Warrior General Games

was hoping to get clarification on:

Catch:
"4) One of the purposes of the archetypes in addition to giving more options for you to build a player is to simplify game planning. DC's will now be able to tag an offensive player by archetype. This will allow DC's to set up AI's ahead of time without a constant need for changing due to different tagging requirements.

Why are we doing this? Because it'll allow for more diverse/unique builds which will make a more fun experience for everyone. It'll also simplify many other areas of GLB including coordinating""


It seems to me that in order to make this statement effective for DCs, there really can't nor wont be much variance in player builds within a particular archetype. in which case, there is only the *illusion* of build variance.

If there still will be build variance in the truest sense, then I don't see how DCing will be made easier.

Hence a paradox. Im sensing an agenda to 'simplify the build process'.. which might not have the desired effects some think it will?? And by this, i mean current musings on changing the leveling-up process.in tandem with these archetypes....


in sum, either:
a) There is a push to make players easily taggable, which sounds like the illusion of variance within an archetype
or
b) the comment about DCing becoming easier doesn't make much sense, as build variety fights tagging

but both can't be true?

Originally posted by Doug_Plank
It seems to me that in order to make this statement effective for DCs, there really can't nor wont be much variance in player builds within a particular archetype. in which case, there is only the *illusion* of build variance.

Would you consider a Power HB that is not built to break tackles "variance"?
How about a slow "Elusive" HB, does that add variance?

I mean, there can be VAST differences between HBs in the Power category...but it is fairly safe to say that they will all be built to break tackles. It's pretty safe to say that all elusives will have pretty good speed. Do either of these make builds identical? I think not.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by Doug_Plank

It seems to me that in order to make this statement effective for DCs, there really can't nor wont be much variance in player builds within a particular archetype. in which case, there is only the *illusion* of build variance.

Would you consider a Power HB that is not built to break tackles "variance"?
How about a slow "Elusive" HB, does that add variance?

I mean, there can be VAST differences between HBs in the Power category...but it is fairly safe to say that they will all be built to break tackles. It's pretty safe to say that all elusives will have pretty good speed. Do either of these make builds identical? I think not.

agreed

that's why I dont understand how any of the archetypes, as they stand now, would truly make DCing any easier

Originally posted by Doug_Plank
agreed

that's why I dont understand how any of the archetypes, as they stand now, would truly make DCing any easier

Well, it's not the little bit of build variance that will effect it. Power HBs will still be tackle breakers for instance.

The thing that it won't really effect, is that teams will still use different plays. Team A may use their power back for only Weak Dives from Strong I, whereas Team B may use him entirely for strong side slamming.

The only thing it will really do is make tagging easier...but tagging literally takes 2-3 minutes as is. I've never really been as gun ho about archetypes making coordinating easier as other people. The actual tagging screen itself is a pretty minuscule part of the whole thing.

Originally posted by Deathblade



The only thing it will really do is make tagging easier....

That would make sense. big difference between just making tagging easier vs actually making coordinating easier (which he was saying)

Yeah, I would actually think that tagging by archetype would be very risky.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Yeah, I would actually think that tagging by archetype would be very risky.

Not anymore risky than it already is....
I mean most elite teams go through and pull data where they can say 100% strong I slam/wr skinny post when player X Y, and Z is in the game, and then create the defense accordingly. I.E. Strong slant with dline/double coverage on wr2/ based on who runs routes in wr skinny post... I mean to really have it nailed/be able to have the right defense on the field 95% of the time vs the right personnel you're looking at 3-4 hrs regardless of anything tagging related. .....

Originally posted by David Stern
Not anymore risky than it already is.
Hardly. When you go through and manually assign tags, you do so after determining what type of player you're dealing with. Just tagging everything by archetype would involve far more risk because it's operating under the assumption that all players within an archetype will be similarly built and similarly used, two things that might be true enough for many games, but will get you in trouble for others.

Originally posted by jdbolick

Hardly. When you go through and manually assign tags, you do so after determining what type of player you're dealing with. Just tagging everything by archetype would involve far more risk because it's operating under the assumption that all players within an archetype will be similarly built and similarly used, two things that might be true enough for many games, but will get you in trouble for others.

Agreed. I can still create a Pocket Passer with 120 speed and use him on QB runs if I really wanted. His build is not going to be as good as a Scrambler when it comes to running the ball, but it can still be done.