Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillieFever
It would be the case because thats how the injury model works,when the AI determines that an injury has occurred,it immediately determines the length of the injury FIRST then it determines a body part and diagnosis to match.This is where your proposal runs into problems.To change the CEI's you'd have to overhaul the entire injury system which except for some frequency/distribution issues works very well.That was my point to begin with,the work it would take to change something that happens so infrequently as CEI's isn't worth it IMO.If you feel otherwise than we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
I wasn't aware of that, and that in itself seems like something of an illogical system (maybe not a fundamental 'flaw', exactly...), though from my scant programming experience I can see why it's easier to work that way. CEIs are important for me because, as an historical player, the frequency with which things occur aren't so important as their macro-effect on players and teams. The CEI issue is personally more of a distraction for me than all of the AI in-game management logic issues (for instance) that have been described earlier in this thread -- though I wouldn't be so imperious as to suggest that that makes the injury issue 'more important'. I still believe that an injury overhaul might be worth looking into, though the investment-reward issue is one for the development team to figure out.
Even a cosmetic fix to the way CEIs work would be welcome. Their career-endingness might be pre-ordained, but that wouldn't matter to the player who wouldn't have access to that information. This together with a better conception of which players usually succumb to 'career ending' injuries would be a good start without a complete overhaul.