no doubt.. i am just trying to find an VA to better the SA abilities i invested in.
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Newbie Help > Helmet crash?
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by oraphus
really?
as far as i understood.. low morale and energy is what causes players to fumble, drop passes, etc. While it doesn't state it explicitly helps with fumbles.. it seems like it would help in a round about way.
Gig hit: " Repeated Big Hits will make tackling your demoralized opponent much easier"
Monster hit: "It will also greatly demoralize the ball carrier. This skill is the ultimate intimidation ability. Your opponent will be afraid to get hit next time, and may cough up the ball."
Probably not going to help much, though.
I mean, again, maaaaaaybe it would help if the entire defense was geared towards reducing your opponent's morale and energy on hits. But if it's just you, the only way it's ever going to make a difference is if your defensive dot is making an obscene percentage of your team's tackles, and all of them are coming against the same ball-carrier because the other team just likes to spam the ball to the same player all game long.
This never happens.
If you're specifically trying to cause fumbles, there are probably better VAs for that then Helmet Crash. Take a look through the defensive VAs and see what else you can find.
really?
as far as i understood.. low morale and energy is what causes players to fumble, drop passes, etc. While it doesn't state it explicitly helps with fumbles.. it seems like it would help in a round about way.
Gig hit: " Repeated Big Hits will make tackling your demoralized opponent much easier"
Monster hit: "It will also greatly demoralize the ball carrier. This skill is the ultimate intimidation ability. Your opponent will be afraid to get hit next time, and may cough up the ball."
Probably not going to help much, though.
I mean, again, maaaaaaybe it would help if the entire defense was geared towards reducing your opponent's morale and energy on hits. But if it's just you, the only way it's ever going to make a difference is if your defensive dot is making an obscene percentage of your team's tackles, and all of them are coming against the same ball-carrier because the other team just likes to spam the ball to the same player all game long.
This never happens.
If you're specifically trying to cause fumbles, there are probably better VAs for that then Helmet Crash. Take a look through the defensive VAs and see what else you can find.
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bane
Do they still exist in some States?
Tbh, a helmet once saved my life. But just like the seat belt law, I don't agree with it. If I die from not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt it only hurts me. Should not be a legal offense IMO
Not to derail thread.... Theo started it
Having worked legal for an insurance company, do long as you agree to waive health insurance coverage by not wearing a helmet, go ahead. The difference between paying hospitals bills to get you back on your feet from a non-brain injury is significantly less than a brain injury.
In some jurisdictions, the difference between a 'catastrophic' injury and a non-catastrophic injury can be in the millions.
Do they still exist in some States?
Tbh, a helmet once saved my life. But just like the seat belt law, I don't agree with it. If I die from not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt it only hurts me. Should not be a legal offense IMO
Not to derail thread.... Theo started it
Having worked legal for an insurance company, do long as you agree to waive health insurance coverage by not wearing a helmet, go ahead. The difference between paying hospitals bills to get you back on your feet from a non-brain injury is significantly less than a brain injury.
In some jurisdictions, the difference between a 'catastrophic' injury and a non-catastrophic injury can be in the millions.
^ that is all well and good, but I don't think it's right to be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt.
If I had kids in my car not in proper seatbelt or car seat , then yeah. But if I (an adult) don't want to wear my seatbelt I should not be forced to by the law.
If I had kids in my car not in proper seatbelt or car seat , then yeah. But if I (an adult) don't want to wear my seatbelt I should not be forced to by the law.
Edited by Bane on Mar 19, 2013 13:47:18
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bane
^ that is all well and good, but I don't think it's right to be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt.
If I had kids in my car not in proper seatbelt or car seat , then yeah. But if I (an adult) don't want to wear my seatbelt I should not be forced to by the law.
So... you get in an accident and you get thrown clear of the car and your children are safely buckled in the back wondering where Daddy went?
Again, the cost of treating someone who has been in a car crash and was wearing a proper restraint is far less than treating someone who survived a near fatal crash where they didn't wear a belt. The government has the right to enforce restrictions on driving. Driving isn't a right, it is a licensed activity like carrying a gun. That's why they can enforce restrictions on you that are for the good of the general public and not just for you.
I wrote a 50 page drinking and driving paper for a seminar last term... I've heard all the arguments.
^ that is all well and good, but I don't think it's right to be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt.
If I had kids in my car not in proper seatbelt or car seat , then yeah. But if I (an adult) don't want to wear my seatbelt I should not be forced to by the law.
So... you get in an accident and you get thrown clear of the car and your children are safely buckled in the back wondering where Daddy went?
Again, the cost of treating someone who has been in a car crash and was wearing a proper restraint is far less than treating someone who survived a near fatal crash where they didn't wear a belt. The government has the right to enforce restrictions on driving. Driving isn't a right, it is a licensed activity like carrying a gun. That's why they can enforce restrictions on you that are for the good of the general public and not just for you.
I wrote a 50 page drinking and driving paper for a seminar last term... I've heard all the arguments.
HybridTheory
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bane
it's like what is next, I must wear underwear or face prison time?
Yes, YOU must always wear underwear.
it's like what is next, I must wear underwear or face prison time?
Yes, YOU must always wear underwear.
Originally posted by Time Trial
Having worked legal for an insurance company, do long as you agree to waive health insurance coverage by not wearing a helmet, go ahead. The difference between paying hospitals bills to get you back on your feet from a non-brain injury is significantly less than a brain injury.
In some jurisdictions, the difference between a 'catastrophic' injury and a non-catastrophic injury can be in the millions.
It's not so much that I'm against helmets... I'm against the helmets we're limited to choose from. Most full face helmets actualyl CAUSE more accidents, thereby increasing your chances of head injury.. not limiting it. I use a half-lid so I have the ability of FULL peripheral vision AND the ability to look over my shoulder before changing lanes (most motorcycle mirrors don't give you a decent enough field of vision... but they do help a little). Add to that that helmets (yes... football helmets too) haven't changed much in years overall. Some have vents for air to the head and slip the wind better, but the cushion you depend on for head injury prevention is still just hard foam in 95% of most helmets (more or less). I firmly believe the best prevention to a head injury is the ability to AVOID the accident in the first place. And helmets that limit my vision are a hindrance to that ability... and not worth wearing.
Having worked legal for an insurance company, do long as you agree to waive health insurance coverage by not wearing a helmet, go ahead. The difference between paying hospitals bills to get you back on your feet from a non-brain injury is significantly less than a brain injury.
In some jurisdictions, the difference between a 'catastrophic' injury and a non-catastrophic injury can be in the millions.
It's not so much that I'm against helmets... I'm against the helmets we're limited to choose from. Most full face helmets actualyl CAUSE more accidents, thereby increasing your chances of head injury.. not limiting it. I use a half-lid so I have the ability of FULL peripheral vision AND the ability to look over my shoulder before changing lanes (most motorcycle mirrors don't give you a decent enough field of vision... but they do help a little). Add to that that helmets (yes... football helmets too) haven't changed much in years overall. Some have vents for air to the head and slip the wind better, but the cushion you depend on for head injury prevention is still just hard foam in 95% of most helmets (more or less). I firmly believe the best prevention to a head injury is the ability to AVOID the accident in the first place. And helmets that limit my vision are a hindrance to that ability... and not worth wearing.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
