Warrior General Games

Originally posted by greengoose
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.

yes it should be.

But we can not go that far, because it makes the rich richer as hatchman likes to say. Winning teams wind up winning even more, and losing teams even less. That would suck if you were on the wrong team.

The op idea is a compromise from the current goofy nature of confidence towards the idea of performance based but not so far as to imbalance play.

No, what makes the rich richer is when you penalize a good player on a bad team, just because he's on a bad team. Calvin Johnson shouldn't be penalized because he played on an 0-16 team and 4-12 teams, he's a beast. It's the whole Confidence/Morale issue that does that.

Confidence really isn't needed IMO. Bad builds will play poorly so they don't need additional punishment. Good players shouldn't be punished because of their current (but not necessarily long-term) situation. If you are gonna punish people it should be because of a current trend of bad performance that is reversible - and bad builds simply don't need the additional punishment because they probably can't reverse it even if they had 50 SP anyway.

Added: Then there is the whole good players playing on a team with #$%^ coordinators that makes them play worse than they otherwise would scenario, again another double-jeopardy in an already bad situation.

Originally posted by greengoose
No, what makes the rich richer is when you penalize a good player on a bad team, just because he's on a bad team. Calvin Johnson shouldn't be penalized because he played on an 0-16 team and 4-12 teams, he's a beast. It's the whole Confidence/Morale issue that does that.

Confidence really isn't needed IMO. Bad builds will play poorly so they don't need additional punishment. Good players shouldn't be punished because of their current (but not necessarily long-term) situation. If you are gonna punish people it should be because of a current trend of bad performance that is reversible - and bad builds simply don't need the additional punishment because they probably can't reverse it even if they had 50 SP anyway.



My disdain for the current morale system is well documented. So you are preaching to the choir there.

However some sort of confidence stat makes sense as far as being used in rolls, and its well enough entrenched as to be hard to just remove I imagine.

And some sort of in game up and down momentum thing is realistic too.

Just not so volatile and game ending

I'm completely against BOTH individual Confidence and team morale penalties - let the player builds and the coordinators decide things. Thats what they are there for - to determine the outcome of their games based on their decisions, not some hidden factor.

-1

-1

Also -1 but with a caveat. The way "morale spirals" are now, there's not much of chance (if any at all) of GAINING A CORRESPONDING AMOUNT OF MORALE BACK (when compared to what you lose) durring a game and, since basically morale is there to reflect things like slumps in confidence, bad luck getting you down, in-game emotion and trends, then everyone knows what goes down also comes up. Players drop balls... miss tackles... get down when their team falls behind. But they also get pumped when they score... make a TD saving tackle... or a miracle pass/catch. There's some small "built into VA's and SA's" things that COULD happen to boost morale... but little that happens normally. Also, there's no in-game thing that a team can do to rally it's troops. No awe inspiring half-time speech. That feels missing and could be put into the game to help balance out those few "morale spirals" that really shouldn't change games. There's enough blow-out games where it doesn't matter... but to lose a game to a morale spiral when you're just down 3 points is kinda silly when it happens to regularly.

Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Also -1 but with a caveat. The way "morale spirals" are now, there's not much of chance (if any at all) of GAINING A CORRESPONDING AMOUNT OF MORALE BACK (when compared to what you lose) durring a game and, since basically morale is there to reflect things like slumps in confidence, bad luck getting you down, in-game emotion and trends, then everyone knows what goes down also comes up. Players drop balls... miss tackles... get down when their team falls behind. But they also get pumped when they score... make a TD saving tackle... or a miracle pass/catch. There's some small "built into VA's and SA's" things that COULD happen to boost morale... but little that happens normally. Also, there's no in-game thing that a team can do to rally it's troops. No awe inspiring half-time speech. That feels missing and could be put into the game to help balance out those few "morale spirals" that really shouldn't change games. There's enough blow-out games where it doesn't matter... but to lose a game to a morale spiral when you're just down 3 points is kinda silly when it happens to regularly.

Yeah I have floated ideas to have "half time speech" kind of morale repair features added to the game, various ways of approaching it. All were flurried with -1's as well.

Some folks hate change, even in a Beta game.

The compromise position could be all dots Confidence start at first cap and make it a primary attribute for all dots as well.