how realistic is "de-training"? can players unlearn skills they've learned as they apply to football? the whole idea is ridiculous and goes against the "common goal" which I thought was making the game more realistic.
Ratphlegm
offline
offline
Originally posted by jared
how realistic is "de-training"? can players unlearn skills they've learned as they apply to football? the whole idea is ridiculous and goes against the "common goal" which I thought was making the game more realistic.
I considered this as well, but as far as strength vs. agility is concerned, it makes sense that a player would drop a few pounds of bulky muscle to increase their quickness, or vice versa. It also makes a bit of sense that a player could become less successful at tackling after focusing on their pass coverage skills for awhile, and other opposing skills/attributes could affect each other inversely.
The combinations of what you can give up to gain a specific skill should be pretty limited though. Giving up punting skill for confidence doesn't make very much sense, but giving up punting for strength does as you could try to just kick as hard as you can, but with less technique.
how realistic is "de-training"? can players unlearn skills they've learned as they apply to football? the whole idea is ridiculous and goes against the "common goal" which I thought was making the game more realistic.
I considered this as well, but as far as strength vs. agility is concerned, it makes sense that a player would drop a few pounds of bulky muscle to increase their quickness, or vice versa. It also makes a bit of sense that a player could become less successful at tackling after focusing on their pass coverage skills for awhile, and other opposing skills/attributes could affect each other inversely.
The combinations of what you can give up to gain a specific skill should be pretty limited though. Giving up punting skill for confidence doesn't make very much sense, but giving up punting for strength does as you could try to just kick as hard as you can, but with less technique.
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jed
And in the meantime, Bort did also say that an SA respec would be a possibility, which I'd really like to see.
I really don't want to see that either, unless it's either:
1) Only a few points (no more than 10 SP's) can be re-speced in SA's, and there is an in-game cost, or:
2) It's a once per career thing (still only in an offseason) and is combined with some other SA reforms such as letting the player re-order the trees (outside of the premium SA's, which couldn't be moved) and allowing 3 points in the SA after per point in the one before rather than 2. Most vet players would do it right away; with new players you might hold off until you decide just what SA's you want.
But the era of having to put points in SA's you don't want to get the ones you do would be mostly over (it would still somewhat exist when you started out, although you could use a 3-1 ratio rather than 2-1; but when you got to change the trees around on your player's one and only SA re-spec, then you'd only really be limited by it on the premium SA).
And in the meantime, Bort did also say that an SA respec would be a possibility, which I'd really like to see.
I really don't want to see that either, unless it's either:
1) Only a few points (no more than 10 SP's) can be re-speced in SA's, and there is an in-game cost, or:
2) It's a once per career thing (still only in an offseason) and is combined with some other SA reforms such as letting the player re-order the trees (outside of the premium SA's, which couldn't be moved) and allowing 3 points in the SA after per point in the one before rather than 2. Most vet players would do it right away; with new players you might hold off until you decide just what SA's you want.
But the era of having to put points in SA's you don't want to get the ones you do would be mostly over (it would still somewhat exist when you started out, although you could use a 3-1 ratio rather than 2-1; but when you got to change the trees around on your player's one and only SA re-spec, then you'd only really be limited by it on the premium SA).
dmfa41
online
online
I'm completely ambivalent to this. I wouldn't use it myself, but I wouldn't cry if someone else chose to.
It makes sense to favor one attribute over the another in certain circumstances; perhaps they would have to be "linked" in a similar fashion as intense training combinations?
It makes sense to favor one attribute over the another in certain circumstances; perhaps they would have to be "linked" in a similar fashion as intense training combinations?
Last edited Jan 28, 2009 14:47:34
TheInfinity
offline
offline
Originally posted by jared
how realistic is "de-training"? can players unlearn skills they've learned as they apply to football? the whole idea is ridiculous and goes against the "common goal" which I thought was making the game more realistic.
How realistic is training?
Leg Presses make you stronger all over and only give you leg strength related to jumping higher?
Coverage Drills have no effect on your Speed/Agility/Vision?
Running Wind Sprints gives you Speed/Agility but if you run them up hill (Hill Sprints) you get Speed/Stamina?
As I've always said. Lets not get too wrapped up in the realism concerns when it comes to the game.
how realistic is "de-training"? can players unlearn skills they've learned as they apply to football? the whole idea is ridiculous and goes against the "common goal" which I thought was making the game more realistic.
How realistic is training?
Leg Presses make you stronger all over and only give you leg strength related to jumping higher?
Coverage Drills have no effect on your Speed/Agility/Vision?
Running Wind Sprints gives you Speed/Agility but if you run them up hill (Hill Sprints) you get Speed/Stamina?
As I've always said. Lets not get too wrapped up in the realism concerns when it comes to the game.
