Impact Players

[poopoop]

Impact players are a gimmick. At least they toned it down from the NBA Jam-esque nonsense from last gen where your impact players would go on fire and become unstoppable.

If I pick Stanford I know Luck is the focal point of my offense, putting a star under him is redundant. Let players be "impact players" off their own merits, aka their ratings. Not some forced system where every team gets three.

As for discipline they should implement coach ratings and give each one a discipline rating, maybe another rating to handle morale boosts too.

[Catamount53]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

Impact players are a gimmick. At least they toned it down from the NBA Jam-esque nonsense from last gen where your impact players would go on fire and become unstoppable. If I pick Stanford I know Luck is the focal point of my offense, putting a star under him is redundant. Let players be "impact players" off their own merits, aka their ratings. Not some forced system where every team gets three. As for discipline they should implement coach ratings and give each one a discipline rating, maybe another rating to handle morale boosts too.

Thats pretty much what I'm saying. I just think the star could be used to signify that it is a good player. For me at least further into dynasty I have no idea about players on other teams and I think it would be good to have some kind of way to show the good players on the field.

I want Andrew Luck to be good because he is good, not just because he is the best player on a bad team (which Stanford is not of course).

Also, the ratings boost for the impact players seems like a good way to make sure great players play great (if its not done too over the top).

[ActLikeYouCrow]

if it indeed has no effect then its not a problem. but the idea of a ratings boost because youre an impact player is silly. slight ratings boost because youre having a good game, yes.


the idea of having impact players on some teams but none on others just goes along with the get rid of impact players entirely crowd. spread out the ratings, make the best players stand out regardless of school, problem solved. when they announced the new roster maker a couple years it sounded like we were headed toward subjective balanced rosters. instead we still got rosters where the 2nd or 3rd string safety for a top 10 team was rated higher than a 1st team all conference safety on an average team in the same conference.

[DCDuck]

The way I look at it, "Impact players" are the guys who want to be the ones to make the big play. Just because a player is good doesn't make him "the guy" when that big play needs to be made.

A slight ratings boost during critical situations seems appropriate for those types of players. I wish it was based on more than just OVR rating or recent performance.

[ActLikeYouCrow]

youre basically talking about a clutch factor. in that case how would you go about implementing that into only 3 players on your team?

[DCDuck]

Well realistically, when the game is on the line you don't expect the third-string RB to be the one itching to get his hands on the ball to make the decisive play.

[PaperBoyx703]

I think they should to do away with it period. "Impact Players" or the stars arent the only ones who make impact plays in football. Any given game a supposed 'impact player' can get shut down, and I'm talking real life here, and someone else is expected to step up, sometimes someone steps up and other times no one steps up to make an impact or gamechanging moment.

It should be based of performance during the game as it progresses maybe only when certain situations(3rd/4th n longs, Hail Mary, anything clutch.) Because not every game played has the same players making the best plays all game long from opening snap to the final whistle.

Impact//Clutch rating maybe.

Or just make everyone play to their already generous ratings, FBG ratings are the most realistic and reasonable ones Ive seen.

[poopoop]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCDuck

The way I look at it, "Impact players" are the guys who want to be the ones to make the big play. Just because a player is good doesn't make him "the guy" when that big play needs to be made. A slight ratings boost during critical situations seems appropriate for those types of players. I wish it was based on more than just OVR rating or recent performance.

I disagree with this. Teams give the ball to their best players when they need to make big plays (taking into account game situation). Part of being the best is the ability to come up with big plays in crucial situations.

Boosts and powerups are unnecessary.