Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/9/2015 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 3/9/2015 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 3/9/2015 3:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tkimble on 3/8/2015 8:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 3/8/2015 8:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zorzii on 3/8/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I am thinking this thread is about coaching. And it is not simple. This is what makes this game fun. If it was easy, would we play? The distro is certainly about plays run to a player, not shots taken. Say you run a play for someone, he got doubled up or was not in position or received a bad pass, will he shoot at all cost? I doubt it. The game is simulated and unless we can predict what the other team will do, there is no way the distro ends up being what we decided it would be for our players. The defense that probably disrupt the distro the most is man to man. Sometimes I am scratching my head as why I lost a game, why I shot so bad, why I was unable to score over 50... Sometimes I look at teams, check mine and think : I am winning this and it ends up being a nightmare. Coaching. I guess this is why good coaches specialize in a specific offense and in a specific defense.
I am pretty bad at playing press. My teams (I will drop one) lose most close games. I'm pretty bad with Motion offense. Everytime I add another dimension to my recruiting to suit FLEX or ZONE or MAN TO MAN, sometimes I forget about stuff I already knew that were important and it's back to the drawing board. Should I play UPTEMPO, NORMAL or SLOW, how do I set up my distro, which player will score against particular défenses etc.
That is why good coaches are consistent, they know all about that.
Sure, the distro is plays run for a player, but more distro equals more shots (relatively speaking). If it didn't, it wouldn't serve much purpose.
When I give a guy a lot of distro, I expect him to shoot more than guys with less distro.
On the question you asked which is more personal than having to do with the game itself:
If it was easy, would we play? I don't know about you, but yes, I would. I'm not here for the challenge - real life provides enough of those. I'm still here only because I am successful enough to keep me here. If I was terrible or even only decent, I wouldn't keep playing. I'd give up on it because it's a game and if I can't win to at least a minimum level at a game, it's not worth playing (let alone paying to play it).
If there were no challenge, I might arguably find it to be MORE fun. I know this because I never tire of playing sports video games against a computer and absolutely destroying the computer opponent. That to me is much more fun that barely beating or sometimes losing to the computer opponent.
lol
I know, right? That last paragraph actually speaks volumes.
How so? Seriously I'd like to know what you think it says.
Then I'll tell you precisely why I feel that way if you'd like.
With making only the least amount of assumptions, I would say it has largely to do with immidiate vs delayed gratification. I used to always (and still sometimes do) fire up Madden and slaughter the sim season after season in dynasty mode. It was gratifying (independant of the difficult setting) because in all reality I was competing with myself...on how much I could beat them by, etc., etc.
This game, both in terms of it's medium and pace(s) of schedule, doesn't offer the immediate visceral feedback that 3 games of Madden can in 20 min, despite roughly the same amount of time being needed to see similar results.
Seems like you may have reached that level were the time you put into it isn't enough to achieve that ultimate payoff of the delayed gratification becaue you eventually have to run into people that are here almost purely for the egoistic intrapersonal competition, and thus are more prepared.
I'm not saying either is better than the other, just throwing this out there based on your posts.
P.S. at least our cav's are still in the mix yo.
What you say does make sense, so I have to give credit for that, but actually, the reason I feel the way I do has NOTHING to do with immediate versus delayed gratification.
I don't care that this game runs slowly compared to a video game dynasty mode. I'm fine with that.
The reason I feel the way I do - the reason I say a game is MORE fun if it's easier - is because I don't want difficult challenges when I'm playing a game for fun.
I find real life frustrating enough with all of it's myriad challenges. I don't need to simulate a significant challenge in order to have fun. In fact, that takes away from my fun.
To me, the fun of playing a game is the ability to relax and avoid frustration. If it's a sports game, I don't want to see my players doing things I can't control. I don't want to spend a long time figuring the game out - I just want to play. And I want to win as much as possible and lose as little as possible - in an ideal situation, my team never loses. Why? Because losing isn't fun, and I'm playing to have fun.
When I play sports video games on the console, I make sure to whatever extent I can that the game is fun for me.
For example, when playing NCAA football dynasty mode, I don't like the "discipline" aspect of the game, as it takes away from my fun whenever I have to deal with it. So I find a workaround, to wit: Unless the week has already advanced, if a guy needs "disciplined," I back out of the game and start again until no one needs "disciplined". I also punish a player very severely early on so it lowers the level of "NCAA interest" way down, thereby allowing me to not punish a player later if I so choose (if the week has already advanced so I can't back out of it).
I also make sure the settings are just strong enough to present a minimal challenge, such that while I may get frustrated on a play or two here and there, I'm never frustrated for very long - and I certainly NEVER lose the game. In fact, I don't ever want it to even be close. A typical score in my NCAA football dynasty is my team 200+ points, the other team somewhere between 0-10 points.
This NEVER gets old and is always fun for me. I enjoy racking up the stats, running up the score, and destroying the computer in every single game, every time.
If there was a way to do that in this game, I'd have as many teams as possible running non-stop. To do it, I'd basically have to be able to play in my own "world" against all SimAI - but if that were possible, I'd absolutely be on board with it, because I'd almost certainly have more fun than playing with people. It's nothing against anyone or people in general - I just enjoy dominating my opposition and winning every time FAR more than facing a challenge and being frustrated.