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 / Discussions / A Slower, More Difficult Game? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2020-08-11 20:22:10 (ID: 100151570) Report Abuse |
|
I feel like it's been a very long time since we haven't had a change to make the game slower (as in, taking longer to build a good team) or more difficult (more tough decisions) and I would love such changes.
In the past ~20 seasons the quality of Draft Picks has been increased, training became faster, the Mediacenter (free cash) and the Premium Youth Academy were introduced. All of them making it faster to build a good team now compared to 20 seasons ago, I think it's time for the pendulum to swing a bit the other way and introduce some changes to make building a team more difficult again. Some of the options I've thought about could be: - Increased players and/or coaches salary - Slower training - Significantly increase PC loss between games based on number of snaps These are all changes that would involve more team management, not more randomness, so I'm not in favor of random difficulties out of a manager's control, such as injuries. What do you guys think? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
dumpling
|
posted: 2020-08-11 21:05:46 (ID: 100151576) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
I feel like it's been a very long time since we haven't had a change to make the game slower (as in, taking longer to build a good team) or more difficult (more tough decisions) and I would love such changes. In the past ~20 seasons the quality of Draft Picks has been increased, training became faster, the Mediacenter (free cash) and the Premium Youth Academy were introduced. All of them making it faster to build a good team now compared to 20 seasons ago, I think it's time for the pendulum to swing a bit the other way and introduce some changes to make building a team more difficult again. Some of the options I've thought about could be: - Increased players and/or coaches salary - Slower training - Significantly increase PC loss between games based on number of snaps These are all changes that would involve more team management, not more randomness, so I'm not in favor of random difficulties out of a manager's control, such as injuries. What do you guys think? I would definitely go with - Significantly increase PC loss between games based on number of snaps - By concentrating on increasing PC % during training updates it will help slow skills training increase overall Last edited on 2020-08-11 21:07:40 by dumpling |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Maynard
|
posted: 2020-08-11 21:09:35 (ID: 100151577) Report Abuse |
|
Some teams splurge on FA to compete quickly, and some train skills too high to compete asap. Both those styles tend to go bankrupt. Teams wishing for longevity, need to go slower. But the game gives each GM the freedom to choose. I like that about it. A team making it to Elite after 3 or 4 seasons, does not make that team "elite" if you know what I mean. It just means they beat other league 1 teams. They get a taste of the Elite level, most relegate back down, and now spend more seasons trying to get back up there with a better understanding of what it takes. So 5 or 6 seasons in, maybe they are ready to challenge you. There are some exceptions, where GMs just get it and 2 years into the game are whooping your butt in Elite, but that's rare.
With that said, you should invite the extra competition, not try to push it away. Let's make sure to keep the game challenging for the vets, lest they get bored and leave too. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2020-08-12 07:10:49 (ID: 100151587) Report Abuse |
|
I am not trying to push competition away, I am trying to make it harder for us all to build a team because that's what I enjoy the most out of RZA. When I first started RZA it took me about 15 seasons to get my team from 40 rating to 70 rating and it would take a solid 10 seasons to get a player from a Youth Pull to a rotation player, I enjoyed this building process a lot and now it's going too fast for my liking.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Tullo Ostilio
|
posted: 2020-08-12 08:52:38 (ID: 100151592) Edits found: 6 Report Abuse |
|
This is my third experience in RZA:
The first in S13 for 3 season no titles The second in S19 for 10 season no titles Actually is my third experience starting in S31 2 season to get in first division(tnx to a in-game mediacenter payment) 7 season to win Conference title and get to Élite league What I notice: The fact that game pay your Mediacenter the first 2 or 3 season speed up the costruction of the stadium and the possibility to accumulate money. Premium Academy give you a little boost in growing players but incrising consistently income from Accademy itself and increasing players salaries. Atm I get to Élite with a annual loss around 20~30M. Next season I think go back to first division couse my team skills is around 37 but actually I spend more than 5M on salaries. In my opinion we spend too much.I remine you that at the beginning agility not count towards salaries. Sponsor money is to less compare stadium maintenaments. Merchandise as no impact. Premium Academy let you increase skill players fast but increase income and salaries. Noone can have more than one or two 50 skills players without great risk of bankrupt(I haven't yet). Last edited on 2020-08-12 08:56:24 by Tullo Ostilio |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-08-12 10:10:15 (ID: 100151600) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
I would Not push for any of the 3 suggestions. But in order to slow down a little the development, I think my old suggestion of setting up a minimum of players per position and having a lower maximum would help.
