[Aestis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nunyerbiz

You can add as many additional abstraction layers on top as you like... Mental ratings and the progression of mental ratings can only be guesswork on top of some more guesswork. Nobody knows why players perform well for Bill Belichick and nobody knows why the last 15 combined head coaches of the Lions and Browns are awful at the same thing. If you want to add modifiers and addtional math and hiring the "good" coordinator gives you one brownie point and running that drill gives you another brownie point... then knock yourself out... your starting point is still just a shot in the dark. I'm not arguing against adding a coaching layer and a practice layer and a "he is getting sued by his ex-wife" layer and whatever else strikes your fancy. If you want such things for the immersion factor or additional gameplay depth/challenge... then cool... no argument from me... might even be fun! I just don't agree that such a system inherently provides results closer to reality when you can't measure the reality of "player progression" to begin with. That was the original assertion, right? That variables existed that could yield more realistic progression outcomes?

Philosophically, you are 100% on point. But there are ways to get closer to the mark using only the tools at a dev team's disposal, which is effectively just building a framework for controlling ratings movement over time. Don't let the impossibility of perfection paralyze you from improvement.