Warrior General Games

I am not sure how tripling the ALG scenarios on each position would create less diversity. I could see someone arguing that this isn't taking diversity far enough, but not that it isn't helping.

Trying to build any player outside of what Bort originally intended with the majors right now sucks.

5 SPs does not mean much at all. I did not say that there is 0 difference, just that the difference is so small, it means picking an archetype for SAs is more likely to sway people, whereas by increasing/decreasing maj/mins you can create a pretty drastic difference, so a possession receiver isn't only 5 points slower than a speedster, or a powerback isn't only 5 points stronger than an elusive back.

You guys are really hung up on the ALG part of the archetypes. Personally I feel that the SA bonuses/penalties, custom SAs, and height/weight restrictions are (and should be) what make the archetypes distinct. The old imbalanced ALGs were terribad. The new more balanced ones are good.

Originally posted by foofighter24
I am not sure how tripling the ALG scenarios on each position would create less diversity. I could see someone arguing that this isn't taking diversity far enough, but not that it isn't helping.

Trying to build any player outside of what Bort originally intended with the majors right now sucks.

it's not the scenarios that are the problem, it's the fact that he's changing majors to .4 and minors to .33, only a .07 difference, which isn't really much of a difference at all.

Originally posted by LionsLover
I did not say that there is 0 difference

Correct, you did not say that. What you did say is,

Originally posted by LionsLover
it will create more parity by making less attribute build diversity.
Originally posted by LionsLover
But builds WILL be less diverse. Only difference will be SAs. So how is stating a fact retarded?

Not that it really matters, you also said,
Originally posted by LionsLover
not really... currently majors/minors have VERY little difference in endgame builds.

So I'm pretty sure we can just disregard anything you have to say on the subject from the get go tbh

Originally posted by TrevJo
You guys are really hung up on the ALG part of the archetypes. Personally I feel that the SA bonuses/penalties, custom SAs, and height/weight restrictions are (and should be) what make the archetypes distinct. The old imbalanced ALGs were terribad. The new more balanced ones are good.

I disagree. The ALGs make the attribute builds differentiate. What is to stop a player from building a possession receiver from the Speedy archetype? Nothing. What I am saying is increase the disparity to decrease the likelyhood that people will build out of archetype.

Originally posted by Maddoc
Not that it really matters, you also said
Originally posted by LionsLover

not really... currently majors/minors have VERY little difference in endgame builds.

So I'm pretty sure we can just discount anything you have to say on the subject from the get go tbh

how so? everything I have said is relevant to my arguement.

the ability to make near identical builds with different SAs is a problem waiting to happen. Possession WRs in the Speedy Archetype, Power Backs in the Elusive Archetype, Hard Hitting Safeties in the coverage archetype... There is nothing to dissuade these, and that is what archetypes are meant to do, make you choose what you want to build, not let you just choose SAs freely.

If you can't see how many times you've made yourself look like a babbling mental patient so far, I'm just going to stop here and say lolu

Originally posted by Maddoc
If you can't see how many times you've made yourself look like a babbling mental patient so far, I'm just going to stop here and say lolu

so coherent thoughts are now babbling? good to know. lolurself.

Edit: The only thing I can think of is you mistaking current ALGs with current archetype ALGs... since I didn't think that we would have to differenciate between the 2 in a discussion about archetypes.

Originally posted by LionsLover
Originally posted by foofighter24

I am not sure how tripling the ALG scenarios on each position would create less diversity. I could see someone arguing that this isn't taking diversity far enough, but not that it isn't helping.

Trying to build any player outside of what Bort originally intended with the majors right now sucks.

it's not the scenarios that are the problem, it's the fact that he's changing majors to .4 and minors to .33, only a .07 difference, which isn't really much of a difference at all.

Okay, I can see that point. I agree this is not my ideal either, but I do think it is a whole lot better than what we currently have.

Originally posted by LionsLover
I disagree. The ALGs make the attribute builds differentiate. What is to stop a player from building a possession receiver from the Speedy archetype?
Penalty to Route Run and Sticky Hands. Less Carrying. Wrong Custom SA. Less height. Less weight.

fyp

Originally posted by TrevJo
Originally posted by LionsLover

I disagree. The ALGs make the attribute builds differentiate. What is to stop a player from building a possession receiver from the Speedy archetype?
Penalty to Route Run and Sticky Hands. Less Carrying. Wrong Custom SA.

fyp

it doesn't make it impossible still.

Why should it be impossible?

Originally posted by TrevJo
Why should it be impossible?

ok let me rephrase that, it should be made extremely difficult. RR and SHs penalties aren't enough to complicate possession WRs.