Warrior General Games

According to the Proposed Archetype List:

3) If your player is between 1-80 days old you will be forced to choose an archetype before the end of pre-season. If you do not choose one by then you will be assigned the default archetype for that position. If you would rather retire your player then choose an archetype, you can do so and receive a full (100%) refund.
---

The mandatory election age will create a major dot dividing line. For many positions, dots that are not forced to select an archetype will be far superior to dots forced to select one - Center is the obvious example. Under the present proposal, a Center who is 81 days old when the archetype system goes live will become much, much better down the line than a Center who was 80 days old when the axe fell. For many positions, these players will be forced to retire, or suffer a career of being dominated by players just a few days older.

Assuming that the archetype system goes into effect between seasons 14 and 15, the current 80 day cutoff will correspond with another major GLB event: the new player roller. Players created on the first day of the new roller will be 79 or 80 days old and thus forced to select an archetype.

I understand that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but it seems that the 80-day line will present a much larger number of players with this choice than is necessary. I would imagine a huge number of players were created on the first day of the new roller, and thus a disproportionate number of players will be forced into retirement. If the cutoff fell in the middle of a season, say 100 days or 60 days old, far fewer players would be forced into retirement.

Choosing a mid-season cutoff point rather than a cutoff point that places a large number of players right at the line would cause far less brain-damage than the current proposal.

Whats the problem with forcing everyone to select an archetype?

1) I don't see why this would force players into retirement. If they fall on the one side of the deadline, they are going to have a new archetype. If they fall on the other side, they can choose to evolve into an archetype or remain as is.

2) It makes sense to have the entire new batch of rolled players all playing on equal footing

3) It makes sense to have players created within 80 days of the new system all on similar footing because this will be the new baby boom of GLB.

My preference would be to force every player to pick one regardless of age. I know that all of my players will be selecting a new archetype from levels one to 68.

go ask it in the currently ongoing Q&A thread -

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3782895&page=20

For positions that are getting a larger number of majors, such as centers and defensive tackles, the archetypes make the builds worse. A Center that is 81 days old when archetype selection kicks in will have something like 10 additional points of strength compared to a center that is 80 days old. If you are an 80 day old center, you will be far worse than centers created one day before you. You can keep building and forever be worse than other players in your cohort, or retire.

Like I said, I understand that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and thus this issue is inevitable. I also support the archetype shift as a general matter. However, the 80 day cutoff results in a much larger number of players falling within days of the line than is necessary. If the line were drawn so that it fell somewhere in midseason, you would have far fewer players facing this dilemna.

I think GLB should attempt to keep the number of players that fall just inside the line relatively low. The 80 day cutoff just might be the worst possible cutoff because so many players were created on the day the new player roller came out.

This is what Catch22 said:

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=3782895&page=24#33461775

Catch22
Admin
online
Feb 16, 2010 18:22:26
ReportLinkQuote

Originally posted by blackrock
I posted this in the Game Changes Forum, and a Q&A admin suggested I post here:

According to the Proposed Archetype List:

3) If your player is between 1-80 days old you will be forced to choose an archetype before the end of pre-season. If you do not choose one by then you will be assigned the default archetype for that position. If you would rather retire your player then choose an archetype, you can do so and receive a full (100%) refund.
---

The mandatory election age will create a major dot dividing line. For many positions, dots that are not forced to select an archetype will be far superior to dots forced to select one - Center is the obvious example. Under the present proposal, a Center who is 81 days old when the archetype system goes live will become much, much better down the line than a Center who was 80 days old when the axe fell. For many positions, these players will be forced to retire, or suffer a career of being dominated by players just a few days older.

Assuming that the archetype system goes into effect between seasons 14 and 15, the current 80 day cutoff will correspond with another major GLB event: the new player roller. Players created on the first day of the new roller will be 79 or 80 days old and thus forced to select an archetype.

I understand that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but it seems that the 80-day line will present a much larger number of players with this choice than is necessary. I would imagine a huge number of players were created on the first day of the new roller, and thus a disproportionate number of players will be forced into retirement. If the cutoff fell in the middle of a season, say 100 days or 60 days old, far fewer players would be forced into retirement.

Choosing a mid-season cutoff point rather than a cutoff point that places a large number of players right at the line would cause far less brain-damage than the current proposal.

Day 80 was what Bort and I decided was the most arbitrary cutoff date and easiest to work with in terms of simplicity. Players are still young enough to where they can retire/start over without having lost a lot of time and if they choose to not play, forcing them to choose an archetype balances them somewhat with players that are older/younger then them.

---

If this is the case, I really think that a 100 or 60 day cutoff would be much better because far fewer players would get stuck on one side of the fence.

I personally don't see the need for any cutoff, and think we'd be a lot better off if everyone had to choose one

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
Whats the problem with forcing everyone to select an archetype?

Teams created for season 13 and 14 will have to, at the end of their careers, compete against players created in season 15 after the implementation of archetypes. Most positions, especially speed-based positions, will be much better if created in season 15 with the archetypes. Forcing season 13 and 14 teams to drop the small number of advantageous non-archetype build plans (such as centers and kickers) tips the scales further in favor of season 15 teams.

Originally posted by TrevJo
Forcing season 13 and 14 teams to drop the small number of advantageous non-archetype build plans (such as centers and kickers) tips the scales further in favor of season 15 teams.
Not really. The handful of positions that were better will still maintain any advantage they had generated up to the point of needing to switch, they simply wouldn't be able to add to it.

Originally posted by jdbolick

Not really. The handful of positions that were better will still maintain any advantage they had generated up to the point of needing to switch, they simply wouldn't be able to add to it.

Yes. But considering it's a small handful of positions with an advantage (~12 on a team including some positions of lesser importance), vs the vast majority of positions at a disadvantage (~39 on a team including QB, HB, etc), it's very imbalanced.

Also, regardless of position, players created in season 13 and 14 (in general) are at a disadvantage for starting with build plans that didn't have the new archetype ALGs in mind.

EDITING to answer later posts since the thread was locked.

Originally posted by jdbolick
I agree, but that only matters when we're comparing end-game builds, right?

Yeah, but end-game builds are where it counts the most, right?

Originally posted by tuba_samurai
Originally posted by Catch22
Day 80 was what Bort and I decided was the most arbitrary cutoff date and easiest to work with in terms of simplicity. Players are still young enough to where they can retire/start over without having lost a lot of time and if they choose to not play, forcing them to choose an archetype balances them somewhat with players that are older/younger then them.

That totally blows. Why should people have to start over in order to compete?
The part about forcing them to choose an archetype only somewhat balances players at a handful of positions. It makes teams LESS balanced--and the fact that the full refund option is there seems to indicate that the admins realize this.

Originally posted by TrevJo
the vast majority of positions at a disadvantage
I agree, but that only matters when we're comparing end-game builds, right? For instance, I've been building a speed back and it's certainly true that the same build would be substantially superior by plateau with the new archetypes. But six seasons from now, my guy would have the same amount of time in ALGs as someone who creates S14D40. I don't see where my guy would be worse than the new guy until mine his decline.