Warrior General Games

Originally posted by bigtisme
thats just how building works in GLB.

You cant really compare attributes to real life work. You have to make choices on GLB. In real life if I go run sprints I get faster...but also gain more stamina et c. Another example is that the more strength you have typically gets you more speed/jumping.

But that being said it simply doesn't make sense for GLB to go down that route for player building.

GLB could certainly have linked abilities, and I have suggested it in the past. Its easy, just as in the OP your confidence gets bumped up as you do other stuff, so too could related atttributes like stamina go up when you train speed, just not as much.

The difference would be you could also train up stamina directly, though it too might have some side benefit (like a small speed boost).

There's an old thread spells out my thoughts on it and it would perfectly work in GLB.

Originally posted by yello1
GLB could certainly have linked abilities, and I have suggested it in the past.


so have others. and I dislike that idea as well.

thus my -1

Originally posted by bigtisme
so have others. and I dislike that idea as well.

thus my -1

What We Have Heeere is a Faailure to Commuunicate

Originally posted by yello1
What We Have Heeere is a Faailure to Commuunicate

No .. what we have here is a healthy difference of opinion - not a darn thing wrong with that. You'd get a lot more traction if you stopped trying to change our minds.

If we think an idea is a bad one - let it die. Your constant blathering about how we are 'unwashed' and other condescending comments are really hurtful to your getting support on your ideas.

Originally posted by yello1
What We Have Heeere is a Faailure to Commuunicate

um no. Unless you're not clear on what I said. I understand your idea...and respect your reasoning.

I just dont think it makes the game better.

Implying that myself (and others) dont understand what you're saying isn't going to make me support an idea I dont support.

well it makes sense that if one gets stronger they get more confident but its all about performance (team and personal performance) so if one wins a lot they get confident or if they make 12 tackles a game and lead the team in tackles they get more confident ect.

but i think to apply it to the game it would make the sim more unstable then it is now

Originally posted by bigtisme
um no. Unless you're not clear on what I said. I understand your idea...and respect your reasoning.

I just dont think it makes the game better.

Implying that myself (and others) dont understand what you're saying isn't going to make me support an idea I dont support.

Just having some fun, its a fun movie quote. Guys in the movie understood each other too. They just strongly disagreed.

Originally posted by Dubs48
well it makes sense that if one gets stronger they get more confident but its all about performance (team and personal performance) so if one wins a lot they get confident or if they make 12 tackles a game and lead the team in tackles they get more confident ect.

but i think to apply it to the game it would make the sim more unstable then it is now

Exactly, which is why I do not have game performance as other than a small role via the trophy boost.

How good they think they are due to stats will be enough, far better than now where you could build a 90 confidence weakling.

Originally posted by IdRatherFlyFish
No .. what we have here is a healthy difference of opinion - not a darn thing wrong with that. You'd get a lot more traction if you stopped trying to change our minds.

If we think an idea is a bad one - let it die. Your constant blathering about how we are 'unwashed' and other condescending comments are really hurtful to your getting support on your ideas.

The unwashed was directed at merenoise who trolls me mercilessly and did in the post that reply was directed too. Thats got nothing to do with the general public. Its just part of our forum "feud" we entertain ourselves with.

Secondly, see above. Just kidding around. You don't agree, cest la vie.

As for letting it go, nah. I will respond to nay saying if I think the idea is valid. This one is valid, would make the game make more sense and make for more intelligent build decisions. Not a mandatory thing of course. But every bit of "dumb" that gets removed from the game is an improvement.

Originally posted by yello1


As for letting it go, nah. I will respond to nay saying if I think the idea is valid. This one is valid, would make the game make more sense and make for more intelligent build decisions. Not a mandatory thing of course. But every bit of "dumb" that gets removed from the game is an improvement.

finally a good suggestion by yello1

if they removed your posting privileges in suggestion forum , that would remove one of the dumbest parts of this game. They should start right there.

