Warrior General Games

So... was thinkin about something that's been bantered about elsewhere in the forums and thought I'd do this a a way to visualize how it would (or wouldn't) work. There's 2 parts... can reply to one or both if you like. There's rules too.

#1.) If you could swap places with ONE Primary skill and ONE secondary skill... on ANY dot... what would they be?

Example; PHB's. I would swap Confidence (Primary) for Speed (secondary). Why? Highly unlikely I would build a PHB with more Confidence than Speed so this is a no-brainer to me.

#2.) If you could swap out one SA on the SA tree for something else, what would it be?
---RULEZ! SA's must be of equal value or close enough. (example; Cannot swap out Snarl [LB 1st SA] for Blitz [CB 4th SA].) SA cannot already be a part of any of those already available to the player in the SA trees. (example; Cannot swap out Returner [CB 3rd SA] for Super Vision [CB 3rd SA on different SA tree for same CB].)---

Example; I would, if I could swap out Returner on the CB 'Speedster' tree for Swat Ball or some similar SA... almost anything but 'Returner' which is wasted SA tree slot, IMHO.

There ya go. Pretty simple. Post your takes and we'll debate. Hopefully Bort will see some things he likes, ay?

On QB Scrambler switch Throwing and Speed. I would also make carrying a primary attribute and make it a 4 major build, so that speed doesn't get too high.
I would switch almost all of the LB SAs to something else.

IMO, the age of this game shows that they got a lot of things right. If you start changing attributes around, you create a super archetype that everyone would pick. There has to be reasons to make other choices.

For SAs, I think that the meta has evolved. Linebackers attacking the morale of QBs never took off, for example. Linebackers are used to deal with RBs and TEs instead. The SAs could be reworked to reflect that. Have a tackling tree, and a coverage tree.

However, out of anything Archetype related, I would love to see the HH and Combo DBs get a weight increase. Go up to 235 across the board.

I agree TJ... that's why I really limited the choices. Like many, I DO see some issues with some of the SA trees for certain builds... and the Primary/Secondary skill sets could use SOME flexibility but I don't wanna mess up what's worked by going crazy over this. Simple things... simple possibilities of small changes... shouldn't break the game, IMHO.

Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
Originally posted by Little M


I would switch almost all of the LB SAs to something else.



The last few LB builds I did, had 2 purchased SAs plus the original custom SA to build my own custom tree

Originally posted by TJ Spikes
IMO, the age of this game shows that they got a lot of things right. If you start changing attributes around, you create a super archetype that everyone would pick. There has to be reasons to make other choices.

For SAs, I think that the meta has evolved. Linebackers attacking the morale of QBs never took off, for example. Linebackers are used to deal with RBs and TEs instead. The SAs could be reworked to reflect that. Have a tackling tree, and a coverage tree.

However, out of anything Archetype related, I would love to see the HH and Combo DBs get a weight increase. Go up to 235 across the board.



Back in the early days, Bort always responded to questions like this by saying he wanted every choice in the game to come with both benefits and drawbacks, so there was never any one, single way to build a particular dot.

We can definitely debate whether or not he *achieved* that goal, but I always felt it was a good goal to reach for.

Yeah, as a run-heavy guy, I'd LOVE making Speed a primary on power-HBs... but then speed-HBs would basically be power-HBs minus Strength, and then why the hell would anyone bother building speed-HBs? That's why those trade-offs are there.

...that said, the tradeoffs on LBs aren't even close to correct. Fix 'em.

Originally posted by Novus
Back in the early days, Bort always responded to questions like this by saying he wanted every choice in the game to come with both benefits and drawbacks, so there was never any one, single way to build a particular dot.

We can definitely debate whether or not he *achieved* that goal, but I always felt it was a good goal to reach for.

Yeah, as a run-heavy guy, I'd LOVE making Speed a primary on power-HBs... but then speed-HBs would basically be power-HBs minus Strength, and then why the hell would anyone bother building speed-HBs? That's why those trade-offs are there.

...that said, the tradeoffs on LBs aren't even close to correct. Fix 'em.


I have no inside info but I gotta believe part of that was a compromise in testing for making rTEs 0.4 ALG vs LB at 0.5, that when you gave the LB a proper SA tree, rTEs became invisible.

Originally posted by slashxtreme

I have no inside info but I gotta believe part of that was a compromise in testing for making rTEs 0.4 ALG vs LB at 0.5, that when you gave the LB a proper SA tree, rTEs became invisible.



