CC Feature - Most Disappointment

[CRMosier_LM]

Quote: Originally Posted by cletusdog

The fact that we are relying solely on Donny Moore for our rosters is disturbing. He regularly gets FS and SS wrong, ROLB/LOLB, WILL/SAM, RDE, LDE. The OLine is a mess. We are now at his mercy.

How does he "get them wrong"?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[Big FN Deal]

@KBLover, the hidden ratings was just an example. My point was I understand and agree with having less options, more restriction in CCM the first year, to likely promote gamers that are normally resistant to change, to try it.

I would expect there to be more options available next year but by then there will likely be more gamers comfortable using CCM than there would have been if the mode were completely optional from the beginning.

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

@Big FN Deal You are way off base here my friend. I don't think many people have an issue with CCM in theory, but rather the poorly designed fragile version we have been given.

I have my doubts about the XP system, but I, along with many others, am probably willing to give it a shot.

The issue is how poorly designed it was from the get go. I understand the idea of starting at simple and then expanding with programming. The issue here is that the damn mode is too fragile to actually allow any user customization.

The build was never intended to keep these features. Looman keeps saying they ran out of time, but that excuse makes very little sense. How does one run out of time with something like local multiplayer in regards to the UI? You don't. The UI was never intended to have multiple users or else it would have been built that way. If they ever did intend on adding local multiplayer they went around it in an ***-backwards way by trying to implement the single player view first and then realizing it would not work for multiplayer.

The rest of these features follow a similar path in that if they even intended to add them they went about it in an ***-backwards way of building the system first them trying to add onto it rather than to build it with that intent.

I am not usually a conspiracy nut but I have a feeling this bare-bones build is purposely intended. This feature is incomplete and reading between the lines of Josh Looman's comments is very fragile and should not have been implemented this year.

Using my own judgement based on Mr. Looman's comments with a bit of reading between the lines and what has been announced about this mode I have and still conclude this is a poorly designed mode from the get-go.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

@KBLover, the hidden ratings was just an example. My point was I understand and agree with having less options, more restriction in CCM the first year, to likely promote gamers that are normally resistant to change, to try it.

Either that or run them away completely because they are forced to deal with it (or don't buy the game).

Options allow the folks who want to be all over the new things to play, people who want to play some of the new things but not others, at least not immediately, to play, and people who don't to play.

I will never understand the lack of options, but I guess I'm spoiled by that facet of OOTP. Markus puts in a new feature...and it's optional. You want it? There it is. Have at it. You don't - click a box and it's gone. Want some but not others - there you go, take what you want, tweak the sim engine, tweak the player creation engine, want a league in Ghana? Go for it. Want 320 teams in your college league - you can (and it can handle it if your PC can). "Break the game. I dare you." seems to be his mindset.

It just seems like more "all or nothing" decision-making. What if someone wants to ease into the new systems? Maybe they want it in one mode, but not the other, etc.

[Big FN Deal]

@Kaiser Wilhelm and KBLover, do you think more people will try CCM as is with or without the options to customize it?

I think without the customized options more gamers will rather make the best of it and try it out than not play at all. Of that group, I believe gamers that would have otherwise opted to keep the game as familiar as possible and not fully delve into it, may end up enjoying it. I could be completely off base but I think at least part of these restrictions is a ploy to promote more gamers to get online, even if just for the web management, like with NCAA Dynasty.

I am not anti-option, in fact I am all for options but I just don't see it as that unusual for EA/Tiburon to introduce something new with limited options in its' first year.

[cuttingteeth]

The exact reason you don't strip away all previous, beloved features is to keep folks buying the game...or else they won't be there to try any new ones. That will likely be the case, too. Word-of-mouth is HUGE this day and age...and it will indeed go a long way in deciding the fate of this year's game.

[Arrow218]

Quote: Originally Posted by SA1NT401

Well that's what you'll have. Say I want to make a trade or sign a FA. I could honestly have 2-4 players with the same number! Sooooo pathetic. Zero interest at this point and I will be passing 100%. Hell, by year 4-5 you could have several players on your team with the same number especially popular numbers like 88 80 81 11 18 21 26 32 42 etc Dumb is all I can say. " qb 10 passes to WR 10 tackled by number 21 and number 21? " The above is actually possible now. That's cool.... --- I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?2xepvd

The NFL doesn't allow duplicate #s, and M12 didn't either. It would change the number of the player to one not taken.

[Argooos]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kaiser Wilhelm

@Big FN Deal You are way off base here my friend. I don't think many people have an issue with CCM in theory, but rather the poorly designed fragile version we have been given. I have my doubts about the XP system, but I, along with many others, am probably willing to give it a shot. The issue is how poorly designed it was from the get go. I understand the idea of starting at simple and then expanding with programming. The issue here is that the damn mode is too fragile to actually allow any user customization. The build was never intended to keep these features. Looman keeps saying they ran out of time, but that excuse makes very little sense. How does one run out of time with something like local multiplayer in regards to the UI? You don't. The UI was never intended to have multiple users or else it would have been built that way. If they ever did intend on adding local multiplayer they went around it in an ***-backwards way by trying to implement the single player view first and then realizing it would not work for multiplayer. The rest of these features follow a similar path in that if they even intended to add them they went about it in an ***-backwards way of building the system first them trying to add onto it rather than to build it with that intent. I am not usually a conspiracy nut but I have a feeling this bare-bones build is purposely intended. This feature is incomplete and reading between the lines of Josh Looman's comments is very fragile and should not have been implemented this year. Using my own judgement based on Mr. Looman's comments with a bit of reading between the lines and what has been announced about this mode I have and still conclude this is a poorly designed mode from the get-go.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think your final reasoning is a bit off.
The thing everyone needs to remember is this: online is the measuring stick for this mode. For every development decision, the following question was asked: will it work for online mode?* If the answer was no, then the feature was not added. This explains player editing, multi-team control, NCAA import and every other missing feature. When they say that CC is three modes in one, they mean it. It is one mode now, so they are not going to be adding in any offline-only features from now on. This is why I'm not confident that multi-team control is ever going to be added to CC. This is also why I'm not confident that we will ever again be able to edit players on a team we're not controlling.


*You could easily spin this differently by saying the question asked was "Will it work for both online and offline?", but since offline has much fewer limitations, the question still boils down to online being the deciding factor.