Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Warlock

I'm upset that this change removes my freedom to build a specific type of player.

I'd like you to give me a couple examples of how this stops you from building a specific type of player.

Before: Pick up two +5% pieces of whatever, upgrade them 8 times apiece and you have 42%.
Now: Pick up two +5% pieces of whatever, upgrade them 8 times apiece and you have 31%

Yeah...complete nerf to build diversification

Originally posted by Warlock
Yeah, the same can be said for a movie too. Maybe the first 25-30 mins were uninteresting, but the last 60-90 mins were great... if you had walked out, you would not have been the wiser and since you already paid the price of admission, it's kind of dumb to just walk out early. That's not to say that I haven't sat thru some truly horrendous films in my time.

It's pretty clear that Bort is dividing his user base with these changes, that's not always the wisest of business decisions. It wouldn't be so bad if it seemed like they at least entertained people's gripes a bit (maybe giving us a little data to show why the changes *need* to happen). I think most understand that GLB isn't perfect and making it better is the goal, but sometimes some new perspectives can do wonders from a design/development PoV... as opposed to just band-aiding a bunch of problems.

As a digital artist, we brainstorm before even putting pen to paper to sketch, hashing out as many of the details as possible before hand, so that we don't have "wtf" moments after we've already laid out our pipeline and started production. Pre-production is IMHO vastly under-utilized in GLB and it hurts the design/development areas. Just look at how many changes have come to the proposed archetype system, many little things that should have never made it past the 2nd draft stage of pre-production (yet the way it was presented, it was made out to be like a final draft, just waiting to start production). Just like the +% change hasn't been fully hashed out before being presented IMHO. I can easily see many potential issues with this proposed change... things that have either been ignored or not identified. Like what happens if attributes ever get adjusted? All of these +% changes will have to be rebalanced, wasting resources that could be better used. Another potential issue is what if counter building starts to catch up to this issue? We could very easily end up with the same thing that happened to DEs.

I'm not upset that these changes will nerf my players (only one of them would have been stacking +% gear anyways). I'm upset that this change removes my freedom to build a specific type of player. The +% gear alone, even stacked, isn't all that impressive without the corresponding attributes and SAs to take full advantage of it (which is relative to the contested build of your opponent anyways). I will adapt to the changes, I just think they're a waste of time because they do not address the underlying issues that cause them to be out of control.

By the by I agree with the bolded parts of your post.

Originally posted by Vuijox
I'd actually love to know the answer to this. Not too long ago you were against separating SSBs and those with you were literally arguing "it's not an exploit because you can do it too." You quoted those people and never once told them they were idiotic. Now you're mocking people in this thread who said the same exact thing with stacking +%s.

Maybe neither "guarantees" success, but they're both distinct advantages and the most realistic chance of not being beaten by it is to do it yourself. I don't understand how you can be in favor of one and not the other. Everything you're saying in this thread could be applied there.

I would love to have a link to a quote where I said I fully supported SSB.

Originally posted by Deathblade
I would love to have a link to a quote where I said I fully supported SSB.

thx in advance

Originally posted by FYNBYAC
I'd like you to give me a couple examples of how this stops you from building a specific type of player.

Before: Pick up two +5% pieces of whatever, upgrade them 8 times apiece and you have 42%.
Now: Pick up two +5% pieces of whatever, upgrade them 8 times apiece and you have 31%

Yeah...complete nerf to build diversification

I never said a "complete" nerf, but it is a nerf none the less. Look at how well diminishing returns have worked in build diversity of the SA system...

Originally posted by Warlock
I never said a "complete" nerf, but it is a nerf none the less. Look at how well diminishing returns have worked in build diversity of the SA system...

I know you didn't say it, it was just hyperbole for those reading.

Again, please explain how this change nerfs player diversity.

Originally posted by FYNBYAC
I know you didn't say it, it was just hyperbole for those reading.

Again, please explain how this change nerfs player diversity.

It's pretty simple...

Building is mostly about combining efficiency with function. Diminishing returns hurt efficiency and thus hurt function indirectly. It's why hardly anyone takes SAs over 10, hell most people do not even put points into SAs until level 40+ due to the poor efficiency of it. Realistically speaking, trading in bonus tokens for SPs and temp boosts might be more worthwhile, depending on the situation... unless the SA review is a success, in which case a mix of +% bonuses and +SA bonuses will just replace +% bonuses as the new standard building trend (or just flat-out +SA bonuses).

Replacing one way to build with different way to build is not adding diversity, but then you also have to factor in diminishing returns making the +% bonus route less efficient and less functional... thereby indirectly forcing builders away from that path and hurting build diversity. Just as we currently see with the taking SAs over 10 route.

Until more routes are equally viable, people will build the most efficient and functional route.

Originally posted by Warlock
It's pretty simple...

Building is mostly about combining efficiency with function. Diminishing returns hurt efficiency and thus hurt function indirectly. It's why hardly anyone takes SAs over 10, hell most people do not even put points into SAs until level 40+ due to the poor efficiency of it. Realistically speaking, trading in bonus tokens for SPs and temp boosts might be more worthwhile, depending on the situation... unless the SA review is a success, in which case a mix of +% bonuses and +SA bonuses will just replace +% bonuses as the new standard building trend (or just flat-out +SA bonuses).

Replacing one way to build with different way to build is not adding diversity, but then you also have to factor in diminishing returns making the +% bonus route less efficient and less functional... thereby indirectly forcing builders away from that path and hurting build diversity. Just as we currently see with the taking SAs over 10 route.

