Do any of you invest much in this? Can someone with experience investing in it tell me how much they like/dislike it?
How much does a vision penalty hurt the opposing WR?
Thanks
How much does a vision penalty hurt the opposing WR?
Thanks
ANumber1Roy
offline
offline
I wouldn't bother. Other SA's are better on CB's like Swat Ball,Super Vision,and Shutdown Coverage. Also need to work up Change Direction.
MileHighShoes
offline
offline
WR's dont need much vision to do their job, and most don't have enough vision for it to take effect.
Pretend it does 20% of a vision penalty to a WR. Said WR has 72 vision... a little high for a WR but not outside the realm of commonality. that turns into a 14.4 vision penalty, leaving the WR with 57.6 vision, still quite more than enough to pass the dirt easy vision check most WR's have to pass.
Common WR's have around 60 vision, which would leave them with 48 assuming a 20% vision penalty. Once again 48 is still enough to pass the dirt easy vision checks.
I doubt the penalty is as high as 20%, and since the penalty scales by points in the SA, it's probably much much less than 20% unless a heavy investment is made. My opinion is that it's not terribly useful and should be avoided for better options as outlined above by ANumber1Roy
Pretend it does 20% of a vision penalty to a WR. Said WR has 72 vision... a little high for a WR but not outside the realm of commonality. that turns into a 14.4 vision penalty, leaving the WR with 57.6 vision, still quite more than enough to pass the dirt easy vision check most WR's have to pass.
Common WR's have around 60 vision, which would leave them with 48 assuming a 20% vision penalty. Once again 48 is still enough to pass the dirt easy vision checks.
I doubt the penalty is as high as 20%, and since the penalty scales by points in the SA, it's probably much much less than 20% unless a heavy investment is made. My opinion is that it's not terribly useful and should be avoided for better options as outlined above by ANumber1Roy
Shrazkil
offline
offline
Originally posted by MileHighShoes
WR's dont need much vision to do their job, and most don't have enough vision for it to take effect.
Pretend it does 20% of a vision penalty to a WR. Said WR has 72 vision... a little high for a WR but not outside the realm of commonality. that turns into a 14.4 vision penalty, leaving the WR with 57.6 vision, still quite more than enough to pass the dirt easy vision check most WR's have to pass.
Common WR's have around 60 vision, which would leave them with 48 assuming a 20% vision penalty. Once again 48 is still enough to pass the dirt easy vision checks.
I doubt the penalty is as high as 20%, and since the penalty scales by points in the SA, it's probably much much less than 20% unless a heavy investment is made. My opinion is that it's not terribly useful and should be avoided for better options as outlined above by ANumber1Roy
I don't have much of an opinion on this, but the only thing that makes me want to try it, is that vision factors into the deflect and knock loose roll.
WR's dont need much vision to do their job, and most don't have enough vision for it to take effect.
Pretend it does 20% of a vision penalty to a WR. Said WR has 72 vision... a little high for a WR but not outside the realm of commonality. that turns into a 14.4 vision penalty, leaving the WR with 57.6 vision, still quite more than enough to pass the dirt easy vision check most WR's have to pass.
Common WR's have around 60 vision, which would leave them with 48 assuming a 20% vision penalty. Once again 48 is still enough to pass the dirt easy vision checks.
I doubt the penalty is as high as 20%, and since the penalty scales by points in the SA, it's probably much much less than 20% unless a heavy investment is made. My opinion is that it's not terribly useful and should be avoided for better options as outlined above by ANumber1Roy
I don't have much of an opinion on this, but the only thing that makes me want to try it, is that vision factors into the deflect and knock loose roll.
Sellars
offline
offline
SA trees are a 'tad' outdated in usefullness in the current sim. Certain SAs exist that are really non factors. Id like to see them not only updated but adjusted to vary from arch to arch rather than position.
mmerc
offline
offline
Originally posted by Sellars
SA trees are a 'tad' outdated in usefullness in the current sim. Certain SAs exist that are really non factors. Id like to see them not only updated but adjusted to vary from arch to arch rather than position.
+1
SA trees are a 'tad' outdated in usefullness in the current sim. Certain SAs exist that are really non factors. Id like to see them not only updated but adjusted to vary from arch to arch rather than position.
+1
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
