suggestion
Moderators: Moderator, Programmer
-
- Coach
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: London
suggestion
aggression should be set on each individual not the whole team
-
- Coach
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: London
I don’t get the idea.
If you mean that by setting individual aggression, the risk of losing aggressive players to cards is reduced, then your suggestion is to make the game easier and aggressive players more valuable. This would change the whole pricing system and most good teams would lose value dramatically.
If you mean that overall aggression and therefore risk of losing players to cards stays the same, but you can set individual values, or parts of the ‘collective’ blame distributed among players, then you are suggesting a feature that is nothing but statistics.
Also in essence it doesn’t make sense. In real life, do managers assign individual levels of aggression? It’s like telling an aggressive player not to be aggressive and telling non-aggressive player to be more aggressive. It’s the same as suggesting to be able to change, or ‘train’ aggression, which has indeed been suggested many times before, mostly by managers with aggressive players who want them to become more valuable overnight.
If you mean that by setting individual aggression, the risk of losing aggressive players to cards is reduced, then your suggestion is to make the game easier and aggressive players more valuable. This would change the whole pricing system and most good teams would lose value dramatically.
If you mean that overall aggression and therefore risk of losing players to cards stays the same, but you can set individual values, or parts of the ‘collective’ blame distributed among players, then you are suggesting a feature that is nothing but statistics.
Also in essence it doesn’t make sense. In real life, do managers assign individual levels of aggression? It’s like telling an aggressive player not to be aggressive and telling non-aggressive player to be more aggressive. It’s the same as suggesting to be able to change, or ‘train’ aggression, which has indeed been suggested many times before, mostly by managers with aggressive players who want them to become more valuable overnight.
-
- Coach
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: London
-
- Coach
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: London
I understand now. So your suggestion is to be able to reduce the aggression level of players, which is synonymous to increasing the value of aggressive players or being able to train them to be less aggressive. Let me guess – you have too many aggressive players? This isn’t a suggestion for improvement, it’s an expression of frustration at how long it takes to build a good team.
-
- Coach
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: London
-
- Coach
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: London
-
- Fan
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:40 pm