Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
Originally posted by foofighter24

As much as people would cry about capping attributes at 100, it would probably make the game better in the end. Then maybe adjustments to acceleration could be made so dots don't go from 0-100 in one tick at the upper levels.

How would it work with ALGs, though? Do they stop getting them once EQ+base=100, or are they forced to change their EQ once they reach 100? I don't see how it could be implemented. Besides, I don't think there is much of a problem with people taking one attribute up high. Those builds with one obscenely high attribute tend to suck anyways.

The "100" I was referring to would not necessarily be 100 as we know it in the current sim.

Originally posted by PLAYMAKERS
honestly i don't care either way. it's not my job to decide what is overpowered or not. i trust in the testers and bort to know what is going on and make the game more balanced and fair. this isn't a subject that is up for vote. it's going to be changed. period.

for you to come in here when you have built like 6 total players and one high leveled built rushing FB I don't think you're very qualified to argue.

do i think stacking is overpowered...sure , but i can't prove anything. it's just what i think from watching power backs destroy defenses and knowing that LBs can't just fix their builds. they have to be a jack of all trades and help out in coverage.

I'm qualified to argue because I've been gaming since I was 6. I was one of the players responsible for smite clerics getting nerfed in DAoC, I was one of the players responsible for getting feral druids nerfed in WoW, etc... I'm probably one of the players that helped contribute to getting +% stacking nerfed in GLB too. I'm good at finding exploits in game designs and taking advantage of them. I do not need to learn from trial and error either, my problem-solving abilities are exceptional (at least according to each and every test I've taken that measures it).

Unfortunately, whether or not you care about me or my qualifications, it doesn't change the math that I presented. If you want to prove my theories wrong, go ahead and disprove my mathematical theory.

The fallacy in your argument about LBs, is that for balance to exist, there has to be a counter balancing mechanism. LBs cannot be good at everything, otherwise they're imbalanced. With tagging and custom LB slots, it shouldn't be that big of a problem anyways... fixes to the issues would be doing things like making it harder for a RB to be a viable receiver. Not by nerfing building options.

Not taking a skill past 100 would change the game for the better. The sim would be much easier to even out. You would see people with different builds instead of putting all into one skill.

Originally posted by ImTheScientist
Not taking a skill past 100 would change the game for the better. The sim would be much easier to even out. You would see people with different builds instead of putting all into one skill.



Every lineman would have 100 strength and blocking, every DE would have 100 strength, speed, and agility, every WR would have 100 speed and agility, every QB would have 100 throwing and vision. I'm not sure how it would lead to different builds. Maybe in the secondary attributes and SAs it would lead to differences, but pretty much every position would have the same two-three skills at the exact same levels.

Capping attributes at 100 will only effect a couple of positions

Originally posted by foshizzel17
Capping attributes at 100 will only effect a couple of positions

mostly the sissy positions

Originally posted by Warlock
I'm qualified to argue because I've been gaming since I was 6. I was one of the players responsible for smite clerics getting nerfed in DAoC, I was one of the players responsible for getting feral druids nerfed in WoW, etc... I'm probably one of the players that helped contribute to getting +% stacking nerfed in GLB too. I'm good at finding exploits in game designs and taking advantage of them. I do not need to learn from trial and error either, my problem-solving abilities are exceptional (at least according to each and every test I've taken that measures it).

Unfortunately, whether or not you care about me or my qualifications, it doesn't change the math that I presented. If you want to prove my theories wrong, go ahead and disprove my mathematical theory.

The fallacy in your argument about LBs, is that for balance to exist, there has to be a counter balancing mechanism. LBs cannot be good at everything, otherwise they're imbalanced. With tagging and custom LB slots, it shouldn't be that big of a problem anyways... fixes to the issues would be doing things like making it harder for a RB to be a viable receiver. Not by nerfing building options.


rb's are the obvious ones to most people

doesn't mean that a CB with double/triple stacked deflect ball %, 15 Clutch VA, 10 in swat ball SA, 10 in shut down coverage and 15 in 3rd down stopper VA and some jack hammer and maxed ball hawk sprinkled in with some long reach isn't overpowered too.

the point is that there are dominant stacks and the people in charge decided it was too powerful and I don't disagree. not sure exactly why you do except you just want to have people FYB

also you definitely weren't responsible for the nerfing of % stacks lol

Originally posted by PLAYMAKERS
also you definitely weren't responsible for the nerfing of % stacks lol

i chuckled

Originally posted by David Stern
Originally posted by Maddoc

And I know it is difficult for you of all people to understand, dbride, but just because someone can recognize something is shitty and broken doesn't mean they're trying to push their own agenda. My players will be fine without any changes to SAs as they stand, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be fixed.

You recognize sa's don't work? Holy shit you're really smart man. So does every dot in the wl. Take valhalla and CB add up their lb'ers sa's and you have the same number as if you answered how many girls you've ever communicated with. You don't get it.

