Instead of a single number for player abilities, show a range. For example, instead of a quarterback having a throw power of 90, he might have a throw power of 80-95 or 88-92.
Displaying attributes this way has several advantages:
1. More options for player progression. You can bring up the low end, raise the high end, or reduce the range of the scores to improve the player.
2. Attributes can be recalculated each play, so that your brilliant, but erratic DE (85-97) will be consistently beat by the very good, consistent LT (91-94), but for a few plays each game, the DE will work some magic and blow by the LT. If recalculating each play is too processor intensive, each series would probably work, to give a feel of momentum.
3. Recruiting becomes more interesting as well -- well do you try to snag the high-potential, but inconsistent player (75-88), or a less explosive, but far more reliable player (78-83).
4. This opens the ability for coaches to use motivation during timeouts or during the week before the game, trying to raise minimums, raise maximums, or improve consistency.
5. Less arguing about player ratings on the boards. =)
6. Potentials, sliders and difficulty settings could be defined more clearly and accurately by their effect on player attributes, but I'm not as sure about this one.
Anyway, I think that by exposing this degree of uncertainty and randomness to the players, instead of hiding it within the engine, the game will more accurately point players to looking at actual performance on the field and allow the players to make more meaningful personnel decisions for their teams.
Displaying attributes this way has several advantages:
1. More options for player progression. You can bring up the low end, raise the high end, or reduce the range of the scores to improve the player.
2. Attributes can be recalculated each play, so that your brilliant, but erratic DE (85-97) will be consistently beat by the very good, consistent LT (91-94), but for a few plays each game, the DE will work some magic and blow by the LT. If recalculating each play is too processor intensive, each series would probably work, to give a feel of momentum.
3. Recruiting becomes more interesting as well -- well do you try to snag the high-potential, but inconsistent player (75-88), or a less explosive, but far more reliable player (78-83).
4. This opens the ability for coaches to use motivation during timeouts or during the week before the game, trying to raise minimums, raise maximums, or improve consistency.
5. Less arguing about player ratings on the boards. =)
6. Potentials, sliders and difficulty settings could be defined more clearly and accurately by their effect on player attributes, but I'm not as sure about this one.
Anyway, I think that by exposing this degree of uncertainty and randomness to the players, instead of hiding it within the engine, the game will more accurately point players to looking at actual performance on the field and allow the players to make more meaningful personnel decisions for their teams.
Comment