Warrior General Games

How about

Momentum=+/- Morale, CON=%resistance/%bonus to Morale +/-.

+/- to CON based on in-game performance. (Individual event triggers and point values should be easy to hash out.)

Momentum could be based on game situation, importance of game and score of game, etc. to establish an even wider arc of modifiers.

So basically, Momentum would be a fluid Morale modifier for the team (or offense, or defense, etc.), with individual events affecting a players CON. Players with higher CON would obviously be less affected by negative game events, momentum, etc. and as long as a floor cap was established for how low CON could go, it would seem workable.

I hope this makes sense, it was just a thought.

Didn't get to read through the whole thing, but looking at most of the OP, one thing I'm noticing is a -20 to -1 and +20 to +1 spread on morale effects. No idea about you guys but I'd rather see that trimmed down a ton, so morale doesn't totally strip away some games. A team scoring in the last two minutes to take the lead, shouldn't mean the game is over type of thing. Hurtful, yes, but not like an epic "i missed 20 field goals of 50+ yards in one game" all in one play. That's a pretty drastic difference between morale swings. Temper it down so it's not so wildly fluctuating and it should help flatline some of the spiral games and not turn into a "who scored first" type of sim. I can already see a "TD" being worth a lot and thus the other team plays shitty, then another td, then etc etc etc. Tone in down imo.

That's all.

I'm late to the thread but...

In my experience the main element of morale is getting the crap beat out of you physically. As an o-lineman I wasn't ever demoralized if my team gave up a a pic six. But if I had a d-lineman beat the crap out of me all game there's no doubt it would get hard to keep scrapping. Too much of this thread is maximizing big plays and minimizing the physical nature of the game.

Originally posted by Shalubis
I'm late to the thread but...

In my experience the main element of morale is getting the crap beat out of you physically. As an o-lineman I wasn't ever demoralized if my team gave up a a pic six. But if I had a d-lineman beat the crap out of me all game there's no doubt it would get hard to keep scrapping. Too much of this thread is maximizing big plays and minimizing the physical nature of the game.

I did not play serious football. But what I did do agrees with that. The battle on the line was more about you and the guy who put you on his azz or you putting him on his, etc. Barely even knew what else was going on or cared. Just wanted that guy to be bested by moi.

And you see that in the Pros, so and so DE might have a tackles number (Stranahan and Runyan for example), to the point that the loser of the last match might come in with a morale hit in the NEXT game. In fact its been true in every sport I have played, the guy you are pairing up against is your nemesis and victory is sweet and defeat bitter against him more so than over all team stuff.

I'm glad this is being discussed. My only comment on morale/energy that I'm not seeing mentioned (might have missed it) is that special teams needs to be far less debilitating than it currently is. You are basically sacrificing a dot if you use them on ST's in most cases right now, both in terms of the morale hit and the energy drain.

I doubt this will garner any serious consideration, but in terms of a "sim" or simulated realistic game, I think far too much of an emphasis is placed on morale in this game. In reality, the only one who would really get sucked down by morale is something like a QB that is performing terribly in subsequent weeks and feels the pressures of the fans calling for his job, and similarly, a RB with a fumble problem that just had a three fumble game is going to be thinking about that fumble possibility, not running clear minded.

But rarely would you ever a defender sitting on the bench, racked with angst to the point he can't perform as well because the K missed a field goal with a 10 point lead and he has to go back onto the field to defend. He might even be pumped to go back on the field and contribute to a good performance.

I realize that would put GLB into a position where people would ignore confidence again, but I think morale serves a good purpose at the onset of a game, not necessarily for many positions during a game. (Primarily the feeling that the team is not good, and they play with less fire on a 3-7 -10 morale situation, than they do as winners.)

So I guess my point is that the "Team wide" morale loss being discussed seems fairly superfluous to the game. If it were up to me, I'd see it as an important attribute for a kicker, and potentially QBs, and RBs, and WRs, but rather than having it be one visible stat for all players to train and increase, possibly just roll it into their existing stats in a dormant state.. Such as a fumble affecting the carry stat, a bad pass affecting the throw stat, the kicking stat, the receiving stat, etc.

The argument would be that it would be an unbalanced situation for offense, but I'd argue that the offense has always had a rather large heads up over the defense in that they can be specialized role players such as a scrambler vs a passer, power vs elusive, or possession vs speedster while a position such as Linebacker needs to have large amounts of speed, agility, tackling, and strength to deal with both archetypes.

