Warrior General Games

Originally posted by beenlurken
Originally posted by blln4lyf

The major problem in your logic is that you think that anything below 30-35% is not going to be worthwhile which is 100% incorrect, they just want to limit the damage set in place when % AE was introduced as much as possible.

Yet you have no proof to suggest that anything less than 30-35% is worthwhile. One opinion vs another.

Because it is obvious...if 20% is worth it now for 3 pieces, then obviously 20% is worth it for 1 piece.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Originally posted by beenlurken

Originally posted by tautology


Originally posted by beenlurken



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

You can explore other options.

You just have to make choices rather than being able to maximize every possible aspect of your player.

You are not suggesting build diversity, you are suggesting uber-players.

You dont understand.... they are setting the cuttoff at around 35% for % chances. They are not going to set it at a level that will be overpowered... more like the level where is worthwhile to have (anything past that fringes on being overpowered). That said to go with a less % than the max you can get is most likely not worthwhile. For example, get a Shed Block SA piece may be better than having a piece that is 23% break block... yet having 33% bb would be comparable to having the Shed block piece (my idea the bb% and SB piece are interchangeable... theirs its not because you need two pieces to get 33% bb).

Please read my post before making more asinine comments.

Get over yourself... I started typing that response before you posted that

Originally posted by ib_mr_ed
I think you make a lot of sense but here is where I disagree with you. In theory the things are balanced with %break block and the % hold block etc. The problem is that there is no way possible for the Defense to keep enough players to stop the different overpowered exploits.

When the power back with Break Block goes in the D sends in the best run stoppers and tacklers Make tackle chance guys. When the speed guy (fake chance) comes in the D might bring in speed guys (avoid fake) to counter it. The offense can have two different guys loaded up on one of the % chances, while the Defense can not have the appropriate % chances to stop one or the other.

Good point, but if a power back also needed say 70+ stamina... he wouldn't be able to jack up str/car to utterly ridiculous levels and thus super stack VAs/AEQ. This plus gang-tackling are pretty good counters to what we currently see. Besides, teams shouldn't have multiple rosters, the balance would come in the form of game-planning (like it should)... you do not see teams in the NFL stacking their roster full of run-stuffers just because they'll be facing Adrian Peterson... they game-plan to stop him (leaving a hole somewhere else for another player match-up to exploit) or they get owned by AP.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Originally posted by beenlurken

Originally posted by blln4lyf


The major problem in your logic is that you think that anything below 30-35% is not going to be worthwhile which is 100% incorrect, they just want to limit the damage set in place when % AE was introduced as much as possible.

Yet you have no proof to suggest that anything less than 30-35% is worthwhile. One opinion vs another.

Because it is obvious...if 20% is worth it now for 3 pieces, then obviously 20% is worth it for 1 piece.

20% stacking to 60% with 3 pieces is worth it now.... 20% at 20% with one piece probably isnt. Why dont you understand that?

Originally posted by Warlock
Originally posted by blln4lyf

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.

No, this is utterly ass backwards and why many of the implemented changes in GLB are always so hard to balance (like VAs, it only took ~8 seasons for them to work most of the kinks out). You build a solid foundation before building a house, otherwise you will be constantly making changes to the house to adjust for the poor foundation (plus any additions to the house will never go as planned).

I agree 100% that they should of balanced the foundation of the sim first, and then added reasonable VA's(which many were OP'd like crazy to start with) but the problem is that now that the damage is done, you need to either remove the VA's and AE to fix the foundation, or balance the AE and VA's as much as possible to allow you to fix the foundation. Once messing up, you need to work your way back to fix the problem.

show me specific dots that have stacking abilities in FF's that actually get a good amount of FF's against a good team....

Originally posted by bhall43
nerfing and buffing...you are nerfing a DE by buffing the OL...you are nerfing the OL by buffing the DE...

Wrong, and here is why.

Okay let's say an agent we'll call him...Flames54 makes an all speed WR, this Wr beats every CB out there, so he gets nerfed, so that the fastest player in the game is now not good enough to beat a CB...Do you see where I am going with this?

It goes on and on.

The point I am trying to make is Nerfing makes players perform worse than they did before. Yes, it balances the game just as much as if the opposing player was buffed.

Here is how I see it:

Nerf = More boring

Buff = more exciting.

