Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Diemenz
Not everyone has the same schedules.
For example I was online from 5-9:30 yesterday and none of the teams I needed to play were on. I am not about to get angry that peoples lives do not revolve around their playstations. Another example was when me and another GM recently had issues with a game. He was available only in the afternoon (I work and im not skipping a day of work to play a videogame) and refused to put his team on CPU suggesting instead I should (when my availability was any evening) I set my team to CPU and took the easy loss.
|
This to me is unfair for you, and it brings up an important issue. Who plays the CPU when 2 players have made an agreement to try and play but the stars simply do not align? I have 2 games left this week and I've reached out to people to try and play, but life gets in the way and they don't always respond. If suddenly I'm unavailable tonight, does that mean I have to switch my team to cpu for them when I've already made an effort to play my games?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Diemenz
Since the change over to easy mode CPU settings A LOT more games are going to sim because people do not want to take the guaranteed loss (and yes its damn near guaranteed) from letting their CPU get manhandled, The setting is wayyyyyyyy to easy. However the users who complained because in the second week because they were not instantly good at the game won out and now the league has to suffer for the remainder of the season.
With more then half of the GMs letting games go to Sims the last few weeks IMO the setting needs to be revisited.
|
I'm going to get my arguing pants on for this one.
You are inferring that users such as myself were complaining because "in the second week" we "were not instantly good". This is inaccurate despite the fact we have told you this time and time again. It was closer to 6 weeks into the season, and you claimed that people such as myself would continue to find things to bitch about because we won't be happy until we go 82-0.
In actuality, users that were pushing for the difficulty change are quite pleased with the result DESPITE no noticeable surge in winning. Perhaps I'm incorrect and they aren't pleased with the difficulty change, and if that's the case I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong, but in my conversations people seem happy.
You also think the surge in simming is a result of the cpu being too easy, but don't forget before the change there were plenty people that simply would not play the CPU because it was ridiculously difficult. In my opinion all we're seeing is a sway to the other side. You won't decrease forced simming by making things harder, you'll just encourage people to avoid playing the cpu. I find the people who favor simming over playing are taking it up the chute a little more than they used to, and I think that's a good thing. It was annoying to see people who sim everything near the top of the standings because what they thought was good gm'ing, was just unfair CPU difficulty.
My theory on the problems with simming? Life is getting in the way and this game is getting older. Personally I'm finding it a little harder to not only make time to play the games, but to connect with people as well (some are like you and plan really well, while others are a little more scattered). I believe if there is a jump in simming, it's because people aren't playing the game as consistently as they used to.