I'm gonna go with "didn't think of that" as the reason. LB's have pretty screwed trees and only have 2 trees for a position that really does MANY jobs. Keeping all LB's as a 0.5 ALG should be ok and act as a balance. Have you built a 0.3 ALG dot? Insanely easy and, in some ways, overpowered... which is why it's only QB's, Kickers, and Punters... and even QB's are an iffy 0.3 I think they probably should be 0.4 ALG dots. But that's another debate altogether.
LB's SA trees are either 'Hard Hitter' (aka, run stopping) or 'Pass Rusher' (aka blitzing). Nowhere is there any thought to 'Pass coverage'... which LB's can be if you select the 'Coverage' archetype... which, sadly, few do because it has NO SA's in either tree (except for 'Swat Ball') that have anything to do with covering a TE... or HB... or FB... or WR.
I have seen several people ask for a 3rd SA tree for LB's and, perhaps, this might be the best and easiest fix. It's either that or have a special SA tree just for 'Coverage LB's that replaces the HH tree when you select a Coverage LB archetype.
But, I absolutely agree that... when compared to ALL other player positions and archetypes... LB's got the worst SA tree of them all. And that does need some reconsideration of some sorts.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
I'm gonna go with "didn't think of that" as the reason. LB's have pretty screwed trees and only have 2 trees for a position that really does MANY jobs. Keeping all LB's as a 0.5 ALG should be ok and act as a balance. Have you built a 0.3 ALG dot? Insanely easy and, in some ways, overpowered... which is why it's only QB's, Kickers, and Punters... and even QB's are an iffy 0.3 I think they probably should be 0.4 ALG dots. But that's another debate altogether.
LB's SA trees are either 'Hard Hitter' (aka, run stopping) or 'Pass Rusher' (aka blitzing). Nowhere is there any thought to 'Pass coverage'... which LB's can be if you select the 'Coverage' archetype... which, sadly, few do because it has NO SA's in either tree (except for 'Swat Ball') that have anything to do with covering a TE... or HB... or FB... or WR.
I have seen several people ask for a 3rd SA tree for LB's and, perhaps, this might be the best and easiest fix. It's either that or have a special SA tree just for 'Coverage LB's that replaces the HH tree when you select a Coverage LB archetype.
But, I absolutely agree that... when compared to ALL other player positions and archetypes... LB's got the worst SA tree of them all. And that does need some reconsideration of some sorts.

I like the idea of a third tree, which was pitched in suggestions, I am wondering what that'd do to the balance of LB vs rTE, rTE's were able to dominate a lot in the WL on the back of the bad LB trees. I built my own with one in like the upper 80s lower 90s that had mixed success. It hurts a player to save so many BTs and SPs to build your own tree.

OL

Run Blockers - make Agility and Speed primary and Conf and Vision secondary - if only 1 swap, agility and conf

Pass Blockers - make strength and Speed primary and Conf and Vision secondary - if only 1 swap, strength and conf

Originally posted by slashxtreme
I like the idea of a third tree, which was pitched in suggestions, I am wondering what that'd do to the balance of LB vs rTE, rTE's were able to dominate a lot in the WL on the back of the bad LB trees. I built my own with one in like the upper 80s lower 90s that had mixed success. It hurts a player to save so many BTs and SPs to build your own tree.

Agree. I think 3 SA trees, for LB's, is the best answer.


Originally posted by reddogrw
OL

Run Blockers - make Agility and Speed primary and Conf and Vision secondary - if only 1 swap, agility and conf

Pass Blockers - make strength and Speed primary and Conf and Vision secondary - if only 1 swap, strength and conf

I agree with the Run Block but not the Pass block simply because it just makes the two skill sets for both dots identical (except for the SA trees). What if you went with swapping Con for Speed? (and leave Strength as a minor)?

I mentioned this in another thread, but maybe it's time to split LBs into two separate positions: OLB and MLB. I mean, FS and SS are separate positions in GLB. Why not OLB and MLB?

Originally posted by Novus
I mentioned this in another thread, but maybe it's time to split LBs into two separate positions: OLB and MLB. I mean, FS and SS are separate positions in GLB. Why not OLB and MLB?

I get the idea but wouldn't 3 different SA trees solve the same problem? Also, how would 2 different LB positions work with those that run the 3-4 defense a lot? Or some of the other D-formations like Dime and Nickle and such? I would suspect this might cause needing extra LB's in both positions... one against the run teams and one against the pass... which leaves us back where the trouble lies. Cover LB's don't get built because the SA trees both suck for a cover LB. IMHO.