I would prevent intensive use of position switching training in order to maximize the training points.It will also prevent those ugly rosters with no SF, no FB or no TE (sorry Meiheisman, I know you are one of those  )
The minimum would be the one defined by the depth chart. The maximum would be twice the optional number in the depth chart. For linemen, it would be the sum for the 3 positions. Ex: for OL minimum would be 5 (1+2+2) and maximum 16 (2+3+3 times 2). With those limitations, many players that are currently training on another position that the one intended would have to be switched to the later one. Last edited on 2020-08-12 10:19:44 by Kanar |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2020-08-12 12:25:18 (ID: 100151603) Report Abuse |
|
Yeah I haven't used TEs for like 20+ seasons now
And despite being one of the teams taking advantage of the current system I would love more roster limitations and rules to force me to manage my team differently. And thanks for sharing your 3 experiences Rome Centurions, I feel like it confirms what I was saying, it is much easier now than it used to. All this being said I feel now that I shouldn't have used specific examples in the OP as we're going to discuss those instead of whether or not we should make it harder again. I feel like we should do this first, see if there is a will in the community to make RZA harder again and if that is the case then we can discussion how to do it. If I'm in the minority again I'll just wait another few seasons to bring this up again and see how the community has evolved |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2020-08-15 19:39:48 (ID: 100151668) Report Abuse |
|
This may be getting boring but I find myself agreeing with Kanar once again. We should limit the number of players per position and make it harder to swap players around - i.e. we should have positional training. This should be quite easy to implement I would think. (I was once able to convert a LB to a QB. This should not be allowed at the flick of a switch, so to speak)
Another simple solution would be to keep bot teams strong. It is illogical that they should just collapse as soon as their coach leaves. It is also unfair to teams who have played the coached team (and lost) during the season only to see the same team easily beaten up by others later in the season. Coming up against strong bot teams would enable (especially newer) managers to properly gauge the strength of their team and to properly prepare for promotion (or be denied). I know that if I as a new manager I won 16-0 in my first season then got promoted and lost 0-16 I would be pretty devastated. That could be a cause for some to leave the game. Kanar wrote:
I would Not push for any of the 3 suggestions. But in order to slow down a little the development, I think my old suggestion of setting up a minimum of players per position and having a lower maximum would help. I would prevent intensive use of position switching training in order to maximize the training points.It will also prevent those ugly rosters with no SF, no FB or no TE (sorry Meiheisman, I know you are one of those )
The minimum would be the one defined by the depth chart. The maximum would be twice the optional number in the depth chart. For linemen, it would be the sum for the 3 positions. Ex: for OL minimum would be 5 (1+2+2) and maximum 16 (2+3+3 times 2). With those limitations, many players that are currently training on another position that the one intended would have to be switched to the later one. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-08-18 20:05:26 (ID: 100151709) Report Abuse | |
|
Make players position unchangeable after YA.
All players are specific and unchangeable dedicated positions. OL are always OL. (Actually I'd like to see OL position specific. C-G-T) WR always WR. LB always LB. etc. etc. etc. Most positions in RL are physical build/body/skill n mindset type. It's like that with a very very few rare exceptions. Reflect that here. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-08-18 20:26:00 (ID: 100151710) Report Abuse | |
|
some exceptions, cb and sf, as example
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / A Slower, More Difficult Game? | |
