Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Dub J
That's my issue. Only reason I initially cared anything about 2.0 was the potential for it to draw players to the real GLB. Then I come over here and look around and see people shitting all over 1.0. Thus my hatred.



GTFO out Dub J! We don't need yer kind over here!

Originally posted by Galactic Empire
GTFO out Dub J! We don't need yer kind over here!

Dude, he's black...ur screwed.

Originally posted by Time Trial
That's how we criticize GLB1. If you go to GLB1, they just say "fuck GLB2." "Those graphics." "Boring."

Actually I've made pretty in-depth criticisms (like how I reset and completely changed a build and my player didn't do anything differently indicating builds don't really matter that much, the over simplicity of tactics, ect...) of 2.0 but I always seemed to receive ninja forum bans immediately afterward so...

Originally posted by Dub J
Actually I've made pretty in-depth criticisms (like how I reset and completely changed a build and my player didn't do anything differently indicating builds don't really matter that much, the over simplicity of tactics, ect...) of 2.0 but I always seemed to receive ninja forum bans immediately afterward so...

I agree, if you took the VPB or some variant of it and let us play GLB1 with instant L79s, it would probably be the better game.

However, I don't agree that builds don't matter in GLB2. There is a huge difference in what options are available to your OD/DC based on how players have decided to build.

Originally posted by Dub J
Originally posted by Time Trial

That's how we criticize GLB1. If you go to GLB1, they just say "fuck GLB2." "Those graphics." "Boring."

Actually I've made pretty in-depth criticisms (like how I reset and completely changed a build and my player didn't do anything differently indicating builds don't really matter that much, the over simplicity of tactics, ect...) of 2.0 but I always seemed to receive ninja forum bans immediately afterward so...



Correct me if I am wrong but isnt the overly simplistic tactics and coordinating how glb1 started?

Don't know. Started season 3 and basic tactics there was still more inclusive.

Originally posted by Dub J
Don't know. Started season 3 and basic tactics there was still more inclusive.



inclusive is an interesting choice of word. I'd say they were exclusive myself. Only a very small minority of the player base ever really delved into the advanced tactics available in GLB1.

I liked GLB1 alot, but I wasn't a fan of the minutae of the tactics. I quit coordinating and team owning over there around season 15, and just stuck to building a few players. It was an absurd hurdle for a new player to clear. And that's above and beyond the need to learn about the ridiculous player building process.

Originally posted by Dub J
That's my issue. Only reason I initially cared anything about 2.0 was the potential for it to draw players to the real GLB. Then I come over here and look around and see people shitting all over 1.0. Thus my hatred.



Sorry this game didn't live up to your expectations, but it was never going to be a gateway drug into GLB classic. I'd say the hatred is born of your own inner delusions that it would be, not that GLB2 isn't what was promised.
There was no way I was playing GLB1 again. Somehow, I checked in on the forums shortly before GLB2 hit the streets, so I saw it as a sign to come play.

GLB2 has a pulse where GLB1 has clearly given up the ghost.

GLB Classic had Over 5K in rookies created this last season I would not say its dead. GLB2 had just over 6K and that was with a mass exodus from Veteran. Plus there are only 3 Pro leagues, 4 Journeyman, and 5 Seasoned. So if a team folds up shop your right back to warming the marketplace bench.

Been playing Classic since season 2 and there was much more of a vibe when GLB was at GLB2's stage. Most of the forums here are promoting Ladder Rankings. Not much gameplay/Building discussion on GLB2. I Played GLB2 for 3 seasons and gave it up it was Boring as Hell. Just do not see either game lasting for long.

Still playing Classic until Bort shuts the lights off....

Well.....bye.

Originally posted by NiborRis
Sorry this game didn't live up to your expectations, but it was never going to be a gateway drug into GLB classic. I'd say the hatred is born of your own inner delusions that it would be, not that GLB2 isn't what was promised.
There was no way I was playing GLB1 again. Somehow, I checked in on the forums shortly before GLB2 hit the streets, so I saw it as a sign to come play.

This game could be the best football browser game ever and it wouldn't live up to my expectations...... shit wrong account.

Originally posted by Dub J
Actually I've made pretty in-depth criticisms (like how I reset and completely changed a build and my player didn't do anything differently indicating builds don't really matter that much, the over simplicity of tactics, ect...) of 2.0 but I always seemed to receive ninja forum bans immediately afterward so...



Ya you get forum bans for bashing 2.0, not you constant trolling in every thread...

I find it ironic that people complained about the cookie-cutter nature of building on GLB1, they redesigned the building system for a variety of reasons, one being to make the builds less cookie-cutter, but somehow they are now even more cookie-cutter than before. People thought that more attributes would lead to more variety, but it actually led to less variety. It actually makes sense if you think about it. When rolls are simpler (involve only a few attributes) you can put points into those attributes then add another twist onto your build with the remaining points. When a roll is complex (involving many attributes), you have to spend all of your points on that one roll and there is nothing left to customize your player. So you get one dimensional, cookie-cutter builds.

Originally posted by tpaterniti
I find it ironic that people complained about the cookie-cutter nature of building on GLB1, they redesigned the building system for a variety of reasons, one being to make the builds less cookie-cutter, but somehow they are now even more cookie-cutter than before. People thought that more attributes would lead to more variety, but it actually led to less variety. It actually makes sense if you think about it. When rolls are simpler (involve only a few attributes) you can put points into those attributes then add another twist onto your build with the remaining points. When a roll is complex (involving many attributes), you have to spend all of your points on that one roll and there is nothing left to customize your player. So you get one dimensional, cookie-cutter builds.

I think it's less cookie-cutter than folks are saying. And team variety is much better too. Everyone mostly constructed a team the same way in GLB1. ALG management and coordinator skill determining your fate more than whether or not you chose the right end-build idea.

The Superstar mechanic has led to pretty wide spread of team designs in the lower tiers. There's always going to be the FotM way to build, but even in rookie where you've got a bunch of QB rollout squads right now, there's still heavy passing teams, or heavy defensive S* teams being built. The debate on how to build a defense right now is extremely healthy with everyone trying to figure out the best ways to handle extreme rushing offenses while not becoming fodder for extreme passing offenses.

I saw DT mentioned as being built the same by everyone earlier. That's just not true. there's at least 3 viable ways to build a DT that I know of, and that's not even counting a big-time pass deflection build, which I'd consider experimental at this point. And all of those 3 variants that I know of have plenty of ability to be varied in just how hard you push the primaries and how much rounding into secondaries you do.