Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Warlock
You're only supporting my case with this data. Notice the bolded parts.

Wow, I didn't notice those when I put them in there.

Weird.

Warlock, it's pretty big of you to bold the parts that prove the %'s are overpowered.

%'s scale, +10% to 10 is the same as +10% to 1000.

Flat bonuses, +2 to 10 is a lot smaller than +2 to 1000.

Since Bort has said he designed and balanced the game with the idea that players would have about 60 in every attribute, the current players with 120 in their primary, and 90 in their secondary throws off ANY balance of the SAs.

Originally posted by Fumanchuchu
Wow, I didn't notice those when I put them in there.

Weird.

I assume that you're being sarcastic here... the key part of the last Bort quote is exactly what I said initially, I just further illustrated how the system works with my examples.

After the contest of builds is worked out, we have the "score" that Bort mentions, this "score" is then affected by the +% bonuses. If the "score" is nominal due to a good build vs a good build (or a bad build vs a bad build), the +% bonuses are laughable in the grand scheme of affecting the sim. If the score is great due to a good build vs a bad build, the +% bonuses are massive in the grand scheme of affecting the sim. How exactly does this proposed change fix either of the examples? Good builds vs bad builds will still have huge benefits from +% bonuses and when comparable builds face-off, the benefits of +% bonuses will still be laughable.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Warlock, it's pretty big of you to bold the parts that prove the %'s are overpowered.

%'s scale, +10% to 10 is the same as +10% to 1000.

Flat bonuses, +2 to 10 is a lot smaller than +2 to 1000.

Since Bort has said he designed and balanced the game with the idea that players would have about 60 in every attribute, the current players with 120 in their primary, and 90 in their secondary throws off ANY balance of the SAs.

Relativity is this concept that you're not understanding...

Originally posted by Warlock
Relativity is this concept that you're not understanding...

Relativity between different kinds of AEQ is what you're not getting. It's not about good build vs. bad build. It's about one kind of AEQ being so much better than the other kinds that you have to use it. I assume Bort makes SA AEQ because he wan'ts people to have teh option using it and not sucking.

Originally posted by Warlock
I assume that you're being sarcastic here... the key part of the last Bort quote is exactly what I said initially, I just further illustrated how the system works with my examples.

After the contest of builds is worked out, we have the "score" that Bort mentions, this "score" is then affected by the +% bonuses. If the "score" is nominal due to a good build vs a good build (or a bad build vs a bad build), the +% bonuses are laughable in the grand scheme of affecting the sim. If the score is great due to a good build vs a bad build, the +% bonuses are massive in the grand scheme of affecting the sim. How exactly does this proposed change fix either of the examples? Good builds vs bad builds will still have huge benefits from +% bonuses and when comparable builds face-off, the benefits of +% bonuses will still be laughable.

No, if the scores are nominal (say 100-100) and one of them is increased 60%, It's 60% bigger(160-100), if the other dot does not also have +60%, he is screwed because there is no other way to make you score that much higher. Do you really want to play a game in which there is only one way to win. Get some Ikea furniture if you merely want to follow instructions.

Originally posted by Fumanchuchu
Relativity between different kinds of AEQ is what you're not getting. It's not about good build vs. bad build. It's about one kind of AEQ being so much better than the other kinds that you have to use it. I assume Bort makes SA AEQ because he wan'ts people to have teh option using it and not sucking.

I understand this point, but it's not the issue, if you had a little foresight you would also see this.

The issue is the fucking discrepancy of build trends, not +% bonus stacking. Mathematics backs me up. When your perception is based on stupid fucking controls, you're going to have stupid fucking observations. The scaling of +% bonuses is minimal when you compare a +% stacking build vs his opposing counter-balancing build... this is because it's relative. When you remove the relative part and compare a +% stacking build vs a build that was built in a way which is completely wrong to stop such a build, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the scaling will widen the discrepancy.

The proposed changes to +% bonuses do not fix the scaling problem, it will still fucking exist. So what the fuck is the point of this change? Pretty much forcing people to build a specific way is not the way to ADD build diversity... at least currently we have a choice... nerfing +% bonuses, as I've mathematically proven, will not fix the issues that are being used as reasoning behind the change. Scaling will still exist, except now when two comparable builds face off, you're basically making +% stacking builds useless and thus making that build style ineffective (removing build diversity).

Actually, I don't even fucking care any more, it's pretty clear that this game is heading down the shitter and those in charge are too fucking arrogant to see it. I'll just continue speaking with my wallet and not even bother trying to help. The only thing this game had going for it was player development, the new changes are gutting that aspect of the game... I'm sure people want to spend ~$3/mo (per player) to build dots that are basically identical to everyone else's dots. I see much fun to be had by all. At least if I'm forced to be like everyone else, I'll play BF2 for free and get to actually play a game.

Originally posted by Fumanchuchu
No, if the scores are nominal (say 100-100) and one of them is increased 60%, It's 60% bigger(160-100), if the other dot does not also have +60%, he is screwed because there is no other way to make you score that much higher. Do you really want to play a game in which there is only one way to win. Get some Ikea furniture if you merely want to follow instructions.

Seriously dude, go take a community college course in mathematics. It only effects the DIFFERENCE between the two player's contested builds...

