December 05, 2011 at 05:51PM View BBCode
in general, is it better to have low or high aggressiveness?December 06, 2011 at 12:44AM View BBCode
Originally posted by nhat8121
in general, is it better to have low or high aggressiveness?
December 06, 2011 at 01:02AM View BBCode
http://football.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=496457December 08, 2011 at 04:59AM View BBCode
Aggressiveness is something that I like to be high but not too high. Really aggressive players make more penalties and fumbles; they take more risks and can make bigger plays but also take bigger losses. Low Aggressiveness players play it safe and are steady performers, less likely to make penalties but less likely to bust loose. QB's with low Aggressiveness may often throw short on long pass plays because the short pass is safer, costing first downs. More aggressive QB's hit longer passes but get intercepted more. As noted, high Execution helps temper high Aggressiveness.December 11, 2011 at 04:50AM View BBCode
I don't believe it increases, no. Aggressiveness tends to be a trait of youthfulness, and it tempers over time.December 11, 2011 at 04:51AM View BBCode
(I should probably allow it to increase if it is low, say below 60. But I'm not sure many people would want to lose IC's on Aggressiveness rather than a more useful skill.)December 12, 2011 at 12:27AM View BBCode
I think Aggressiveness should stay as is. It's essentially more realistic for the players to get better in physical skills, but they don't really change psychologically. Not in general.December 12, 2011 at 01:58AM View BBCode
Originally posted by 1950srobot
I think Aggressiveness should stay as is. It's essentially more realistic for the players to get better in physical skills, but they don't really change psychologically. Not in general.
Every player is different, and AGG is the sign of their "emotional" balance. I like having to consider if I want the SS who will jump routes for INTs (resulting I'd assume in avoided tackles) or the one that sits back and tackles consistently.
Pages: 1