Here's the thing. Regardless of whether or not it's been made less efficient, this doesn't change the ability to build a specific type of player. Can you still build a coverage LB? Yes. Can you still build a power RB? Yes. Can you still build a man-coverage CB? Yes. Can you still build X player? Yes. Until you show me a specific type of player that simply cannot be built without +% AE being fully stackable without penalty, then I will stand by the simplicity of this. Making something less efficient (yet to be seen imo) =/= preventing you from building that type of player.

Will they be as good as their former counterparts that stacked +% pieces? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how things work out from here on, but the fact is that a diminished return on +% AE doesn't nullify making a specific type of player, though it may make it less effective as it was in the past...that remains to be seen however.

And anyway, as I've stated previously this isn't a crippling change. +20~% is still a nice boost, and 30% is also a good boost. Besides, +% AE was pretty much the best option most of the time for any position. It never encouraged build diversity any more than this new system. Or do you think that a previously possible +50% break tackle chance somehow promoted build diversity? It's asinine to say that toning down something that enhances a player's ability within his role prevents someone from making a player to fill a specific role.

Originally posted by Warlock

Until more routes are equally viable, people will build the most efficient and functional route.

Okay right there. You said it yourself. People will build the most efficient route. +% AE was probably the most efficient route, so obviously people would use that. How then does toning down the effectiveness of this strategy mean that you no longer have the freedom to build a player for a specific purpose?

I'm off to bed, so I'll just sum up real quick.

Originally posted by Warlock

I'm not upset that these changes will nerf my players (only one of them would have been stacking +% gear anyways). I'm upset that this change removes my freedom to build a specific type of player.

Previous maximum +% bonus with 2 pieces of AE: 50%
New maximum +% bonus with 2 pieces of AE: 37.5%

Warlock's elite math

Player X - 12.5% on stacked AE = removal of freedom to build a specific type of player.

tl;dr cool story bro

Originally posted by FYNBYAC
Here's the thing. Regardless of whether or not it's been made less efficient, this doesn't change the ability to build a specific type of player. Can you still build a coverage LB? Yes. Can you still build a power RB? Yes. Can you still build a man-coverage CB? Yes. Can you still build X player? Yes. Until you show me a specific type of player that simply cannot be built without +% AE being fully stackable without penalty, then I will stand by the simplicity of this. Making something less efficient (yet to be seen imo) =/= preventing you from building that type of player.

Will they be as good as their former counterparts that stacked +% pieces? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how things work out from here on, but the fact is that a diminished return on +% AE doesn't nullify making a specific type of player, though it may make it less effective as it was in the past...that remains to be seen however.

And anyway, as I've stated previously this isn't a crippling change. +20~% is still a nice boost, and 30% is also a good boost. Besides, +% AE was pretty much the best option most of the time for any position. It never encouraged build diversity any more than this new system. Or do you think that a previously possible +50% break tackle chance somehow promoted build diversity? It's asinine to say that toning down something that enhances a player's ability within his role prevents someone from making a player to fill a specific role.

The point is pretty simplistic, I'm not sure why I have to point it out. Applying common sense, it's obvious that we can build whatever the fuck type of player we want to build, but it doesn't necessarily make that player useful or even viable. The real question now becomes what is considered "viable"... to me, a viable player, is a player that is effective as his chosen role.

This is the point where the whole diminishing returns and contested build trends come into play. We have historical examples in GLB of what happens when something is nerfed directly (by Bort) and then nerfed indirectly by contested build trends... DEs were not particularly effective as pass-rushers for a number of seasons and thus not viable builds. While a handful had success during this time frame, there's too many factors that could have been behind their success. The last thing we need is for builds that rely on +% bonuses to be viable, to suffer from a double nerf. As others have pointed out, their a noticeable drop off in effectiveness from as little as a +20% difference in AEQ, imagine what will happen when builds adjust... a power back who sacrifices speed to break tackles (say by taking strength over 100 instead of speed), that cannot consistently break tackles, is dead in the water and pretty much useless in the sim.

So while I don't think the change itself is crippling, I think it could very well be so once builds adjust as well. Thus removing the viability of certain build types (such a slow and bruising power back, who rely solely on breaking tackles to be effective). This change makes specialization less viable and balance more viable, which at the end of the day hurts anyone that wants to be a specialist role. A defender now has the option of rocking a +% make tackle chance AEQ to counter power backs as well as a +% avoid fake chance AEQ to counter elusive backs, all without diminishing returns. Meanwhile the power back and elusive back suffer penalties trying to gain an advantage (i.e. diminishing returns). We might as well only make combo backs now, taking a piece of +% break tackle chance and a piece of +% fake chance AEQ, at least we'll get full benefit from each item.

Originally posted by Warlock
This change makes specialization less viable and balance more viable, which at the end of the day hurts anyone that wants to be a specialist role.

I tend to agree with this. The disagreement in this thread seems to be over the severity of the statement. The above statement is made, and then it is read by someone else as "It will now be impossible to build specialists." That doesn't seem to be at all what Warlock is saying. Rather it seems to me that he is saying it will encourage people to build balanced players instead of specialized players. So if before the split was 70/30 balanced to specialized, it might now be 50/50 in a few seasons.


Apparently I'm a ghost or something, because the question in my post a few pages back has yet to illicit a response other than 'go read the rest of the thread,' which I did, and it didn't answer my question.


The way I see it, this change encourages balanced player building, while the archetype change encourages diversified player building. Does anyone else see these two solutions as contradictory?

I just don't get what the goal is. What direction do Bort and the admins want the game to go in? More specialization or less?

i dont really understand the announcement and im not reading through all this....whatever

Warlocks still at it.

still at it - but now with a new opponent, I believe!