Even without just pinpointing it to more realistic scenarios, I would think that the morale loss should only affect the individual player in a vast majority of situations, and should only affect the applicable attribute. If a RB fumbles, shoot down his carry stat a notch. A bad pass, the QB drops his throwing down.. A missed tackle, tackle takes a hit.

To just slowly roll a player like a DT down to a player profile wide -10% to all stats because the QB can't throw a pass without it being returned for a touchdown, or a K can't hit the broadside of a barn, is precisely why people feel morale doesn't work and why people have talked about the "Death Spiral" since season 1. But morale definitely is broken, because if you're performing badly, all the confidence in the world will not matter. And if you're performing well, the confidence only needs to be nominal.

Originally posted by jdros13
I'm glad this is being discussed. My only comment on morale/energy that I'm not seeing mentioned (might have missed it) is that special teams needs to be far less debilitating than it currently is. You are basically sacrificing a dot if you use them on ST's in most cases right now, both in terms of the morale hit and the energy drain.

Agreed, it is far too hard to stick a valuable player on ST at the cost received for the energy requirements alone, let alone morale costs. Maybe that's the the intention, but it might as well be a death sentence for your hopes of signing a strong player if you relegate them specifically to special teams duty.

I think having SOME loss of ability for playing on special teams is a reasonable expectation, but to halve a player's usefulness as a starter and full-time special teams player is excessive.

Originally posted by robponce
Didn't get to read through the whole thing, but looking at most of the OP, one thing I'm noticing is a -20 to -1 and +20 to +1 spread on morale effects. No idea about you guys but I'd rather see that trimmed down a ton, so morale doesn't totally strip away some games. A team scoring in the last two minutes to take the lead, shouldn't mean the game is over type of thing. Hurtful, yes, but not like an epic "i missed 20 field goals of 50+ yards in one game" all in one play. That's a pretty drastic difference between morale swings. Temper it down so it's not so wildly fluctuating and it should help flatline some of the spiral games and not turn into a "who scored first" type of sim. I can already see a "TD" being worth a lot and thus the other team plays shitty, then another td, then etc etc etc. Tone in down imo.

That's all.

I kind of rambled on in my last posts, but I essentially was trying to agree with what you said. In fact, what I was really trying to say was that we'd be a lot better if GLB just ditched morale/confidence in whole. Except it is a highly feasible part of a Kicker's performance, or a RB struggling with fumbles, etc. But then you have the sound argument that confidence doesn't matter.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'd rather we just get rid of it all together and find a way to make a missed kick reduce the chance of another field goal, without having to put points into the old confidence meter Just have it hurt his game performance by putting in a penalty modifer for whatever attribute just failed you, or vice-versa with a reward system.

In short, a static confidence rating that rises or falls based on performance.. but then again, it's just a rich get richer problem at that point. God, this is hard. Just get rid of it!

Originally posted by secondeye
Agreed, it is far too hard to stick a valuable player on ST at the cost received for the energy requirements alone, let alone morale costs. Maybe that's the the intention, but it might as well be a death sentence for your hopes of signing a strong player if you relegate them specifically to special teams duty.

I think having SOME loss of ability for playing on special teams is a reasonable expectation, but to halve a player's usefulness as a starter and full-time special teams player is excessive.

Agreed with jdros13 and secondeye!

I just wanted to give my perspective on the scoring for moral +/-'s:

Say a QB throws a pass to a receiver, and the ball hits the receivers hands, and then bounces and it is picked off, should that really count as a penalty for the QB? A QB wouldn't have a negative response to that, he did his job. He got the ball to the receiver.

Now an errant pass by the QB, should count for more, then a toss up that he expects the WR to go and get. Such as this play right here, that was a toss up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1VLQPxD9ME

Heres a great example of a "pick" that was not the QB's fault: Vontae again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AneBJcvR64&NR=1
See how Vince was just so depressed on his moral from the "pick" that he couldn't even muster the energy to make the hit...... this is what I am talking about!!!!

Thats just a terrific play by Vontae, but 9 times out of 10, Randy makes that play, he just took Vontae for granted. Brady would throw that ball every time. Thats really not a moral penalty play. Thats just football!