DL24
offline
offline
This belongs in the Bort stalker forum, as this is an easily exploitable option. Just because Bort made it doesnt mean it needs to be Epic
Jed
offline
offline
Originally posted by Xiong Yoshi
Ok, here is how someone could game this idea:
Level 1 Player is created and Trains up as normal.. saving their SPs as they level until they get enough to take a skill to Second Softcap. Player reaches level 7 and now has enough SPs to take one attribute to 61. That attribute has been trained upon and now has 80% (or whatever)... The player dumps all of the SPs into it taking it to second softcap.
Player now uses the Detrain to get rid of those 80% and put them into another attribute. Because the 80% were gained at about 40% per training (because the attribute was at 15 when it was being trained), it only took 2 days to get it up to 80%.. but now that the attribute is 60+, it's training percentage is 8%. Now they transfer the training from the above skill into a new skill. Being level 7, and having dumped all of their SPs into the first attribute, the second attribute is still 15. If the idea is to use a transfer to give 2x the training to 1 attribute, but reduce another by 1x training.. then you spend 8% from the first attribute to gain 40% in the second.
Now, this type of "gaming" would really be limited... so it isn't a swapping back and forth for gain type of gaming... and if one was convinced that they wanted to introduce some mechanism of reskilling, this is probably a minor concern compared to intentionally introducing severe inefficiencies to prevent this type of gaming.
I covered this in the part where I said the training would happen using the lower %. So in your example, it would mean training up/down at 8%, not 40%.
Ok, here is how someone could game this idea:
Level 1 Player is created and Trains up as normal.. saving their SPs as they level until they get enough to take a skill to Second Softcap. Player reaches level 7 and now has enough SPs to take one attribute to 61. That attribute has been trained upon and now has 80% (or whatever)... The player dumps all of the SPs into it taking it to second softcap.
Player now uses the Detrain to get rid of those 80% and put them into another attribute. Because the 80% were gained at about 40% per training (because the attribute was at 15 when it was being trained), it only took 2 days to get it up to 80%.. but now that the attribute is 60+, it's training percentage is 8%. Now they transfer the training from the above skill into a new skill. Being level 7, and having dumped all of their SPs into the first attribute, the second attribute is still 15. If the idea is to use a transfer to give 2x the training to 1 attribute, but reduce another by 1x training.. then you spend 8% from the first attribute to gain 40% in the second.
Now, this type of "gaming" would really be limited... so it isn't a swapping back and forth for gain type of gaming... and if one was convinced that they wanted to introduce some mechanism of reskilling, this is probably a minor concern compared to intentionally introducing severe inefficiencies to prevent this type of gaming.
I covered this in the part where I said the training would happen using the lower %. So in your example, it would mean training up/down at 8%, not 40%.
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jed
Originally posted by Xiong Yoshi
Ok, here is how someone could game this idea:
Level 1 Player is created and Trains up as normal.. saving their SPs as they level until they get enough to take a skill to Second Softcap. Player reaches level 7 and now has enough SPs to take one attribute to 61. That attribute has been trained upon and now has 80% (or whatever)... The player dumps all of the SPs into it taking it to second softcap.
Player now uses the Detrain to get rid of those 80% and put them into another attribute. Because the 80% were gained at about 40% per training (because the attribute was at 15 when it was being trained), it only took 2 days to get it up to 80%.. but now that the attribute is 60+, it's training percentage is 8%. Now they transfer the training from the above skill into a new skill. Being level 7, and having dumped all of their SPs into the first attribute, the second attribute is still 15. If the idea is to use a transfer to give 2x the training to 1 attribute, but reduce another by 1x training.. then you spend 8% from the first attribute to gain 40% in the second.
Now, this type of "gaming" would really be limited... so it isn't a swapping back and forth for gain type of gaming... and if one was convinced that they wanted to introduce some mechanism of reskilling, this is probably a minor concern compared to intentionally introducing severe inefficiencies to prevent this type of gaming.
I covered this in the part where I said the training would happen using the lower %. So in your example, it would mean training up/down at 8%, not 40%.
The only way I can see this being gamed is:
1) I get Attribute A up really high.
2) I then untrain Attribute A to gain in Attribute B, only gaining extra in Attribute B what I untrain in Attribute A, so it's not exploitable in that part, but:
3) I make sure to stop untraining Attribute A before I reach 100% untrained and it thus would go down. So I've helped gain in Attribute B but lost nothing in Attribute A.
The solution would be that the untraining would have to be immediately subtracted from the untrained attribute, in fractions, rather than only going down once you untrained 100%.
