Players Attitude

[direct.entropy]

What factors apply to make a player disgruntled, angry, livid, ect?

For playing time, does it take into account the number of plays a player plays or the number of starts?

And do conflicts have anything to do with player attitude or performance?

[fantastic flying froggies]

Just from my observations (read: no testing), number of starts is the only factor affecting this.

[Hammer]

I could be wrong, but I thought that if you wern't starting whoever the AI recommends then that is a trigger for that player to get hacked off. Also, AI 2nd string guys who are highly rated tend to get hacked off sometimes.

[perez24]

I've seen players go from disgruntled to content by adding playing time even if they don't start, but it doesn't happen very often.

[Ben E Lou]

There's most definitely a playing time component to it. Some backups who *never* get on the field will get disgruntled, but if you give them a few snaps, they'll go back to content, for example. I've also seen guys who "start" but who don't play much (can happen easily to a DE who isn't the nickel/dime DE) get disgruntled and even unhappy,a nd upping their playing time moves them back to content.

[cuervo72]

I've had starters who miss a "start" because we lined up in nickel/dime on the first play, and after one game they are annoyed.

I've also had a *rookie* get annoyed four games into a season.

[QuikSand]

My vague and unsupported sense is that players are more sensitive about playing time since the latest patch to 6.2.

[Hammer]

I have a rookie rated around 28/36 quickly going towards demanding a trade due to lack of playing time. The starter is 59/59.

This rookie has bad bars, but great combines and was a big gainer in camp. In short its like he knows he is going to be good. Usually guys who are that much worse than the starter are chilled.

[MrDNA]

I've had starters who miss a "start" because we lined up in nickel/dime on the first play, and after one game they are annoyed.

I've also had a *rookie* get annoyed four games into a season.

+1 on this. I lost a good RFA linebacker because he didn't play in the nickle and too many teams opened up against us with three-wide sets. He only had 9 or 10 "starts" that year and he refused to re-sign. :banghead:

[MalcPow]

My vague and unsupported sense is that players are more sensitive about playing time since the latest patch to 6.2.

Would be one way to make FA more interesting...

[perez24]

It would be nice if, in a future version of the game, playing time was "discussed" when making FA offers. For example, you might have choices of "Starter,"Mentor," "Roster Filler," or "Sub" that you would need to indicate prior to making an offer. I'm sure it'd be a tremendous PITA to put into the game, but it's a thought.

Also, Cuervo, I usually play out the first defensive series myself so that my "regular" lineup gets the starts. I have the problem you described primarily with WLBs or WILBs if I play a 3-4. Seems to help.

[cuervo72]

It would be nice if, in a future version of the game, playing time was "discussed" when making FA offers. For example, you might have choices of "Starter,"Mentor," "Roster Filler," or "Sub" that you would need to indicate prior to making an offer. I'm sure it'd be a tremendous PITA to put into the game, but it's a thought.

Also, Cuervo, I usually play out the first defensive series myself so that my "regular" lineup gets the starts. I have the problem you described primarily with WLBs or WILBs if I play a 3-4. Seems to help.

Thanks...but not really an option in MP (I don't play SP).

[TheMeat]

I could be wrong, but I thought that if you wern't starting whoever the AI recommends then that is a trigger for that player to get hacked off. Also, AI 2nd string guys who are highly rated tend to get hacked off sometimes.

I know this is true for madden, but I don't think it is for FoF

[NiteMaestro]

I think it depends on their personality first, winners are less likely to get upset if you're winning, while loyal are less likely to get upset if you're losing.
Also it depends on the position and recommendations too.

If someone is injured, the reserve may expect to start if the difference between the two is close enough. Same with older vs. younger (older start).

Generally, I start a backup if the starter is more injured than probable regardless of difference in skill, or if the skill level is close, but probable.
Also... I think QBs will want to start if there is an injury to the starter, and the no 3 wants to be no 2 until the starter is 100% healthy again.

[OldGiants]

Just an anecdote, but in my very first career with FOF2K (with the expansion Browns--a great way to play in that version), I made and won my first Front Office Bowl by starting a Doubtful 100/100 DT with a bad back. After the game, he dropped to 75/75 and became Disgruntled.

I always thought that was a great game experience, asking him to play injured, winning the FOF Bowl and him taking a 25% hit to his talent and blaming me.

[QuikSand]

Thanks...but not really an option in MP (I don't play SP).

Not sure that's impossible in any format. It could be part of the "offer" from any team. True he used the word "discussed," but used it in quotes, so I think that's what me meant, really (not that there would have to be some sort of back and forth involved). It could just be one submission that you include along with the monetary aspects. I like the idea, but it does have that "soap opera" element to it that some find distasteful.

[QuikSand]

...another thought on the expected role component of a FA contract offer. Seems to me this would be a fairly easy thing to adjust as the FA process goes on. A given, decent, player might start out saying he wont listen to any offers that don't promise a starting role, but maybe after 4 stages of free agency and no such offers, he would drop his expectations and be open to "rotation player" offers or the like, probably preferring a short term deal under those circumstances to a longer term one. (Yes, I see this as a backdoor to also add some nuance to the evaluation of the contracts themselves)

[mbarry55]

My WLB almost always complains about playing time.

[cuervo72]

Not sure that's impossible in any format. It could be part of the "offer" from any team. True he used the word "discussed," but used it in quotes, so I think that's what me meant, really (not that there would have to be some sort of back and forth involved). It could just be one submission that you include along with the monetary aspects. I like the idea, but it does have that "soap opera" element to it that some find distasteful.

Nono, I meant this part:

Also, Cuervo, I usually play out the first defensive series myself so that my "regular" lineup gets the starts. I have the problem you described primarily with WLBs or WILBs if I play a 3-4. Seems to help.

Playing out series isn't an option in MP. Didn't mean the idea was impossible - it might even be interesting.

[QuikSand]

Gotcha, my mis-reading. Carry on then.

[Firefly]

I agree with the perception that players with strong "wants to win" will ease up if the team is winning.

In any case, many disgruntled, unhappy, etc players will get back to content when ignored