Warrior General Games

Originally posted by ib_mr_ed
My people are in contact with Bob Saget now. He is interested!!!!!!

ib...why are you not pissed about this? AFY will now suck because of this change...you should ragequit now while you have a following!

Originally posted by SpringfieldSkins
Yep, agree.

If this change messes up your build entirely, you didn't have a good build to begin with. Sorry.

guaranteed it messes up my builds and id bet $ my builds are > your builds.

As someone who took full advantage of +% to turn an ordinary build into a good/great build, I think I should weigh in on the discussion...

+% stacking is not too powerful. It is perceived as such because of the different trends in player development. By removing the ability to build in a specialized fashion, you are hurting build diversity, this is a fact and I will illustrate why. As long as something has an equally effective counter, it is balanced. For example +% break tackle chance is, in theory, balanced because of +% make tackle chance. The problems that have developed, have not one iota to do with +% stacking, it has to do with build trends... for the longest time defenders (hell most positions) were built with the "speed kills" mentality. Well guess what, a HB with a considerable advantage in break tackle attributes has a very good base chance to break a tackle, this discrepancy is only further widened by multiplicative bonuses... for example, 60% bonus * 5% base = 3% increase, 60% bonus * 25% base = 15% increase... that's a 500% increase to the effectiveness, based solely on key attribute differences.

What this means is that it's not the +% that is the flaw, it's the build trend. By removing the ability to specialize, you do not fix the problem nor add diversity, all that is accomplished is forcing everyone to build mediocre balanced players... because it will become the trend, due to being the most viable route.

The real problem in GLB is the failure of diversity in attributes. If catching was just as valuable as strength, we might not see builds that take the "overpowered" attributes to ridiculous levels. Even if someone wanted to take an attribute to a ridiculously high level, the balance would be in what they sacrificed by doing so... right now, many secondary attributes (stamina/confidence/vision/jumping and most football skills) do not impact the game anywhere near the primary ones (strength/speed/agility). If you want more build diversity, make all attributes of equal value.

The bottom line is that attributes need to be fixed before making any changes to the rest of the game... if you build a house on shoddy foundation, you should expect major issues to arise.

Originally posted by jroyal73
when it comes down to managing your SP so closely... changes like this really mess up build.

A build imo contains all normal attributes, AEQ, SAs, and VAs. They all work together to make a bad ass build... Nerf break tackle % and... big part of th ebuild is done.

so all of your builds that contained % AEQ are now rendered worthless? makes sense really.

Bhall43 and Deathblade:

The first steps have been taken to see our DREAM become a REALITY!!!!!

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3776001

Imagine if an you bought a car with a top of the line engine. Now imagine that six months after you bought the car the automaker decided that, for the greater good. Every car should have a lower end engine. So they sneak to your house and swap out the engine while you sleep. To make matters better they laugh at their silly customers when they are outraged by the change.

Now lets imagine that the car is your GLB player and the top of the line engine is your stacked percent AE.

:Sarcasm
Really I do not understand why anybody would be upset about this. Its a good thing that only the minority are upset and they won't quit. They just like to make lots of threats because they think they are tough guys.
/Sarcasm

Originally posted by ib_mr_ed
Originally posted by beenlurken

Whatever... you know my idea is better... your solution is set in stone and do not wish to put anymore effort into making it better... you have an idea that will be an improvement and that is enough... typical GLB half-assed fix.

I give up... you got what you wanted.

just curious, what was your idea that was better than this?

I must have missed it somewhere

Giving the benefit of the doubt that you arent mocking me...

They think 60-70% chance is to high and want to prevent stacking to achieve those levels... I agree. They want more build diversity.... I agree. They feel 30-35% chance is acceptable ceiling (not overpowered at this level)... I agree. They want you to only reach that by using 2-3 aeq pieces, which would not allow you to explore other aeq options (lacks in the building diversity department). My idea (disallow any staking of % pieces but make the gain 3% between levels instead of 2%)... this allows you to have a % piece that can reach a level where it is worthwhile and also explore other aeq options (maxamizes build diversity).

Originally posted by beenlurken
Originally posted by Catch22

Originally posted by beenlurken


I cant believe we are discussing rage quitting and I cant get an answer (from someone that matters) as to why the current solution is better than not allowing stacking but giving a 3% gain instead of a 2% gain. I thought that was what this thread was for... getting clarification as to why this decision was made and how its going to be implemented.

Decision was made because AEQ stacking was over powered.

How it's going to be implemented - see the announcement.

Whatever... you know my idea is better... your solution is set in stone and do not wish to put anymore effort into making it better... you have an idea that will be an improvement and that is enough... typical GLB half-assed fix.

I give up... you got what you wanted.

Because AE % is OP'd but you want to make it so you can only get one piece, but have that one piece be even more OP'd than it is currently, it just does not make sense.

Originally posted by bhall43
so all of your builds that contained % AEQ are now rendered worthless? makes sense really.

IMO yeah theyll never be as good as they were. If you decided to go a certain riute with sps, knowing that youll have a boost in performance because of AEQ... now those points are not as great and may have been better off somewhere else.

My TE has 46% break tackle chance combined with 68 carrying and 61 strength. Had i known the BT % would have been nerfed I wouldve continued to take speed and agility to 77 vs... carrying and str so high.

Originally posted by PLAYMAKERS
Originally posted by beenlurken

Whatever... you know my idea is better... your solution is set in stone and do not wish to put anymore effort into making it better... you have an idea that will be an improvement and that is enough... typical GLB half-assed fix.

I give up... you got what you wanted.

why do you want a 3% gain so badly each upgrade?

So you can reach 30-35% with one piece of aeq so that you can explore other aeq possibilities with another piece or two...

