Warrior General Games

Originally posted by F8n4tune
Originally posted by HULK

Originally posted by sjmay


Because everyone would pick the same major and same minor....

Maybe for some positions.

I would be one to pick non-standard ones, and I know several others who would do the same.

I would pick different ones fwiw on certain players. Let's get real here , if we are to be building characters then let's us build them , do not force us to CONTINUE to build the same thing in the guise of it being different. Same goes for training combo's imo.

Any other game out there where you are building you have several different roads you can travel , here it's just 4 roads PERIOD. The only choices you make are which two are first , that's pretty lame.

But isn't that what we have right now, all players have the same major/minor. Myself I like the idea of picking your own but as was said each player must have a certain number of majors and minors.
With the ability to pick your own and just have the AGL's to go along with that I think that it would give us even more ways to build. I would certainly try it.
A little example could be if you want a pulling guard then you could actually pick agility and speed as some of your majors.

Originally posted by Stu618
Originally posted by silenthatred

Originally posted by RiverRat2


Do they not all have the same major and minor now?

Archetypes? So yeah, for 7 more days I guess.

So now we are going from 1 option to maybe 3-4 options tops? So instead of 1 cookie cutter, we get... 3-4 cookie cutters? I'm all for a new player building process and archetypes are a step in the right direction, but I think GLB should make this their final change for player build process, so can we please get it right this time?

So then you are calling real football players cookie cutters? Pocket passer, scrambler, mix. What else is there? Punting QB? Power back, elusive back, 3rd down blocking/receiving back, returner, etc...Football players have roles. Now while real people don't get to "build" themselves to a role or, in most cases, even decide the role in which they will be used, that does not mean they don't have one. I guess my question would be, out of the defined roles of the current archetypes, what do you see that is missing? I'm sure if you can come up with a valid one, they'd add it.

As for your question, the simple answer is yes because of exploits. I'd make a HB with something like throwing, strength, vision and speed as majors. Then agility, carrying and confidence as minors. Or some mix depending on the training combos. Is that close to real football though? If you want this game to become a nightmare of exploits and chaos, then by all means, let us do that. Actually, check that, I'd make a center of the above since it's only 100 flex.

In fact, I'd make a whole team full of centers.

Originally posted by David Stern
What is the combo everyone would pick for wr?

Broken?

Originally posted by silenthatred


So then you are calling real football players cookie cutters? Pocket passer, scrambler, mix. What else is there? Punting QB? Power back, elusive back, 3rd down blocking/receiving back, returner, etc...Football players have roles. Now while real people don't get to "build" themselves to a role or, in most cases, even decide the role in which they will be used, that does not mean they don't have one. I guess my question would be, out of the defined roles of the current archetypes, what do you see that is missing? I'm sure if you can come up with a valid one, they'd add it.

As for your question, the simple answer is yes because of exploits. I'd make a HB with something like throwing, strength, vision and speed as majors. Then agility, carrying and confidence as minors. Or some mix depending on the training combos. Is that close to real football though? If you want this game to become a nightmare of exploits and chaos, then by all means, let us do that. Actually, check that, I'd make a center of the above since it's only 100 flex.

Good points all around but all that says to me is something isn't coded right and THAT is what should be fixed no ? Maybe OOP's aren't strong enough ? Or the build concept itself isn't , from the base value that allows something that crazy to work ? And of course certain attributes at positions could be locked as well to stop some of the exploits I would think.

Bottom line to me is IF the attributes were more position specific like strength would work different as well as speed , agility and so on it would be viable to pick your own if that makes sense ? Probably not explaining it right but hopefully something can be taken from what I posted.

Originally posted by silenthatred
In fact, I'd make a whole team full of centers.

They would be god awful

Originally posted by Phil Jackson
Originally posted by silenthatred

In fact, I'd make a whole team full of centers.

They would be god awful

More than likely. But the HB wouldn't.

It would end up being overpowered. The archetypes are designed specifically not to be the "best" combination of attributes because that could easily break the game.

Originally posted by jdbolick
It would end up being overpowered. The archetypes are designed specifically not to be the "best" combination of attributes because that could easily break the game.

This.

Choosing your own major and minor attributes is NGTH.