Not saying all SA's own, but LB's have some useful SA's...just b.c their SA's suck compared to most positions doesn't make them all useless.

Originally posted by Warlock
No. The HB is well over doubling the difference of his attributes (vs the attributes of the defender) in the break tackle roll. Thus when the attributes are similar, the bonuses from +% AEQ/VAs is lulz. 2 times 1% is a fucking 1% increase. That's a ratio of 1 additional broken tackle every 100 tackle attempts... so overpowerd, right?

pretty sure that's not it.

I agree that the word "chance" implies what you are saying, but the way bort describes the rolls suggests it is not a 1-100 chance roll but a score vs score roll and % increases that score. Since the scores are a multiplication of your attributes, it is like increasing your attributes by that %. Much bigger deal than what you are describing.

Originally posted by odg62

A lot of people swear to god that Blitz SA dosent work well, if at all. My question is do speed/agility bonus SA's like Blitz, Shutdown coverage, Closing Speed, Route Running, etc, etc all give the same bonus to attributes, or does each one boost a different amount?

ie - does SDC give a +1% while blitz gives a .05%

Originally posted by Bort

They are all different. They also do not just give bonuses to attibutes. They often give flat bonuses to final scores. For instance, say your "running speed" score is 35. Closing speed might simply give +1 per level to the score, or a flat bonus if you pass a roll vs its level.


Originally posted by cosmoxl

I'd like some thoughts from the boss on how a high amount of shed blocks SA would do vs around 23% break block chance with only a moderate amt of shed blocks SA for a mature DT.

Originally posted by Bort

They are very similar, those shed block is one of those "flat rate" type SA's, as opposed to a % boost. Depending on your existing score, break block % might be better or worse.

Originally posted by David Stern
I don't care what happens. I build fast strong agile dots, who can support 3aeq pieces, I am simply telling you why things are the way they are.

.

Ruh Roh

Limiting Uber High Attributes Effectiveness Discussion

This thread is a discussion on two ideas. First, "diminishing returns for players who have an attribute over a certain level" and second, "penalties to an attribute if it is 'x' times greater than a key secondary attribute for that position."

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3670441

Originally posted by PLAYMAKERS
also you definitely weren't responsible for the nerfing of % stacks lol

Fallacy again, I didn't say that I was the only responsible one for the nerf, but to say that I didn't contribute would be a bit biased. I've been preaching +% stacking since pretty much +% AEQ were introduced... go look in the FB forum. I was obviously well ahead of the curve on finding and taking advantage of the exploit, even if I wasn't the first.

Originally posted by Fumanchuchu
Originally posted by Warlock

No. The HB is well over doubling the difference of his attributes (vs the attributes of the defender) in the break tackle roll. Thus when the attributes are similar, the bonuses from +% AEQ/VAs is lulz. 2 times 1% is a fucking 1% increase. That's a ratio of 1 additional broken tackle every 100 tackle attempts... so overpowerd, right?

pretty sure that's not it.

I agree that the word "chance" implies what you are saying, but the way bort describes the rolls suggests it is not a 1-100 chance roll but a score vs score roll and % increases that score. Since the scores are a multiplication of your attributes, it is like increasing your attributes by that %. Much bigger deal than what you are describing.

Originally posted by odg62


A lot of people swear to god that Blitz SA dosent work well, if at all. My question is do speed/agility bonus SA's like Blitz, Shutdown coverage, Closing Speed, Route Running, etc, etc all give the same bonus to attributes, or does each one boost a different amount?

ie - does SDC give a +1% while blitz gives a .05%

Originally posted by Bort


They are all different. They also do not just give bonuses to attibutes. They often give flat bonuses to final scores. For instance, say your "running speed" score is 35. Closing speed might simply give +1 per level to the score, or a flat bonus if you pass a roll vs its level.


Originally posted by cosmoxl


I'd like some thoughts from the boss on how a high amount of shed blocks SA would do vs around 23% break block chance with only a moderate amt of shed blocks SA for a mature DT.

Originally posted by Bort


They are very similar, those shed block is one of those "flat rate" type SA's, as opposed to a % boost. Depending on your existing score, break block % might be better or worse.



You're only supporting my case with this data. Notice the bolded parts.

Originally posted by PLAYMAKERS
rb's are the obvious ones to most people

doesn't mean that a CB with double/triple stacked deflect ball %, 15 Clutch VA, 10 in swat ball SA, 10 in shut down coverage and 15 in 3rd down stopper VA and some jack hammer and maxed ball hawk sprinkled in with some long reach isn't overpowered too.

the point is that there are dominant stacks and the people in charge decided it was too powerful and I don't disagree. not sure exactly why you do except you just want to have people FYB

I can do the same example for pretty much each and every position... at least the ones where their base chance is the result of a contested roll. If we're talking about +% that doesn't add a bonus to a contested roll, you would be right, but I personally do not know of one.