Quote:
Originally Posted by NoOne
as proof with a long-runing simulation.. go cehck out the coaches with themost wins or highest reputaitons. currently in your league... turn commissioner mode on and look at their ratings... a large poriton of the most successful coaches will have mediocre or worse ratings..
|
Have you looked at the text descriptions of coaches in a long-running simulation to see if there is a correlation to their abilities?
I looked through coaches in a new game before, looking at how their descriptions matched up with ratings in the editor. There was barely any correlation, if any, just by eyeing it like that. Like, maybe where it said the coach had some big ideas about how to coach something, but haven't had the chance to put it to the test, those coaches were usually pretty bad. But coaches that had a ton of experience but poor reps and the game says they that it was incredible they managed to stay in the game so long with their poor rep; they were usually decent coaches. And coaches with "few eye-popping success stories" or "not the most exciting coaches" tended to be pretty decent as well.
I thought perhaps the descriptions were supposed to give hints about more than just reputation and focus, but would be more inaccurate with less experienced coaches. Like "few eye popping success stories" means they had some success at least. Or not exciting means they stick with typical proven coaching methods that work, unlike all the new know-it-all coaches that want to try something new that probably doesn't work well, but maybe there's a slight chance they are the real deal and are a superstar coach?
And perhaps as the game was simmed along more years, these descriptions could become more accurate.
Have the devs ever shed any light on this, like whenever they made the change from the old system that just displayed the coachs' abilities?