no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / Maximum and minimum players per position Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 7 8 >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2016-05-23 20:26:43 (ID: 100077270) Report Abuse | |
|
?? There is an out-of-position penalty and there is also a penalty everytime you change the position the player is assigned on the roster.
Of cause everyone is free to demand more penalties, but saying there is non is wrong. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-05-23 20:29:54 (ID: 100077271) Report Abuse | |
|
But this causes no changes in the training, and it is one part of this suggestion to change it.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2016-05-23 22:29:33 (ID: 100077287) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Your LB Coach is responsible for 38 guys at the moment. Wouldn't it be just natural if he would focus less to a single player, therefore the players get less progress from that coach? I still think this is the most logical approach. Its been proven, if I have 1 teacher for every 10 students teaching will be more effective then 1 teacher for every 20 students. And its even more effective at 1 teacher for every 5 students. I'd say it should just be a simple sliding scale. If the coach is coaching one player he has 100% effectiveness. Two players means 99% effectiveness. 3 players means 98% effectiveness. 38 players means 62% effectiveness. Or double the effect so it would be 100%, 98%, 96%, 34% |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2016-05-23 23:09:42 (ID: 100077301) Report Abuse |
|
I think part of what got lost in this discussion is the "payoff/reward" part of the equation.
Having 16 players (37 w/YA) training under my RIDICULOUSLY overpaid LB coach is the PAYOFF part of overpaying him. If that gets the nerf bat in the way some are suggesting - we'll have everyone building their coaching setup in the EXACT SAME way ... following San Diego Blitzkrieg, and honestly a good deal of Elite's lead, in getting rather homogenous ~75-80 across the board. Honestly, might as well look at removing coaches at that point? Even coaches are QUITE a bit better on game day - as I used to have a similar setup when I was new for the low cost, FAR less expensive as the coaches seem to have exponentially increasing costs on CP, and to be honest - the training gains are NOT that significant. (you can check the post I did listing the math for training in the Rookie section). So while it might *LOOK* better to have everyone at their positions right off the bat, it certainly would have a side effect of homogenizing even further one of the areas that still sees some differences in the way folks build their team. I do think a better solution to this "problem" - would be some sort of positional experience - so the decision would have to be made post-YA ... what position to place them at, it would eliminate things such as gaining tremendous amounts of XP by playing some out of position at 3-4 positions in bot games to "catch them up" as well. Only issue I see would be how to deal with them while they were still finding caps in the YA ... maybe increase the base XP slowly at all positions ONLY while in the YA?  Last edited on 2016-05-23 23:11:55 by Gambler75 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-05-25 13:51:05 (ID: 100077508) Report Abuse |
|
My initial proposition concerned only the Senior Squad. In this case, your monster LB coach will still be able to train your youngster as before until your senior squad does not have more than 12 LB (if we keep the proposition to limit at twice the optionnal number of player per position in the Depth Chart).
I recall the main target is to avoid some teams to abuse the training system by having one super coach and then all (are almost) the senior squad made of one position. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2016-05-25 20:10:03 (ID: 100077577) Report Abuse |
|
Just for the sake of argument, here's the breakdown of the 16 active roster LB'ers:
4 draftees finding caps. (P from last season, and this season's 3) 3 gunners / potential move to SF guys (LATE in their career) 1 RB, just finishing training up his horrendous vision. 1 DL, Xfer market addition, finding Spd cap (free pos switch period). 7 actual LB'ers. Doing the math out on how much extra I'm paying ... and how SLIGHT the advantage gained is ... I don't think it makes any sense even how it's setup now. Over the course of a full 24 updates, it's roughly ONE extra training point. The payoff of that "monster" coach really isn't there already considering the cost, and it makes me wonder if the people getting upset over this "abuse" - are vastly overestimating the gains from it? I do agree ... if I had 55 people ALL @ LB'er ... that would start to add up, but I have essentially one currently that "doesn't belong" ... the RB. (Or include the gunners depending on your PoV, and call it 4) Last edited on 2016-05-25 20:12:22 by Gambler75 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hollyhh2000
|
posted: 2016-05-25 20:49:51 (ID: 100077581) Report Abuse |
|
I have to agree with gambler, that he is overpaying for that coach
I fear, that when this feature is implemented the micromanagement for training will drastically improve. You will probably change the position of your players of the backend of the roster according to the actual trained skill. You don't care about the position change penalty for those players. As in most of the recent discussions I would prefer to get the issue of teams consisting of 60 DL done with just a more severe oop penalty |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-05-25 22:34:14 (ID: 100077593) Report Abuse |
|
hollyhh2000 wrote:
As in most of the recent discussions I would prefer to get the issue of teams consisting of 60 DL done with just a more severe oop penalty The problem is the teams with 60 DL do not care about the game results. They are just training players for seasons and seasons without any contribution to the competition. Their ultimate goal is to train players by abusing the training system, sell them, make money and eventually one day decide to build a real team. If I can understand Gambler strategy, I do believe 16 LBs is already too much for one coach and it is already abusing (a little bit) the system. But at least, this monster coach is also efficient in game. So if a training penalty occurs, Gambler will still get some benefits from that dude. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JonnyP
|
posted: 2016-05-25 22:53:28 (ID: 100077594) Report Abuse |
|
Gambler75 wrote:
I do think a better solution to this "problem" - would be some sort of positional experience - so the decision would have to be made post-YA ... what position to place them at, it would eliminate things such as gaining tremendous amounts of XP by playing some out of position at 3-4 positions in bot games to "catch them up" as well. Precisely what I suggested in the original thread. Some positions should be more easily interchangeable than others.... an OL does not simply switch to play CB, but a CB can easily take on the role of SF. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2017-01-15 20:18:38 (ID: 100095927) Report Abuse |
|
Thanks Pete for the maximum players per position new rule!
Not exactly what I was suggesting at first, but this is a great decision imo. 
You may close this topic now.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 7 8 >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Maximum and minimum players per position | |