Originally posted by
3) Swap it for 25 "refund tokens" which will let you shop for new pieces of AEQ. Choosing this option will also give you a full cash/bonus token refund. If you buy a piece of AEQ using refund tokens you will have 5 refund tokens deducted from your refund token account.

So let me get this straight

I can go shop three times, buy +2% hold block pieces for $5,000. These come up basically every shop at level 65 now.

I won't use them at all this season, but then this off-season I can sell them back for 50 shopping tokens?

Cha-ching!

Originally posted by blln4lyf
I agree 100% that they should of balanced the foundation of the sim first, and then added reasonable VA's(which many were OP'd like crazy to start with) but the problem is that now that the damage is done, you need to either remove the VA's and AE to fix the foundation, or balance the AE and VA's as much as possible to allow you to fix the foundation. Once messing up, you need to work your way back to fix the problem.

Alas this is the problem... you do not balance the additions to the base, then balance the base... because it will then fuck up all the previous balancing, wasting your time and effort. If they want to balance the sim, stop doing it fucking backwards. Do it once and do it right.

Originally posted by cowtesticles2001
show me specific dots that have stacking abilities in FF's that actually get a good amount of FF's against a good team....

Exactly! Start Buffing this, and now HBs will have to counter act this, making for differing builds.

Originally posted by beenlurken
Originally posted by blln4lyf

Originally posted by beenlurken


Originally posted by blln4lyf



The major problem in your logic is that you think that anything below 30-35% is not going to be worthwhile which is 100% incorrect, they just want to limit the damage set in place when % AE was introduced as much as possible.

Yet you have no proof to suggest that anything less than 30-35% is worthwhile. One opinion vs another.

Because it is obvious...if 20% is worth it now for 3 pieces, then obviously 20% is worth it for 1 piece.

20% stacking to 60% with 3 pieces is worth it now.... 20% at 20% with one piece probably isnt. Why dont you understand that?

Because I have common sense? I mean I'm not trying to be an ass, but you just don't get it. The reason people get the 2nd and 3rd piece is because 20% in one piece is so much of a better choice than anything else(hence OP'd) not that you need all 3 for it to be worth it, I mean it just doesn't make sense.

Think of it this way, if you have 90 base str and agility, then 20% to breaking blocks would give you +18 str and 18 when engaged in a block(not 100% correct but close enough for this matter). That is OP'd since +18 str and agility is a huge amount to a build, much more than you can develop with SP's...the reason people piece for 60% is because of how OP'd THAT choice is, not because you need the other +36 for it to be worth it. Please tell me it clicks to a degree when you read this.

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.

From me somewhere in the 20's
I kinda like this idea. It would simplify things and make stacking irrelevant. Make them so the best piece could be powered up to say 30%?

Originally posted by beenlurken
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).

I agree this seems like a much easier and logical way then allowing stacking IMO.

My guess is that there is no way to stop rolling another % piece

For example : you roll a 5% break block, There is no way to stop you from continuing to roll that kind of piece and no way to stop you from buying it once you rolled it, and or letting you equip more than one piece. Hence we get the current stacking policy. Maybe because it is an easier fix? (that is pure speculation)

your idea seem much more simple, straightforward, and logical. I would rather see it that way myself. But that's just me.

Originally posted by beenlurken
20% stacking to 60% with 3 pieces is worth it now.... 20% at 20% with one piece probably isnt. Why dont you understand that?

Fuck man.

5% break block 1 shed block =23% break block 5sb +9 agility
5% break block 1 shed block=12% break block 5sb +9 speed
5% break block 1 first step= 6% break block 5fs +5speed/+4agility

Pretty sure that your build isn't going to be fucked.

Originally posted by beenlurken
20% stacking to 60% with 3 pieces is worth it now.... 20% at 20% with one piece probably isnt. Why dont you understand that?

depends on what AE % you are talking about really...im not sure how you would quantify worth for the stacks when VA's and SA's change everything.

Originally posted by Warlock
Alas this is the problem... you do not balance the additions to the base, then balance the base... because it will then fuck up all the previous balancing, wasting your time and effort. If they want to balance the sim, stop doing it fucking backwards. Do it once and do it right.

Problem is you cannot balance a sim when the players are spread over 11 seasons of development.