Srsly, this is like a top 5 of your worst ideas....and you have had many. There is a good reason to HAVE to train/add SP to confidence. I am not explaining it to you, it has already been posted in this thread.

Basic premise is wrong for me, in any case.

Plenty of excellent sportsmen in history who didn't perform as well as their physical/technical abilities suggested they should, when under pressure, because they lacked the mental strength. There are plenty of sportsmen I can think of who seemed to have everything it took to become great, but never quite made it, because they didn't have the necessary confidence (or "self belief"), even when they were told over and over again how good they were.

Plenty of less-excellent sportsmen in history who over-achieved relative to their physical/technical abilities, because they were mentally tough, thought they were capable of beating anyone, even opponents who were obviously "better" than they were in technical/physical terms.

Plenty of sportsmen with an over-inflated sense of their own excellence who believed they were the best despite all the evidence to the contrary, and continued to believe that despite many defeats.

Confidence is not always related to excellence. And confidence is also something that can be trained. That is why sports departments have pyschologists these days. And training Confidence in GLB relates pretty well to the idea of spending time with a sports psychologist, or performing certain exercises to develop belief in tough situations.

Confidence should be a byproduct of individual performance, not a stat that adversely affects performance. It should be a ROLLING dynamic.

You can be the most confident person in the NFL and still be a Free Agent because you simply don't have the skillset anyone wants.

Originally posted by Antonine
Basic premise is wrong for me, in any case.

Plenty of excellent sportsmen in history who didn't perform as well as their physical/technical abilities suggested they should, when under pressure, because they lacked the mental strength. There are plenty of sportsmen I can think of who seemed to have everything it took to become great, but never quite made it, because they didn't have the necessary confidence (or "self belief"), even when they were told over and over again how good they were.

Plenty of less-excellent sportsmen in history who over-achieved relative to their physical/technical abilities, because they were mentally tough, thought they were capable of beating anyone, even opponents who were obviously "better" than they were in technical/physical terms.

Plenty of sportsmen with an over-inflated sense of their own excellence who believed they were the best despite all the evidence to the contrary, and continued to believe that despite many defeats.

Confidence is not always related to excellence. And confidence is also something that can be trained. That is why sports departments have pyschologists these days. And training Confidence in GLB relates pretty well to the idea of spending time with a sports psychologist, or performing certain exercises to develop belief in tough situations.

ok this is also a sim for 1, and for 2 i can name plenty of sportsmen who didnt live up to their hype was because of mental immaturity not confidence? so what r they gonna add a mental tougness Attribute and a maturity attribute 2? ur arguement isnt logical here

Originally posted by Antonine
Basic premise is wrong for me, in any case.

Plenty of excellent sportsmen in history who didn't perform as well as their physical/technical abilities suggested they should, when under pressure, because they lacked the mental strength. There are plenty of sportsmen I can think of who seemed to have everything it took to become great, but never quite made it, because they didn't have the necessary confidence (or "self belief"), even when they were told over and over again how good they were.

Plenty of less-excellent sportsmen in history who over-achieved relative to their physical/technical abilities, because they were mentally tough, thought they were capable of beating anyone, even opponents who were obviously "better" than they were in technical/physical terms.

Plenty of sportsmen with an over-inflated sense of their own excellence who believed they were the best despite all the evidence to the contrary, and continued to believe that despite many defeats.

Confidence is not always related to excellence. And confidence is also something that can be trained. That is why sports departments have pyschologists these days. And training Confidence in GLB relates pretty well to the idea of spending time with a sports psychologist, or performing certain exercises to develop belief in tough situations.

All great arguments for a personality aspect of a dot to be added to the game per my comments above (Prima Donna, etc).

Not a great argument to counter the idea in the OP.

For this simple reason.

Name one player in the entire history of the NFL - or heck sports in general going back to the naked Greek wrestlers if you like - who was slower or weaker or a worse thrower or catcher because he had spent time becoming more confident?