jdavidbakr wrote:
dmcc1 wrote:
jgcruz wrote:
We want realism - but not too much?
The short answer is Yes.
Realism is overrated in these types of games. Playability is much more important.
I probably will never have long-term injury results because it can be incredibly discouraging to spend several seasons clawing to build your team only to have your star player(s) destroyed by injury. I know that happens in real life, but I feel that the level that you have to deal with injuries here is a good compromise - your single season can be destroyed by an injury (although very unlikely - intentionally there are very few IR-able injuries here compared to real life), but the next season he'll always be healthy again for another shot. I want injuries to be a nuisance but not deadly,
if that makes sense.
Not really.
Injuries are practically the only way someone with a lesser roster can prevail against teams stocked with players with few or no weaknesses - of which there are probably a half dozen or so in each league. Do you ever wonder why there is so much turnover in GMs? Check the correlation in GM turnover with roster quality and competitiveness. Very few teams with loaded rosters change GMs between seasons. because they can win most of their games even on cruise control.
Many (but not all) GMs who have or inherit a poor roster generally don't have the patience to wait 5 seasons or more to to try to build a competitive roster through the draft. They simply move on to a new team (or quit playing) after a season or two of frustration. Furthermore, a change of GMs usually means a change in strategy and a new approach to building a team. This change tends in turn to lengthen the time is takes to build a competitive team, further compounding the GM turnover rate. So what you get a league dominated by a few players who have mastered the art of roster building and can dominate based on the fact that they can win by simply showing up, no matter their game strategy and play calling ability.
If playability trumps realism, i.e., you don't want injuries that reflect the real world experience, why not simply take them out of the game altogether? Who's to decide what the right of injuries is appropriate? Or better yet, let's just play chess (with the pieces wearing football uniforms). No injuries in chess. It is the ultimate "safe place" as far as that is concerned.
MFN is a great game, but can be made better. Not, IMO, by exalting playability over realism. Mark my words. As good as MFN is, when someone replicates what it is now but can lay claim to the fact that it more resembles RL, players will flock to it. As frustrating as injuries can be for one GM, it can be rewarding to another GM.