Warrior General Games

Sorta like SPV in glb1

Show us the # of all of the joes attributes added up...

Would be cool to see how much more efficiently some joes use SPs than others.

Early bloomer. Win. Not only are all skills cheaper, smaller caps encourage more spending on cheaper secondary skills for even more total points.

Originally posted by Galithor
Early bloomer.

but loss in the long run

If ppl want to boost their SPV to the detriment of their player let them go ahead!

ppl love circlecapping unnecessarily in GLB1 just for good ELs, what's the difference here?

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
but loss in the long run

If ppl want to boost their SPV to the detriment of their player let them go ahead!

ppl love circlecapping unnecessarily in GLB1 just for good ELs, what's the difference here?

Depends on if super high caps out weigh a strong balanced build with one aspect higher.

This would definitely "overvalue" players wit Early Bloomer and undervalue players with a lot of speed. I'm not sure if, with the vastly different costs for different attributes, if it'd be worth it, considering how many complaints it'd cause. In GLB1, at least, effective level did show a player who was often better. In here, not so much.

Originally posted by Adderfist
Depends on if super high caps out weigh a strong balanced build with one aspect higher.

Not quite sure what you mean here man.

Originally posted by pottsman
This would definitely "overvalue" players wit Early Bloomer and undervalue players with a lot of speed. I'm not sure if, with the vastly different costs for different attributes, if it'd be worth it, considering how many complaints it'd cause. In GLB1, at least, effective level did show a player who was often better. In here, not so much.

Yeah this is true. But I believe its the same in GLB1. I had a run stopping CB in 1, and the EL was horribly low, and I often got crap for having a dot with a low EL, but the fact was the El was low because he had a spread in a bunch of atts that were low...

I can see this becoming a slight problem if ppl don't take into consideration the facts when evaluating TAV.

The point is, such a player rating by total skill points will always favor players with lower capped skills, in particular early bloomer builds. There's no "effective training/build planning" like glb 1 to manipulate to do "better" than other player builders.

Well there is the optimal use of traits + starting attributes to make the cheapest cost for your most important attributes.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Well there is the optimal use of traits + starting attributes to make the cheapest cost for your most important attributes.



Yep, in which case the superstar + early bloomer builds will always win such a rating competition.

To win this rating, you'd base your skill point expenditure on whatever skill is next cheapest. Irregardless of it's potential usefulness. End up with a whole ton of skill points, distributed oddly around a build.

There needs to be multiple overall ratings, where certain SPs hold more value than others, depending on the position and type of player. For ex: if I had a HB, he would have an overall "Power HB" rating, "Scat Back" rating, "Pass Catcher" rating, "Blocking Back" rating, etc... Something like NCAA and Madden have for overall, except drill down to the specific type of player, not just position.

Originally posted by nortobc
There needs to be multiple overall ratings, where certain SPs hold more value than others, depending on the position and type of player. For ex: if I had a HB, he would have an overall "Power HB" rating, "Scat Back" rating, "Pass Catcher" rating, "Blocking Back" rating, etc... Something like NCAA and Madden have for overall, except drill down to the specific type of player, not just position.

Those were the lolbars from GLB1. They removed them from individual players in GLB2, but kept them for teams. They're still universally mocked.

Originally posted by nortobc
There needs to be multiple overall ratings, where certain SPs hold more value than others, depending on the position and type of player. For ex: if I had a HB, he would have an overall "Power HB" rating, "Scat Back" rating, "Pass Catcher" rating, "Blocking Back" rating, etc... Something like NCAA and Madden have for overall, except drill down to the specific type of player, not just position.

yeah no.. lolbars were just a disturbing feature iin the game.

Originally posted by Galithor
Yep, in which case the superstar + early bloomer builds will always win such a rating competition.

Well Superstars wouldn't be compared to non superstars... They would only be compared to other superstars... As for the early bloomers, ppl who want to do that to their dot can go ahead... I don't think many people will purposely put 50 in every skill just so they have a high TAV. And if they do, sure they have a good SAV, but the joes will still suck.

Originally posted by Jampy2.0
Well Superstars wouldn't be compared to non superstars... They would only be compared to other superstars... As for the early bloomers, ppl who want to do that to their dot can go ahead... I don't think many people will purposely put 50 in every skill just so they have a high TAV. And if they do, sure they have a good SAV, but the joes will still suck.

I agree. But it is the flaw in showing the total skills points as some sort of player measuring stick. It'll simply show the builds that are more rounded off vs the more min/maxxed type builds. The min/maxxers will have significantly lower values than the rounded builds using early bloomer.

It's the same way in GLB1, so i don't see the problem?

It's not to be a 1 glance judgement of players, it's just a measuring stick, sorta like in glb1.
You don't know anything about a player until you see the build, to judge a player solely off of SPV or TAV would be senseless.

lol at Jampy trying to coin phrases...Joes won't stick and neither will this.

I like AAV better, "Accumulated Attribute Value".