as how none of mine every did as well as any of yours, Pretty much.
I was full of more "what I don't think works" advice than "What I do think works" when folks asked.
well mine have been open for a while now... ha
Homage
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Because you can think of MLB and OLB as different positions, its just the fact that we umbrella them all under LB that this suggestion has any merit.
If your MLB can play OLB and MLB equally well, you are not building him to be a good enough MLB imo.
huh?
Because you can think of MLB and OLB as different positions, its just the fact that we umbrella them all under LB that this suggestion has any merit.
If your MLB can play OLB and MLB equally well, you are not building him to be a good enough MLB imo.
huh?
Originally posted by Homage
huh?
If we considered MLB and OLB 2 different positions, the basis for OPs argument would be lost.
huh?
If we considered MLB and OLB 2 different positions, the basis for OPs argument would be lost.
Originally posted by NiborRis
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.
The cost thing is a valid point against the broader generic dot concept.
But within the cost ranges, SS-FS, O Line, D Line, I think there could be less specialization by OOP and more by player build choices and coaching selections and placements.
And unlike other changes, removing OOP should be pretty easy to do.
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.
The cost thing is a valid point against the broader generic dot concept.
But within the cost ranges, SS-FS, O Line, D Line, I think there could be less specialization by OOP and more by player build choices and coaching selections and placements.
And unlike other changes, removing OOP should be pretty easy to do.
Galithor
offline
offline
Originally posted by yello1
The cost thing is a valid point against the broader generic dot concept.
But within the cost ranges, SS-FS, O Line, D Line, I think there could be less specialization by OOP and more by player build choices and coaching selections and placements.
And unlike other changes, removing OOP should be pretty easy to do.
DT and DE are different costs too. D-line would be the trickiest merge of the 3 I think.
daryls61
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Because you can think of MLB and OLB as different positions, its just the fact that we umbrella them all under LB that this suggestion has any merit.
If your MLB can play OLB and MLB equally well, you are not building him to be a good enough MLB imo.
This is correct. you build a MLB different than a OLB but both are LB's for GLB purposes. OP is suggesting Safety be 1 position, and agents build toons to either be a FS or a SS. Agents could then even build a combo Safety that could play both positions. This would be similar to how you can build a combo LB or a coverage LB now.
Because you can think of MLB and OLB as different positions, its just the fact that we umbrella them all under LB that this suggestion has any merit.
If your MLB can play OLB and MLB equally well, you are not building him to be a good enough MLB imo.
This is correct. you build a MLB different than a OLB but both are LB's for GLB purposes. OP is suggesting Safety be 1 position, and agents build toons to either be a FS or a SS. Agents could then even build a combo Safety that could play both positions. This would be similar to how you can build a combo LB or a coverage LB now.
Originally posted by daryls61
This is correct. you build a MLB different than a OLB but both are LB's for GLB purposes.
No, both are LBs for LIFE purposes. irl and in any and every football sim ever made.
Originally posted by daryls61
OP is suggesting Safety be 1 position, and agents build toons to either be a FS or a SS. Agents could then even build a combo Safety that could play both positions. This would be similar to how you can build a combo LB or a coverage LB now.
It's not the same I don't understand why you ppl keep saying that........
There can be up to 4 LBs on the field at one time... Based on where they line up and who they play against, the LBs (which are ALL LBS BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY PLAY....) Have to have different skill sets based on where they are lined up.... It is because of these different skill sets that we have FURTHER broken down LB into ilb/mlb and olb...
SS and FS have historically been different positions... What you are asking Burt and co. to do is to change football as it has been known for years now, and create a different game essentially, which is why I can tell you this suggestion is NGTH.
The point you all are making is contradictory... You all are repeating because LB is split up into OLB and MLB we should be able to combine SS and FS into S....
Think about it
This is correct. you build a MLB different than a OLB but both are LB's for GLB purposes.
No, both are LBs for LIFE purposes. irl and in any and every football sim ever made.
Originally posted by daryls61
OP is suggesting Safety be 1 position, and agents build toons to either be a FS or a SS. Agents could then even build a combo Safety that could play both positions. This would be similar to how you can build a combo LB or a coverage LB now.
It's not the same I don't understand why you ppl keep saying that........
There can be up to 4 LBs on the field at one time... Based on where they line up and who they play against, the LBs (which are ALL LBS BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY PLAY....) Have to have different skill sets based on where they are lined up.... It is because of these different skill sets that we have FURTHER broken down LB into ilb/mlb and olb...
SS and FS have historically been different positions... What you are asking Burt and co. to do is to change football as it has been known for years now, and create a different game essentially, which is why I can tell you this suggestion is NGTH.
The point you all are making is contradictory... You all are repeating because LB is split up into OLB and MLB we should be able to combine SS and FS into S....
Think about it
Edited by Jampy2.0 on Jan 10, 2014 20:39:07
Originally posted by Jampy2.0
It's not the same I don't understand why you ppl keep saying that........
There can be up to 4 LBs on the field at one time... Based on where they line up and who they play against, the LBs (which are ALL LBS BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY PLAY....) Have to have different skill sets based on where they are lined up.... It is because of these different skill sets that we have FURTHER broken down LB into ilb/mlb and olb...
SS and FS have historically been different positions... What you are asking Burt and co. to do is to change football as it has been known for years now, and create a different game essentially, which is why I can tell you this suggestion is NGTH.
The point you all are making is contradictory... You all are repeating because LB is split up into OLB and MLB we should be able to combine SS and FS into S....
Think about it
Ive played everything on D except Dline and no LB or DB position is the same. if theyre going to group LBs into a group and let you do what you want, you should be able to group the safeties into one group and do what you want. would also add to this whole '43 only roster' shit.
as an example:
makes no sense to compare Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu.
makes no sense to compare Terrell Suggs with Patrick Willis.
theyre all different because theyre in different positions. if they group ILBs/MLBs/OLBs and let you do whatever you want and have as many as you want, why not safeties? hell, i would even be fine with having CBs/SSs/FSs all called DBs so i can have as many as i want and play them wherever i want.
It's not the same I don't understand why you ppl keep saying that........
There can be up to 4 LBs on the field at one time... Based on where they line up and who they play against, the LBs (which are ALL LBS BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY PLAY....) Have to have different skill sets based on where they are lined up.... It is because of these different skill sets that we have FURTHER broken down LB into ilb/mlb and olb...
SS and FS have historically been different positions... What you are asking Burt and co. to do is to change football as it has been known for years now, and create a different game essentially, which is why I can tell you this suggestion is NGTH.
The point you all are making is contradictory... You all are repeating because LB is split up into OLB and MLB we should be able to combine SS and FS into S....
Think about it
Ive played everything on D except Dline and no LB or DB position is the same. if theyre going to group LBs into a group and let you do what you want, you should be able to group the safeties into one group and do what you want. would also add to this whole '43 only roster' shit.
as an example:
makes no sense to compare Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu.
makes no sense to compare Terrell Suggs with Patrick Willis.
theyre all different because theyre in different positions. if they group ILBs/MLBs/OLBs and let you do whatever you want and have as many as you want, why not safeties? hell, i would even be fine with having CBs/SSs/FSs all called DBs so i can have as many as i want and play them wherever i want.
Edited by ProfessionalKop on Jan 10, 2014 21:59:01
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