Originally posted by Xiong Yoshi
Ok, here is how someone could game this idea:
Level 1 Player is created and Trains up as normal.. saving their SPs as they level until they get enough to take a skill to Second Softcap. Player reaches level 7 and now has enough SPs to take one attribute to 61. That attribute has been trained upon and now has 80% (or whatever)... The player dumps all of the SPs into it taking it to second softcap.
Player now uses the Detrain to get rid of those 80% and put them into another attribute. Because the 80% were gained at about 40% per training (because the attribute was at 15 when it was being trained), it only took 2 days to get it up to 80%.. but now that the attribute is 60+, it's training percentage is 8%. Now they transfer the training from the above skill into a new skill. Being level 7, and having dumped all of their SPs into the first attribute, the second attribute is still 15. If the idea is to use a transfer to give 2x the training to 1 attribute, but reduce another by 1x training.. then you spend 8% from the first attribute to gain 40% in the second.
Now, this type of "gaming" would really be limited... so it isn't a swapping back and forth for gain type of gaming... and if one was convinced that they wanted to introduce some mechanism of reskilling, this is probably a minor concern compared to intentionally introducing severe inefficiencies to prevent this type of gaming.
I covered this in the part where I said the training would happen using the lower %. So in your example, it would mean training up/down at 8%, not 40%.
The only way I can see this being gamed is:
1) I get Attribute A up really high.
2) I then untrain Attribute A to gain in Attribute B, only gaining extra in Attribute B what I untrain in Attribute A, so it's not exploitable in that part, but:
3) I make sure to stop untraining Attribute A before I reach 100% untrained and it thus would go down. So I've helped gain in Attribute B but lost nothing in Attribute A.
The solution would be that the untraining would have to be immediately subtracted from the untrained attribute, in fractions, rather than only going down once you untrained 100%.
MD
offline
offline
How the hell does this get Epic'ed after 2 posts.......from an idiot poster none the less.
Bort mentions that he had dinner with a friend and his buddy hinted at this idea and now its an Epic idea with no discussion?
Great Mod work Nixx.
Not to mention we were told by another Mod that we had to close the SA Respec thread so we can discuss it in the reroll thread, so why is that thread closed if its the thread were supposed to substitute post in?
Bort mentions that he had dinner with a friend and his buddy hinted at this idea and now its an Epic idea with no discussion?
Great Mod work Nixx.
Not to mention we were told by another Mod that we had to close the SA Respec thread so we can discuss it in the reroll thread, so why is that thread closed if its the thread were supposed to substitute post in?
Last edited Jan 28, 2009 20:35:30
Nixx
offline
offline
Originally posted by MD
How the hell does this get Epic'ed after 2 posts.......from an idiot poster none the less.
Bort mentions that he had dinner with a friend and his buddy hinted at this idea and now its an Epic idea with no discussion?
Great Mod work Nixx.
Not to mention we were told by another Mod that we had to close the SA Respec thread so we can discuss it in the reroll thread, so why is that thread closed if its the thread were supposed to substitute post in?
Complete respec is never going to happen. Therefore there was no reason to keep using that 1100 post monster thread. The conversation has been moved here. It's still epic, unless you'd rather there be no respec now?
How the hell does this get Epic'ed after 2 posts.......from an idiot poster none the less.
Bort mentions that he had dinner with a friend and his buddy hinted at this idea and now its an Epic idea with no discussion?
Great Mod work Nixx.
Not to mention we were told by another Mod that we had to close the SA Respec thread so we can discuss it in the reroll thread, so why is that thread closed if its the thread were supposed to substitute post in?
Complete respec is never going to happen. Therefore there was no reason to keep using that 1100 post monster thread. The conversation has been moved here. It's still epic, unless you'd rather there be no respec now?
MD
offline
offline
Originally posted by Nixx
Originally posted by MD
How the hell does this get Epic'ed after 2 posts.......from an idiot poster none the less.
Bort mentions that he had dinner with a friend and his buddy hinted at this idea and now its an Epic idea with no discussion?
Great Mod work Nixx.
Not to mention we were told by another Mod that we had to close the SA Respec thread so we can discuss it in the reroll thread, so why is that thread closed if its the thread were supposed to substitute post in?
Complete respec is never going to happen. Therefore there was no reason to keep using that 1100 post monster thread. The conversation has been moved here. It's still epic, unless you'd rather there be no respec now?
So are you gonna go open the SA Respec thread now? Because it was locked because we were supposed to use the Reroll thread for that discusiion as well.
Plus if were gonna have an Epic thread for this, we better have an Epic thread for SA Respecs.
Originally posted by MD
How the hell does this get Epic'ed after 2 posts.......from an idiot poster none the less.
Bort mentions that he had dinner with a friend and his buddy hinted at this idea and now its an Epic idea with no discussion?
Great Mod work Nixx.
