View Single Post
Old 09-01-2009, 11:24 AM   #18
Ben E Lou
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
Originally Posted by QuikSand View Post
I know it's pretty popular to claim that, perhaps in the name of realism, a predictable model for this sort of thing is not ideal. I put this into a "be careful what you wish for" basket.

(And yes, this comes from the guy who pretty clearly makes a lot of use of the current chemistry system, witness Ben's thread and "examples" above)

I really don't think that having totally (or largely) unpredictable elements like this in the game would add to my enjoyment. If I draft the stud player my team needs, and then for reasons that are unforeseen to me he turns out to hate other players on the team or otherwise disrupts things, causing me to have to upend other things that I have really invested in... well, I don't think that adds to the sort of enjoyment I get out of a game like this. If that sort of problem is going to trace back to a label/tag something like the "red flag" in the current FOF (or an expanded version of the same), then I can handle that as a trade-off I accept or don't. But to reassemble something like the chemistry system we have in FOF now, but simply remove the elements that make it predictable I think would make a real dent in the "enjoyability" factor of this sort of game.

My mantra in this sort of game is this: What I want is a game that requires me to make meaningful decisions that substantially drive meaningful outcomes for my team. Realism is great, and simulating the NFL is a real value added. But what I really want is a game where I am engaged, challenged, and rewarded/punished for my decisions. Having pure dumb luck play too great a role undermines what I want out of a game like this.

The predictability in the current chemistry system means that I can decide whether I want to invest in this sort of thing for my team. It is a trade-off, it limits some other decisions that might have helped my team in other ways. But to me, I like that it's my decision that counts there. The actual implementation (looking at birthdates, and the other silly stuff that goes with it if you really pursue it) is of less consequence to me overall. What I like is that you can make an active decision to go for a "good chemistry" team and try to gain an advantage on your rivals that way. Eliminate the predictability, and you may emasculate this potentially interesting and rewarding strategy, and you lose something from this game, I think.

To be clear, I don't want a totally or even largely unpredictable system. But I also don't want one that's 100% predictable, either. I would enjoy getting the email after TC that the solid-but-not-great FA LB I just signed had an unexpected personality conflict with my solid-but-not-great DT. That would also make me have a meaningful decision to make: do I trade/release one of them, or do I soldier on?

I suspect that the difference of opinion here is the result of Quik always building teams that way, and me never doing it. I'd like to have a system whereby I can't just do what I do now: largely ignore it apart from "just avoid signing conflict guys." I'd like for a conflict to pop up despite my ignoring it.

I liken it to the most recent patch for Civ4: Beyond The Sword. Prior to this, I had the option to pretty much ignore Espionage entirely, setting spending to 0%. But now, the AI opponents use it often enough that if I completely ignore it all the time, it will hurt me. As it stands now, ignoring chemistry never *hurts* me. Sure, if I'm in a league with Quik or RKG (the only people I know of who really go after chemistry hard and heavy,) one could argue that I am hurt by not going after it as hard as they do. But I'm never potentially hit negatively by it. I'd like to get away from that. I suspect that by adding at least a small amount of randomness to it, it would end up coming into play for the many people who play it the way I do, and wouldn't hurt *that* much the very small handful of people who play it like Quik does.
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!
Ben E Lou is offline   Reply With Quote