Quote:
Originally Posted by bababui
You vastly overlook the mental aspect of development. Players who are performing poorly will become discouraged and depressed and they wont perform to their potential. Conversely, some players with less talent will end up having better careers and stats because their mental and emotional makeup is stronger. Markus's system is a lot more nuanced than the 'talent decides all' school of thought.
|
I don't overlook that aspect at all. I see all those nuances as things that may affect how rapidly a player moves toward his peak--in other words, all those things can alter ratings. In fact, if I were designing the game I would have a "stable" rating for actual skills and a "current effective rating" that takes into account all those things. My pure guess is that this is what is entailed with the entire player personality code. But if I turn those off, then yes, it should be talent + opportunity + some weird intangibles decides all with regard to rating progression over a player's age. And on the whole, those intangibles should even out such that a review of a couple thousand players leads you to the truth.
However, none of that matters, since my proposal is not about rating progression, but is instead about peak _talents_. And I stand by my statement that a player receiving bad stats should not, for that reason, be more subject to talent hits.
It is a bad design.
This is about the 7,953rd time I've made this argument (only slightly exaggerating), however, and I assume it will be as successful as the other 7,952.