AA/Special talents.

MTGian · 07-15-2003, 09:04 AM

Greetings,

I have been giving some thought to the recent discussion about creating a special category for defense which could be called AA (meaning one rating above A). The same idea could also be extended to talent with a rating beyond brilliant.

I believe that it would be both easier and fit the game better to leave the current system in place with two exceptions.

1) Both brilliant and A defense ratings should be far more rare. If a player keeps a brilliant rating throughout his career, then he should rank amongst the all-time leaders in that category by the time he retires. This should be a very special designation, which it currently is not.

2) If a player does receive a rating as special as brilliant should be, then there is likely a reason. It could be size (for brilliant power). It could be athleticism (for A defense). It could be vision (for brilliant walks or strikeouts). Regardless, the player has a special talent. He isn't merely good, he is brilliant. As such, I think it should be both especially difficult to receive a talent change up to brilliant, and especially difficult to receive a talent change down from brilliant to good.

It hurts any argument to name players who would typify these traits, so I will not. However, sit down for a minute and start thinking about players with special (meaning brilliant) talents. How likely would these players be to lose this ability? In most cases, they would be very unlikely. That is not to say they couldn't lose talent in other areas (and thus end up ineffective as a player). Simply that in this area, they have a special ability.

So, in essence, I think players should "generally" fluctuate between poor and good with brilliant "somewhat" off limits. I am not saying I would eliminate the possibility of someone getting brilliant or losing it, I simply believe it should be pretty rare.

Thoughts?

MTG

tcblcommish · 07-15-2003, 12:26 PM

Even though people are said to have Brilliant potential it is rarely ever fulfilled in real life. The game, IMHO, does a pretty good job of making guys in the REALLY GOOD players catagory and not too many in the GREATEST PLAYER catagory.

I have had a number of players get a B for certain catagories and then lose it quickly but then I don't have too many guys get to those astronomical numbers in the game anyways.

07-15-2003, 09:04 AM	#1
MTGian Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 233	AA/Special talents. Greetings, I have been giving some thought to the recent discussion about creating a special category for defense which could be called AA (meaning one rating above A). The same idea could also be extended to talent with a rating beyond brilliant. I believe that it would be both easier and fit the game better to leave the current system in place with two exceptions. 1) Both brilliant and A defense ratings should be far more rare. If a player keeps a brilliant rating throughout his career, then he should rank amongst the all-time leaders in that category by the time he retires. This should be a very special designation, which it currently is not. 2) If a player does receive a rating as special as brilliant should be, then there is likely a reason. It could be size (for brilliant power). It could be athleticism (for A defense). It could be vision (for brilliant walks or strikeouts). Regardless, the player has a special talent. He isn't merely good, he is brilliant. As such, I think it should be both especially difficult to receive a talent change up to brilliant, and especially difficult to receive a talent change down from brilliant to good. It hurts any argument to name players who would typify these traits, so I will not. However, sit down for a minute and start thinking about players with special (meaning brilliant) talents. How likely would these players be to lose this ability? In most cases, they would be very unlikely. That is not to say they couldn't lose talent in other areas (and thus end up ineffective as a player). Simply that in this area, they have a special ability. So, in essence, I think players should "generally" fluctuate between poor and good with brilliant "somewhat" off limits. I am not saying I would eliminate the possibility of someone getting brilliant or losing it, I simply believe it should be pretty rare. Thoughts? MTG

07-15-2003, 12:26 PM	#2
tcblcommish Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 3,444	Even though people are said to have Brilliant potential it is rarely ever fulfilled in real life. The game, IMHO, does a pretty good job of making guys in the REALLY GOOD players catagory and not too many in the GREATEST PLAYER catagory. I have had a number of players get a B for certain catagories and then lose it quickly but then I don't have too many guys get to those astronomical numbers in the game anyways.