To blanketly say that, each and every play is a moral penalty play is wrong. Maybe after that pick, Tom would think, I may not try Vontae, where is Wes at. Maybe look at writing the code to have a QB Go To Guy scenario, if he tries a CB, and gets picked.

These guys are Pro's, they are payed to win games and take risks, they just may think to risk it to a different receiver, not think to themselves "Hey, I suck, whats the point?"

It's like Ray Rice saying to himself "Damn, I just fumbled, I might as well not even try now".

If the D can stop a turnover from scoring (TD), then the moral penalty should be wiped out, from the fumble or interception. Or damn near wiped out. The D bailed out the O. Thats how teams work. Now if the foes score a TD on the turnover, that is where the moral penalty should kick in. Unless the turnover team has the lead still, after their foes scored on the turnover.

Foes score a FG off a turnover: -1 for giving up the FG
Foes score a TD off the turnover: -3 for giving up the TD, but still have the lead.
Foes score a TD after the turnover: -6 for giving up the TD, and losing the lead.

QB throws an INT that was not his fault: no penalty
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up FG, -2
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD, but still has lead: -4
Qb throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD and lead: -7

But, you could also have a scenario where the point in time of the game could go into effect of the moral penalty, also.

Q1
QB throws an INT that was not his fault: no penalty
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up FG, -0
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD, but still has lead: -1
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD and lead: -2

Q2
QB throws an INT that was not his fault: no penalty
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up FG, -0.5
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD, but still has lead: -2
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD and lead: -3

Q3
QB throws an INT that was not his fault: no penalty
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up FG, -2
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD, but still has lead: -3
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD and lead: -5

Q4
QB throws an INT that was not his fault: no penalty
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up FG, -2
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up FG and lead, -4
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD, but still has lead: -4
QB throws an INT that was his fault: pending outcome of foes possesion, if gave up TD and lead: -8

OT would be it's own penalty... most times it happens in your own territory, so they get the FG and game is over, but could take account of a penalty, of some kind.

This may be minor but...
I Matt's example from page 1: 3rd and 3 - 21 yds for TD
He has 3rd down conversion listed, then 1st down conversion right after. As I said, minor, but why points for 1st down conversion? If I ran it in for a TD I don't think either myself, nor anyone else would really care about the fact that I ran far enough for a 1st down. Just an opinion, but why add it if it really shouldn't be relavent?

seems like most people think of morale as a team wide/O/D momentum interaction.
I suggest we divorce it from Confidence and base it on Team chemistry and use the system currently in place for that. we can have all the situational events that effect the team raise or lower the beginning chemistry scores but at a much reduced rate and weighted heavily to game changing events ie. I could care less that my QB threw a pick when we are up 21 points. the variance in game no more than 10 points from starting chemistry score, after game chemestry is never subtracted below 80 but can go up as much as 10 eliminating the rich get richer arguement. if we are hell bent on player interaction having effect create a matchup rivalry score for PVP for plus minus events only against that other player and it only effects rolls not attributes.

to make confidence relevant tie it to the RNG reducing the range of generation. confidence to me is consistency, it is going to work saying I know my job and you can't beat me. that gives it much more value to the individual DOT. say 10 con has a RNG of 1-250, 20 con 50-250, 30 con 75-250, 40 con 90-250 (not a math wiz but you get the point.

Scrap all the morale SAs/VAs and replace them with actaul play effecting SAs/VA. I understand that some were put in there because nothing better could be thought of but come on.

Glare The player will glare and snarl at the QB in order to lower his morale. QBs with very high confidence are less likely to be affected. This skill is important for players who rush the QB a lot. Additional Levels: Increases chance to affect morale, and increases morale deduction

why not
double move- the player will attempt a power/speed move on the blocker if unsuccessful will follow up with speed/power move. Additional levels increase the chance of success on the second move

Has anyone tested the current Morale system minus the morale VA's?

I would be curious to know how that changes things.

I'm not entirely sure the problem is the current system, itself, but the pure amount of morale hit VA's the defense has over the options the offense has.

uptade

Originally posted by Otega
Has anyone tested the current Morale system minus the morale VA's?

I would be curious to know how that changes things.

I'm not entirely sure the problem is the current system, itself, but the pure amount of morale hit VA's the defense has over the options the offense has.



this, get rid of vets, lets go back to builds