A power back is a power back is a power back..........now the co-ordinators can tag an acrhetype, yaddy frickin da! 500 cookie cutter, predictable powerback archetype builds. "Predictable" is the key word here. You could hide a power back build with equip and a "non archetype" label as it is now. The new options will less diverse then ever imo!
Forum > Game Changes Discussion > Will the changes create more parity or widen the gap....
xsujx
offline
offline
Originally posted by The Avenger
A power back is a power back is a power back..........now the co-ordinators can tag an acrhetype, yaddy frickin da! 500 cookie cutter, predictable powerback archetype builds. "Predictable" is the key word here. You could hide a power back build with equip and a "non archetype" label as it is now. The new options will less diverse then ever imo!
You can make book on that.
A power back is a power back is a power back..........now the co-ordinators can tag an acrhetype, yaddy frickin da! 500 cookie cutter, predictable powerback archetype builds. "Predictable" is the key word here. You could hide a power back build with equip and a "non archetype" label as it is now. The new options will less diverse then ever imo!
You can make book on that.
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by The Avenger
You could hide a power back build with equip and a "non archetype" label as it is now.
You really couldn't. Going by archetypes instead of scouting will be much more risky.
Originally posted by
The new options will less diverse then ever imo!
This makes no sense. Right now we have a fair amount of diversity with only one set of majors/minors per position, and I guarantee that there will be massive differences between players in a particular archetype. I've already planned out a roster where I'm assigning players to a particular archetype who will nevertheless be built very differently to fit different roles.
You could hide a power back build with equip and a "non archetype" label as it is now.
You really couldn't. Going by archetypes instead of scouting will be much more risky.
Originally posted by
The new options will less diverse then ever imo!
This makes no sense. Right now we have a fair amount of diversity with only one set of majors/minors per position, and I guarantee that there will be massive differences between players in a particular archetype. I've already planned out a roster where I'm assigning players to a particular archetype who will nevertheless be built very differently to fit different roles.
LionsLover
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by The Avenger
You could hide a power back build with equip and a "non archetype" label as it is now.
You really couldn't. Going by archetypes instead of scouting will be much more risky.
Originally posted by
The new options will less diverse then ever imo!
This makes no sense. Right now we have a fair amount of diversity with only one set of majors/minors per position, and I guarantee that there will be massive differences between players in a particular archetype. I've already planned out a roster where I'm assigning players to a particular archetype who will nevertheless be built very differently to fit different roles.
actually the latter makes more sense. The ALGs are pretty much worthless now, so you can build 2 nearly identical players with different archetypes. Which is pretty much what archetypes were trying to avoid. Change the ALGs to a wider gap and THEN it will create more diverse builds. I suggest at least a .25 gap, or 1 SP difference every 4 levels, for a total endgame gap of ~17-18. THAT will create diversity.
Originally posted by The Avenger
You could hide a power back build with equip and a "non archetype" label as it is now.
You really couldn't. Going by archetypes instead of scouting will be much more risky.
Originally posted by
The new options will less diverse then ever imo!
This makes no sense. Right now we have a fair amount of diversity with only one set of majors/minors per position, and I guarantee that there will be massive differences between players in a particular archetype. I've already planned out a roster where I'm assigning players to a particular archetype who will nevertheless be built very differently to fit different roles.
actually the latter makes more sense. The ALGs are pretty much worthless now, so you can build 2 nearly identical players with different archetypes. Which is pretty much what archetypes were trying to avoid. Change the ALGs to a wider gap and THEN it will create more diverse builds. I suggest at least a .25 gap, or 1 SP difference every 4 levels, for a total endgame gap of ~17-18. THAT will create diversity.
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by LionsLover
actually the latter makes more sense. The ALGs are pretty much worthless now, so you can build 2 nearly identical players with different archetypes. Which is pretty much what archetypes were trying to avoid. Change the ALGs to a wider gap and THEN it will create more diverse builds.
Please do not post again until you realize that right now there is no different in ALGs between players at a particular position. Obviously small differences create less variation than massive ones would, but that introduces a whole host of other problems.
actually the latter makes more sense. The ALGs are pretty much worthless now, so you can build 2 nearly identical players with different archetypes. Which is pretty much what archetypes were trying to avoid. Change the ALGs to a wider gap and THEN it will create more diverse builds.
Please do not post again until you realize that right now there is no different in ALGs between players at a particular position. Obviously small differences create less variation than massive ones would, but that introduces a whole host of other problems. You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
