If every player (or at least most of them) focused on the intangibles - Consis/Condi/Tough/Heart/Intim - would this be a viable team? I would think that builds would be gimped because of attribute points allocated into Stam/Con, but would the trade-off be worth it? This obviously would be a team built with the long-term in mind as I would think the focus on intangibles wouldn't go over so well in Rookie, possibly even into Sophomore. I just feel like if your team is firing on all cylinders when it matters (3rd downs and in the RZ) you have a better chance to pull out the win, even if you were outmatched during the course of the game.
Rashida
offline
offline
There comes a certain threshold where focusing too much on the intangibles, like Heart and Consistency, become what in economics is called induced-demand. That is, the very use of it--and the lessor of other skills like Receiving Hands, etc--would make it even more valuable.
While its rote speculation exactly how Heart and Consistency even work, I've always thought of them this way:
-- Each additional point in Heart reduces the effect of a bad play by 1%
-- Each additional point in Consistency reduces the range of roll possibilities from the max by 1%.
Really, in the end, it just depends on the position. Toughness isn't going to do a CB much good and would reach diminishing marginal returns at a far lower level than, say, Heart. However, the opposite is probably true of a pass-rushing DE.
Let's walk through a few examples.
Consider Heart. It diminishes the effects of screw-ups. On a CB or WR in particular, of course this is useful. But even with a Superstar WR, Heart's marginal cost is 354 at attribute level 35. The opportunity cost of putting points into Heart, I would venture, would be less for more extreme builds. If your option is one additional point in Speed to take it from 99 to 100 or 5 into Heart, I might be inclined to go with Heart. However, if the trade off is Speed from 80 to 81 or 2.5 points into Heart, I might go with Speed. What you really need to consider, in the hypothetical case of the WR, is just how often you plan on your WR dropping the ball--since the plays it would affect would *almost* exclusively following drops (and to a lesser extent, turnovers).
All this goes without mentioning that they, like all skills, face diminishing marginal returns to utility--particularly where Consistency is concerned. The more points into consistency, the fewer you'll have for other skills that can prevent you from being put in pressure situations, like 3rd down, to begin with. If there's one thing economics will teach you, though, it's that specialization is kick-ass.
Specializing in Consistency offers probably the most promise for the kind of thing you're speculating about--at least based on my limited understanding of how it works. The positions where this would probably make the most sense are on the O-line and D-line with backups. Because of the pretty obvious opportunity costs, what you *might* consider is designating some players as your go-to guys in those pressure situations where things like Consistency come into play. For instance, having a backup DE with 70+ Defensive Consistency slotted to always enter the game on third down. The specialization would be niche enough that you'd wind up with a really overmatched OT and an almost guaranteed hurry or sack on third down passing situations.
If you were to try somesthing like Consistency-specialization, you'd need to rethink the traditional substitutions. It'd allow the starters who play on 1st and 2nd down to skimp on skills like Toughness and Heart, but they'd need to focus more on Conditioning. For the 3rd-downers, they could really skimp on Conditioning but would need to load up on Consistency. To be honest with you, if done right, I've got to imagine there'd be a considerable net gain in productivity on both 1st/2nd downs AND 3rd downs than if all of your players played the middle ground trying to be all things to for every situation.
While its rote speculation exactly how Heart and Consistency even work, I've always thought of them this way:
-- Each additional point in Heart reduces the effect of a bad play by 1%
-- Each additional point in Consistency reduces the range of roll possibilities from the max by 1%.
Really, in the end, it just depends on the position. Toughness isn't going to do a CB much good and would reach diminishing marginal returns at a far lower level than, say, Heart. However, the opposite is probably true of a pass-rushing DE.
Let's walk through a few examples.
Consider Heart. It diminishes the effects of screw-ups. On a CB or WR in particular, of course this is useful. But even with a Superstar WR, Heart's marginal cost is 354 at attribute level 35. The opportunity cost of putting points into Heart, I would venture, would be less for more extreme builds. If your option is one additional point in Speed to take it from 99 to 100 or 5 into Heart, I might be inclined to go with Heart. However, if the trade off is Speed from 80 to 81 or 2.5 points into Heart, I might go with Speed. What you really need to consider, in the hypothetical case of the WR, is just how often you plan on your WR dropping the ball--since the plays it would affect would *almost* exclusively following drops (and to a lesser extent, turnovers).
All this goes without mentioning that they, like all skills, face diminishing marginal returns to utility--particularly where Consistency is concerned. The more points into consistency, the fewer you'll have for other skills that can prevent you from being put in pressure situations, like 3rd down, to begin with. If there's one thing economics will teach you, though, it's that specialization is kick-ass.
Specializing in Consistency offers probably the most promise for the kind of thing you're speculating about--at least based on my limited understanding of how it works. The positions where this would probably make the most sense are on the O-line and D-line with backups. Because of the pretty obvious opportunity costs, what you *might* consider is designating some players as your go-to guys in those pressure situations where things like Consistency come into play. For instance, having a backup DE with 70+ Defensive Consistency slotted to always enter the game on third down. The specialization would be niche enough that you'd wind up with a really overmatched OT and an almost guaranteed hurry or sack on third down passing situations.
If you were to try somesthing like Consistency-specialization, you'd need to rethink the traditional substitutions. It'd allow the starters who play on 1st and 2nd down to skimp on skills like Toughness and Heart, but they'd need to focus more on Conditioning. For the 3rd-downers, they could really skimp on Conditioning but would need to load up on Consistency. To be honest with you, if done right, I've got to imagine there'd be a considerable net gain in productivity on both 1st/2nd downs AND 3rd downs than if all of your players played the middle ground trying to be all things to for every situation.
Edited by Rashida on Oct 1, 2015 03:53:41
Cuivienen
offline
offline
Originally posted by BlackSamurai
If every player (or at least most of them) focused on the intangibles - Consis/Condi/Tough/Heart/Intim - would this be a viable team? I would think that builds would be gimped because of attribute points allocated into Stam/Con, but would the trade-off be worth it? This obviously would be a team built with the long-term in mind as I would think the focus on intangibles wouldn't go over so well in Rookie, possibly even into Sophomore. I just feel like if your team is firing on all cylinders when it matters (3rd downs and in the RZ) you have a better chance to pull out the win, even if you were outmatched during the course of the game.
Xars tried something like that with Logzilla. Not totally, but he tried to focus on morale specifically. It didn't seem to do that much, although it's still a good team. I believe his opinion is the morale gravitation mechanic really kills that strategy, and the team was good for other reasons (mainly building around specific, high quality plays on O).
So if you were going to try it, I would perhaps ignore morale and focus on energy and consistency. That would give you a little more SP to put into the core skills.
If every player (or at least most of them) focused on the intangibles - Consis/Condi/Tough/Heart/Intim - would this be a viable team? I would think that builds would be gimped because of attribute points allocated into Stam/Con, but would the trade-off be worth it? This obviously would be a team built with the long-term in mind as I would think the focus on intangibles wouldn't go over so well in Rookie, possibly even into Sophomore. I just feel like if your team is firing on all cylinders when it matters (3rd downs and in the RZ) you have a better chance to pull out the win, even if you were outmatched during the course of the game.
Xars tried something like that with Logzilla. Not totally, but he tried to focus on morale specifically. It didn't seem to do that much, although it's still a good team. I believe his opinion is the morale gravitation mechanic really kills that strategy, and the team was good for other reasons (mainly building around specific, high quality plays on O).
So if you were going to try it, I would perhaps ignore morale and focus on energy and consistency. That would give you a little more SP to put into the core skills.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