Originally posted by Warlock
As someone who took full advantage of +% to turn an ordinary build into a good/great build, I think I should weigh in on the discussion...

+% stacking is not too powerful. It is perceived as such because of the different trends in player development. By removing the ability to build in a specialized fashion, you are hurting build diversity, this is a fact and I will illustrate why. As long as something has an equally effective counter, it is balanced. For example +% break tackle chance is, in theory, balanced because of +% make tackle chance. The problems that have developed, have not one iota to do with +% stacking, it has to do with build trends... for the longest time defenders (hell most positions) were built with the "speed kills" mentality. Well guess what, a HB with a considerable advantage in break tackle attributes has a very good base chance to break a tackle, this discrepancy is only further widened by multiplicative bonuses... for example, 60% bonus * 5% base = 3% increase, 60% bonus * 25% base = 15% increase... that's a 500% increase to the effectiveness, based solely on key attribute differences.

What this means is that it's not the +% that is the flaw, it's the build trend. By removing the ability to specialize, you do not fix the problem nor add diversity, all that is accomplished is forcing everyone to build mediocre balanced players... because it will become the trend, due to being the most viable route.

The real problem in GLB is the failure of diversity in attributes. If catching was just as valuable as strength, we might not see builds that take the "overpowered" attributes to ridiculous levels. Even if someone wanted to take an attribute to a ridiculously high level, the balance would be in what they sacrificed by doing so... right now, many secondary attributes (stamina/confidence/vision/jumping and most football skills) do not impact the game anywhere near the primary ones (strength/speed/agility). If you want more build diversity, make all attributes of equal value.

The bottom line is that attributes need to be fixed before making any changes to the rest of the game... if you build a house on shoddy foundation, you should expect major issues to arise.

Brilliantly stated, and far more eloquent than I could.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Warlock
As someone who took full advantage of +% to turn an ordinary build into a good/great build, I think I should weigh in on the discussion...

+% stacking is not too powerful. It is perceived as such because of the different trends in player development. By removing the ability to build in a specialized fashion, you are hurting build diversity, this is a fact and I will illustrate why. As long as something has an equally effective counter, it is balanced. For example +% break tackle chance is, in theory, balanced because of +% make tackle chance. The problems that have developed, have not one iota to do with +% stacking, it has to do with build trends... for the longest time defenders (hell most positions) were built with the "speed kills" mentality. Well guess what, a HB with a considerable advantage in break tackle attributes has a very good base chance to break a tackle, this discrepancy is only further widened by multiplicative bonuses... for example, 60% bonus * 5% base = 3% increase, 60% bonus * 25% base = 15% increase... that's a 500% increase to the effectiveness, based solely on key attribute differences.

What this means is that it's not the +% that is the flaw, it's the build trend. By removing the ability to specialize, you do not fix the problem nor add diversity, all that is accomplished is forcing everyone to build mediocre balanced players... because it will become the trend, due to being the most viable route.

The real problem in GLB is the failure of diversity in attributes. If catching was just as valuable as strength, we might not see builds that take the "overpowered" attributes to ridiculous levels. Even if someone wanted to take an attribute to a ridiculously high level, the balance would be in what they sacrificed by doing so... right now, many secondary attributes (stamina/confidence/vision/jumping and most football skills) do not impact the game anywhere near the primary ones (strength/speed/agility). If you want more build diversity, make all attributes of equal value.

The bottom line is that attributes need to be fixed before making any changes to the rest of the game... if you build a house on shoddy foundation, you should expect major issues to arise.

Actually, you should probably fix the easy things, like overpowered AE or VA's before moving onto attributes since 1. It is the easier fix 2. The AE/VA's sway the balance so much that if you were to fix the attributes first and then fix the AE/VA's you may end up with something terribly off from the envisioned goal. Sure this is true to an extent with going AE/VA's first, but you know exactly how much you changed something so it is easy to counter and the true sim shows its hand instead of the sim that was adjusted to allow such OP'ed items.

Originally posted by jroyal73
guaranteed it messes up my builds and id bet $ my builds are > your builds.

Probably not, but OK. Glad you think you have awesome builds.

Originally posted by jroyal73
IMO yeah theyll never be as good as they were. If you decided to go a certain riute with sps, knowing that youll have a boost in performance because of AEQ... now those points are not as great and may have been better off somewhere else.

My TE has 46% break tackle chance combined with 68 carrying and 61 strength. Had i known the BT % would have been nerfed I wouldve continued to take speed and agility to 77 vs... carrying and str so high.

so you lost 11 or so % to your break tackle chance...(assuming that is 2 pieces...)...and that has changed your entire build plan? as i said...makes a lot of sense really.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Originally posted by beenlurken

Originally posted by Catch22


Originally posted by beenlurken



I cant believe we are discussing rage quitting and I cant get an answer (from someone that matters) as to why the current solution is better than not allowing stacking but giving a 3% gain instead of a 2% gain. I thought that was what this thread was for... getting clarification as to why this decision was made and how its going to be implemented.

Decision was made because AEQ stacking was over powered.

How it's going to be implemented - see the announcement.

Whatever... you know my idea is better... your solution is set in stone and do not wish to put anymore effort into making it better... you have an idea that will be an improvement and that is enough... typical GLB half-assed fix.

I give up... you got what you wanted.

Because AE % is OP'd but you want to make it so you can only get one piece, but have that one piece be even more OP'd than it is currently, it just does not make sense.

At 30-35% they do not feel that is overpowered (ie anything below that is most likely not going to be worthwhile). To reach that with their solution you must invest in at least 2 pieces of aeq to get there and therefore cant explore other aeq options.