Like this change will make it so there will suddenly be more than one way to win? Everyone already follows the same fucking blueprint to build dots. It's called taking the more effective attributes to high levels and then taking the more effective SAs/VAs/AEQ to further enhance the more effective attributes. Fucking please. This only changes which AEQ will be more effective, it won't change a fucking thing.

How many more posts before he uses his FB as an example?

Originally posted by Bukowski
How many more posts before he uses his FB as an example?

his FB was responsible for the nerfing of % stacking

I don't know if this has already been asked, but if is possible as stated to swap for instance a +%FF +3speed piece for something along the lines of +big hit +3 speed....

If you have a +% chance and +SA piece (I have a +first step, +%break block piece somewhere) will you be able to swap that for a piece with a second SA (maybe shed blocks) to replace the break block? or will I be screwed over?

Also.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Warlock, it's pretty big of you to bold the parts that prove the %'s are overpowered.

%'s scale, +10% to 10 is the same as +10% to 1000.

Flat bonuses, +2 to 10 is a lot smaller than +2 to 1000.

Since Bort has said he designed and balanced the game with the idea that players would have about 60 in every attribute, the current players with 120 in their primary, and 90 in their secondary throws off ANY balance of the SAs.

Get your sums right before you shoot him down. You have to use the same measuring stick for both cases for any comparison to be valid

if you are measuring by %, the first statement is correct, but +2 to 10 is %20, +2 to 1000 is 0.2% 1st one is bigger not smaller

If you measure in absolute terms, neither statement is correct.
10% of 10 is 1
10% of 1000 is 100
... not the same
+2 to 10 is +2
+2 to 1000 is +2
They are the same

When comparing, you have to use the same measure for both the things you compare regardless of how the bonus is applied.

If 2 people mesure a football field, 1 with a measure in yards and 1 with a measure in metres, they will get different answers because their units of measure are different.

Originally posted by Warlock
Seriously dude, go take a community college course in mathematics.

+1

Heresy, Deathblade is fucking perfect, he's so intelligent that he goes around and talks shit about how stupid people are in p much every thread. He's trying to be Dr. House, unfortunately he just doesn't have as smart of a writing team.

Oh and before I forget... FB, FB, FB, FB, FB, FB and FB... are the trolls fucking happy now?

Originally posted by jamz
Originally posted by Jiddy78

Originally posted by Jiddy78


What happens to a 4th piece?



Catch edited this in the announcement http://goallineblitz.com/game/announcement.pl?id=311

Originally posted by Catch22

4th piece would be 12.5% - not sure anyone would ever go there but I'll go ahead and clarify the OP.



Thank you.

And they would go there if they had a non-boosting player.

Originally posted by PLAYMAKERS
most positions especially on defense will have no problems with switching. like you said they can still wear 2 pieces.

O linemen get hit the most imo

You have to quote that in context with what I was responding to. I can't lay out any clearer what I sincerely feel about this than below:

I know this sucks. The trade ins that are being put together should help considerably. Frankly, I've been pushing for players to get more than most others. I think if anything they should come out better than they deserve for having this changed on them. Even still, it sucks when you are forced to change a dot creation plan through no fault of your own. However, this flat out needed to be done. Being able to stack 4 pieces of AEQ (and the day is coming where some will have 4 pieces, though not fully upgraded) and having 90%+ anything will break the sim. You just can't make a 90% whatever work somewhat reasonably and also have builds without it work somewhat reasonably.

It's also messed up that everyone that wants a great dot for many positions will be forced to go all % AEQ. That's no fun at all. It sounds great to just say "fix the SAs," but if you have PT, SA, LS & Spin good enough to be as reasonable of a choice as 90% brk tkl, what the hell do you do when someone shorts their skills and dumps heavily in them and also has 75-90% brk tkl?!?!?!?!?!

As I said, damn, 6-8 times now, it sucks for those that already have stacked AEQ. What I do think is BS though is that this completely ruins those builds, they are now worthless and we are FORCING those dots to retire. That is what I was addressing in the quote you have used a couple times, NOT saying this changed doesn't impact builds, just that it doesn't ruin them either.....and it doesn't. Well, not builds that were worth a shit to begin with, anyway.

I apologize in advance if my points have already been made, 60 pages of posts are a lot to go through.

I think this nerf is a terrible idea and just punishes patient agents who are willing to try something different in this game.

Those of us that have had the patience to shop for 3 pieces of the same % AEQ also already ran the risk of missing out on ever having enough BTs to fully upgrade those 3 pieces because of the BTs not earned from all the shopping. So now on top of the needed patience and risk of not being able to fully upgrade all pieces, the Admins have now decided to handicap these players.

I also don't think this nerf is needed due to the fact that most % AEQ have counter % AEQ.
If you're upset that a power back with 3 pieces of % break tackle just ran over your LB then build an LB with 3 pieces of % make tackle. If you're upset that a DE just torched your OT with 3 pieces of % break block then build an OT with 3 pieces of % hold block.

I have a few veteran players building 3 pieces of % AEQ and several young players that I was looking forward to trying 3 pieces of % AEQ experiments. I have also been building these players to take advantage of this AEQ. If this nerf goes through, I will lose interest in these players and will retire them because they will just be the same old, same old. To the Admins, if you are going to force this nerf on us, you should also offer a full flex reimbursement to players who are already built and are being built to effectively use 3 pieces of % AEQ.

Thank you.