Warrior General Games

ok


































do we care?

Originally posted by coleman123
do we care?

not really, just another whine thread

Originally posted by mikeandbrooke07
not really, just another whine thread

yepp i know right

Originally posted by Catch22
ALG's aren't going away. You can keep discussing it if you want but you're just wasting your time doing so.

some people get a thrill out of bashing their heads into brick walls

Not going to read this whole thread, but if ALGs were removed, everyone would just save up all their SP, train everything to about 30-40, then spend all their SP for that attribute at once. It'd be like slow building on steroids.

Also, archetypes make ALGs more in line with how players want to build. For someone worried about competition at the lower leagues, I'm surprised the OP doesn't see archetypes as a good thing. Instead of waiting until level 40 to add agility to a safety or waiting until level 50 to add strength to a WR or speed to an OL, agents with archetypes can train up the attributes they want from the get go.

Oh yeah, and this thread belongs in Suggestions, not Game Changes Discussion. inb4move

Originally posted by Catch22
ALG's aren't going away. You can keep discussing it if you want but you're just wasting your time doing so.

So because ALGs are the root of:

SSBing, extreme builds, and cookie-cutter building is there any discussion in place to help thwart these causes?

I like ALGs... I like the idea that some stats are going to be higher on certain types of players. In a non-football RPG you aren't going to be able to build a berzerxor into an archer... he'd be able to shoot far and fast, but he would never have the accuracy to ever be any good at it.

The main difference in GLB player development versus the typical RPG development is the limitation on skills and equipment that normally comes with the type of build. In a typical RPG your cleric isn't going to be able to use heavy armour or two handed axes and such, but in GLB any player on the field can use any kind of equipment that they want. And instead of slowing them down, the equipment has the ability to speed them up. There's just always been something counter-intuitive to me about that.

Anyway... ALGs in GLB need to be examined and their effects on the game properly understood. If you believe that they are a good thing, you need to look at some of the negative things that are caused by their existence and find ways to counter them.

Originally posted by Catch22
ALG's aren't going away. You can keep discussing it if you want but you're just wasting your time doing so.

why? because working around the ALGs makes building more difficult and requires strategy?

Originally posted by Deathblade
Lower level leagues suck because they are full of OT's with punting, and GM's that have no clue what they are doing.

Also because people with high level dots don't care about their low level dots until they're at least 40-50 or so

Originally posted by 5STAR
Originally posted by jamz

It's been said numerous times that they won't be removing ALGs.

[/thread]

That stance is such fail....players spend the first 7 seasons hitting caps so they can compete for 4-5. It is what I absolutely hate about building players and I know I am not alone.


I agree with you on this point, but rather than removing ALGs (I like them because they make people have a bit of a strategy when building a player), id rather see them extend our player's lives by 2 seasons. This would give us 2 seasons of developmental stuff (up to level 21-24 or so if you boost in both seasons), then 10 full seasons before hitting plateau. This would be a happy medium i think. It wouldnt necessarily solve your low level leagues, but it'd give you more time at the higher levels in the top leagues

I would just like to say that no matter what changes there are to the game, I probably still won't care about low level dots and will probably still only be concerned with getting exp for them.

I doubt I am the only one that feels this way.

Originally posted by Maddoc
I would just like to say that no matter what changes there are to the game, I probably still won't care about low level dots and will probably still only be concerned with getting exp for them.

I doubt I am the only one that feels this way.

Youre not the only one, but the point that our time in higher levels is too short is indeed an important one to consider

Originally posted by Snakebite99
Originally posted by Maddoc

I would just like to say that no matter what changes there are to the game, I probably still won't care about low level dots and will probably still only be concerned with getting exp for them.

I doubt I am the only one that feels this way.

Youre not the only one, but the point that our time in higher levels is too short is indeed an important one to consider

Level faster, have plateau start earlier and extend to the normal decline time imo

make seasons 8-10 the plateau, rebalance exp so that you hit "max level" by that time, decline afterward to maintain the optimal "career length" that Bort wants.

Though right now a dot can begin competing in actual leagues at about level 60 if they're built well.

Originally posted by Maddoc
Level faster, have plateau start earlier and extend to the normal decline time imo

make seasons 8-10 the plateau, rebalance exp so that you hit "max level" by that time, decline afterward to maintain the optimal "career length" that Bort wants.

Ive seen this suggestion before, but i honestly dont think i would like this at all. A good part of the fun in this game (if youre not coordinating) is building players. If that stops after 7-8 seasons, i dont know what kind of interest alot of players/agents would have after that point.