Originally posted by Ken1
I partially agree with you. I think team performance impacts morale too much, if not from a realism standpoint then just from a playability standpoint.
I'm for morale spirals if they hit a player who is, himself, playing very poorly. What I'd change if I could would be how team failures hit the morale of everyone on the team as much as they do. I suggested that, though, and it wasn't popular.
Part of it is Confidence, though. Put a team on the field where everyone has 100 Confidence and you won't see morale spirals. Yeah, the team would suck because of losing stats from other areas, but there'd be no morale spirals. To some extent, though, they need to be possible, to keep Confidence relevant.
Where I really disagree with you is when you blame SAs and VAs. You can use those just as easily to help yourself (or the agents on the teams can, anyway).
My solution (not that anyone much wants it) would be to make team events affect morale a lot less, but individual effects affect it somewhat more. You wouldn't have a whole team effectively quit then. I think you'd take that over nothing, but I don't think you'd find many others who would agree even with my more modest proposal.
The VA and SA problem is this
First off not everyone would use them, or if they are must have then they suck because must have is not desirable. It means they are too over powered. And if they turn your game from a 12-10 one into a 60 to 12 one then its over powered.
Secondly it makes no sense. There is no "Im gonna so totally take off the first half and then be awesome" NFL strategy.
Confidence is relevant in the plays. Bort has it in block holding etc, as a measure of courage and determination/intimidation. I think thats fine.
And morale impacting play to some extent game long, thats fine. If your team is 1-5 then yeah it makes sense your guys may play at 98% effectiveness if they are not Confident individuals.
But to have it go from 100% to 50% in one game, in one half, heck it went from the 90s to 50s in less than one QUARTER, and have that have as huge an impact on performance as it does is freaking moronic.
And this is a team that has only five players with confidence under 50 and most of the team has confidence in the 60s and some 70s and 80s.
Morale is over done. Plain and simple.
And to the extent that the SAs and VAs that skew play from one quarter to the next are effecting that, then so are they.
I partially agree with you. I think team performance impacts morale too much, if not from a realism standpoint then just from a playability standpoint.
I'm for morale spirals if they hit a player who is, himself, playing very poorly. What I'd change if I could would be how team failures hit the morale of everyone on the team as much as they do. I suggested that, though, and it wasn't popular.
Part of it is Confidence, though. Put a team on the field where everyone has 100 Confidence and you won't see morale spirals. Yeah, the team would suck because of losing stats from other areas, but there'd be no morale spirals. To some extent, though, they need to be possible, to keep Confidence relevant.
Where I really disagree with you is when you blame SAs and VAs. You can use those just as easily to help yourself (or the agents on the teams can, anyway).
My solution (not that anyone much wants it) would be to make team events affect morale a lot less, but individual effects affect it somewhat more. You wouldn't have a whole team effectively quit then. I think you'd take that over nothing, but I don't think you'd find many others who would agree even with my more modest proposal.
The VA and SA problem is this
First off not everyone would use them, or if they are must have then they suck because must have is not desirable. It means they are too over powered. And if they turn your game from a 12-10 one into a 60 to 12 one then its over powered.
Secondly it makes no sense. There is no "Im gonna so totally take off the first half and then be awesome" NFL strategy.
Confidence is relevant in the plays. Bort has it in block holding etc, as a measure of courage and determination/intimidation. I think thats fine.
And morale impacting play to some extent game long, thats fine. If your team is 1-5 then yeah it makes sense your guys may play at 98% effectiveness if they are not Confident individuals.
But to have it go from 100% to 50% in one game, in one half, heck it went from the 90s to 50s in less than one QUARTER, and have that have as huge an impact on performance as it does is freaking moronic.
And this is a team that has only five players with confidence under 50 and most of the team has confidence in the 60s and some 70s and 80s.
Morale is over done. Plain and simple.
And to the extent that the SAs and VAs that skew play from one quarter to the next are effecting that, then so are they.
Edited by yello1 on Apr 26, 2012 20:43:37