Not to mention we were told by another Mod that we had to close the SA Respec thread so we can discuss it in the reroll thread, so why is that thread closed if its the thread were supposed to substitute post in?
Complete respec is never going to happen. Therefore there was no reason to keep using that 1100 post monster thread. The conversation has been moved here. It's still epic, unless you'd rather there be no respec now?
So are you gonna go open the SA Respec thread now? Because it was locked because we were supposed to use the Reroll thread for that discusiion as well.
Plus if were gonna have an Epic thread for this, we better have an Epic thread for SA Respecs.
MD
offline
offline
Heres the thread, heres the quote from Jed.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=1872213&page=1
Originally posted by
Originally posted by MD
This needs a bump now that Bort has at least started to talk about respecs in the Epic forum for the reroll thread.
Originally posted by Jed
Actually, quite the opposite. Add this info there, we don't need 2 threads for the same thing.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=1872213&page=1
Originally posted by
Originally posted by MD
This needs a bump now that Bort has at least started to talk about respecs in the Epic forum for the reroll thread.
Originally posted by Jed
Actually, quite the opposite. Add this info there, we don't need 2 threads for the same thing.
Last edited Jan 28, 2009 20:44:35
happylittletrees
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ratphlegm
Originally posted by jared
how realistic is "de-training"? can players unlearn skills they've learned as they apply to football? the whole idea is ridiculous and goes against the "common goal" which I thought was making the game more realistic.
I considered this as well, but as far as strength vs. agility is concerned, it makes sense that a player would drop a few pounds of bulky muscle to increase their quickness, or vice versa. It also makes a bit of sense that a player could become less successful at tackling after focusing on their pass coverage skills for awhile, and other opposing skills/attributes could affect each other inversely.
The combinations of what you can give up to gain a specific skill should be pretty limited though. Giving up punting skill for confidence doesn't make very much sense, but giving up punting for strength does as you could try to just kick as hard as you can, but with less technique.
well players aren't losing weight in the version of de-training in the OP. although the way you describe other scenarios the idea doesn't seem so bad, but it should be limited to certain ability combos to make it less abuseable.
Originally posted by jared
how realistic is "de-training"? can players unlearn skills they've learned as they apply to football? the whole idea is ridiculous and goes against the "common goal" which I thought was making the game more realistic.
I considered this as well, but as far as strength vs. agility is concerned, it makes sense that a player would drop a few pounds of bulky muscle to increase their quickness, or vice versa. It also makes a bit of sense that a player could become less successful at tackling after focusing on their pass coverage skills for awhile, and other opposing skills/attributes could affect each other inversely.
The combinations of what you can give up to gain a specific skill should be pretty limited though. Giving up punting skill for confidence doesn't make very much sense, but giving up punting for strength does as you could try to just kick as hard as you can, but with less technique.
well players aren't losing weight in the version of de-training in the OP. although the way you describe other scenarios the idea doesn't seem so bad, but it should be limited to certain ability combos to make it less abuseable.
Ken1
offline
offline
It hit me, and I'm okay with with un-training if it's put in, but I just want to throw out ways I can think of that it could be gamed so that if it does go in, it's as unexploitable as possible, that another way, not in my above post, to game it exists.
The key is in untraining attributes you never added to, from O-linemen untraining Tackling to anyone besides a punter untraining Punting. Might as well take it all the way down to 0 and use the points for stuff useful to the position.
It has to somehow be possible only to untrain attributes that you've trained/put SP's into, and only the amount you have trained or put SP's into them.
The key is in untraining attributes you never added to, from O-linemen untraining Tackling to anyone besides a punter untraining Punting. Might as well take it all the way down to 0 and use the points for stuff useful to the position.
It has to somehow be possible only to untrain attributes that you've trained/put SP's into, and only the amount you have trained or put SP's into them.
Talcion
offline
offline
Alright so with the SA Respec we are still gonna have to keep within in the Pre-Requisite bounds of the SA's correct, so the even if some silly CB put lots of pts into Rtn Specialist, they will still need some of those pts if they still wish to have the SA's after that...
I am correct on that right?
Other than that... I'm alright with a SA Respec...
So if I pull 5 levels of Big Sack, is there going to be any type of penalty of the SP I will get from it (Other than the whole thing of having to use them in the same SA tree, which I think was previously discussed, in a other thread)
Just want to know for the possibilities that I could do? And is this gonna cost FP, or TP or something?
I am correct on that right?
Other than that... I'm alright with a SA Respec...
So if I pull 5 levels of Big Sack, is there going to be any type of penalty of the SP I will get from it (Other than the whole thing of having to use them in the same SA tree, which I think was previously discussed, in a other thread)
Just want to know for the possibilities that I could do? And is this gonna cost FP, or TP or something?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
