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 / New trait: Versatile mind Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2025-05-11 00:21:44 (ID: 100191133) Edits found: 2 Report Abuse | |
|
I wasn't clear; my bad.
What I meant is that the trait itself should give position synergy; not for it to be default. Instead of the trait giving a blanket pardon on OOP; that the trait would be specific to certain positions who already have synergy. I wouldn't want my WR to be able to play QB/LB/OL/DL random stuff; I'd rather the WR to have access to CB, SF, TE, RB something like that and not every position across the board. Hopefully that clarifys what I stated. Last edited on 2025-05-11 00:25:40 by gp-Rurik |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2025-05-11 09:30:25 (ID: 100191136) Report Abuse | |
|
Got it. But wouldn't it be better if the trait were something like 'can learn new things quickly' instead of 'has some talent for Position X as well'? From a coding perspective, the first one is relatively straightforward, while the second quickly turns into a nightmare. Plus, we’d need several of them to cover all the different positions.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2025-05-11 14:57:19 (ID: 100191139) Report Abuse | |
|
pete wrote:
Got it. But wouldn't it be better if the trait were something like 'can learn new things quickly' instead of 'has some talent for Position X as well'? From a coding perspective, the first one is relatively straightforward, while the second quickly turns into a nightmare. Plus, we’d need several of them to cover all the different positions. Definitely the first one but with the synergy of the positions in mind. I feel they should be related in some sort of way with the actual game. Like the Wildcat, Gronk and other TEs who line up in the slot; WR/CB like we saw this year. Instead of having a WR who can play every position on the field moderately well, it'd be better for him to have certain positions he can play very well as specified in the trait. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2025-05-24 15:40:33 (ID: 100191352) Report Abuse | |
|
Im not particularly bothered around the Versatile mind, but i think some more 'traits' wouldnt be a bad thing.
5% boost to Positioning (dunno what id call it) 5% boost to Agility ("Cat Like") 5% boost to all skills (Super rare "All Star" Trait) Or just keep the ones weve got - just thought id stick it out there |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2025-06-26 17:38:49 (ID: 100192158) Report Abuse | |
|
EA College Football games had the designation "Athlete" when recruiting. Basically meant this guy could plug and play where you need him, but he still had to ultimately have a position decided upon. I think making them too versatile hurts the strategy of the game. But maybe they get a free position switch until age 22 or something. They already have a very generous free switch period that functions like the athlete designation, tbh.
I'd be a fan of "logical" OOP penalties, RB to FB is less than RB to OL. FB to TE is less than FB to QB. Etc. Would then need to publish these OOPs to get a rough idea of when to use or not. But I'm not certain it would be worth the extra effort. I still think the root cause of some of these issues is the fact that 50 STR = 50 STR regardless of position. So you have to have OOP or that 50 speed DE is now a 50 speed cornerback on a whim. And they use mostly the same skills otherwise. I know it's been shut down a few times, but I do think a hard penalty to STR, SPE, AGI by base position (decided once free switch is over) would be more realistic and have similar results. Honestly, even the strongest DE in the NFL wouldn't be able to play NT but that is probably too much of a change. But making a 50 STR TE get a penalty to position switch to OL after free switch would help the OOP and reflect some minor realism. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2025-06-27 09:19:08 (ID: 100192176) Report Abuse | |
|
gccsteel wrote:
I know it's been shut down a few times, but I do think a hard penalty to STR, SPE, AGI by base position (decided once free switch is over) would be more realistic and have similar results. Honestly, even the strongest DE in the NFL wouldn't be able to play NT but that is probably too much of a change. But making a 50 STR TE get a penalty to position switch to OL after free switch would help the OOP and reflect some minor realism. Maybe I do not remember, but where did we have this kind of discussion? I would like to understand how this is meant to be executed. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2025-06-27 16:28:22 (ID: 100192197) Report Abuse | |
|
pete wrote:Maybe I do not remember, but where did we have this kind of discussion? I would like to understand how this is meant to be executed.
I played this game briefly about 5 years ago and I made the suggestion then. But it was encased in a primary suggestion of making 50 STR / 50 SPE not possible so you had some strategic decision of whether to cap the guy at 50 and suffer some minor speed loss or vice versa. And LB can't both cover WRs and defend the run effectively anymore which was my major gripe. Execution would be an additional field called "base position" which is locked after free swap period. Then position played (or changed) is modified based on conversion from base position to played position. They just all have to be penalties so you can't abuse a positive modifier (50 SPD DL and play him at CB and get a bonus modifier for example). OL -> DL would have no STR or SPD modifier since they are very similar. But moving or playing a DL to LB would get a speed penalty. Moving him back to base position would reverse the penalty but you would still get current Morale and TC penalties. You can also keep the current OOP to prevent people from not changing position to avoid the Morale and TC reset. I'd also like to see more specific base position for NT vs DT vs DE because those positions are all very different. Even if they are still all listed as DL on the roster. Like I said above, the strongest DE in the league would get obliterated trying to play NT. And the fastest NT would never be able to get around an OT. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2025-06-27 21:11:42 (ID: 100192210) Report Abuse | |
|
gccsteel wrote:
pete wrote:Maybe I do not remember, but where did we have this kind of discussion? I would like to understand how this is meant to be executed.
I played this game briefly about 5 years ago and I made the suggestion then. But it was encased in a primary suggestion of making 50 STR / 50 SPE not possible so you had some strategic decision of whether to cap the guy at 50 and suffer some minor speed loss or vice versa. And LB can't both cover WRs and defend the run effectively anymore which was my major gripe. Execution would be an additional field called "base position" which is locked after free swap period. Then position played (or changed) is modified based on conversion from base position to played position. They just all have to be penalties so you can't abuse a positive modifier (50 SPD DL and play him at CB and get a bonus modifier for example). OL -> DL would have no STR or SPD modifier since they are very similar. But moving or playing a DL to LB would get a speed penalty. Moving him back to base position would reverse the penalty but you would still get current Morale and TC penalties. You can also keep the current OOP to prevent people from not changing position to avoid the Morale and TC reset. I'd also like to see more specific base position for NT vs DT vs DE because those positions are all very different. Even if they are still all listed as DL on the roster. Like I said above, the strongest DE in the league would get obliterated trying to play NT. And the fastest NT would never be able to get around an OT. I'm in 100% agreement with this. Height and weight are arguably the greatest determining factors in NFL positions are they are not included in this game. Many players in college football are still growing and some have to change positions if they want to get drafted. Something like this would be the best way to compensate and make it a more accurate simulation. The NFL combine in general: Strength (Offense)= OL>TE>FB>RB>QB>WR Strength (Defense) = NT>DT>DE>MLB>OLB>SS>FS>CB Speed (Offense) = WR>RB>QB>TE>FB>OT>OG/C Speed (Defense) = CB>FS>SS>OLB>MLB>DE>DT>NT As for the original post, with some exceptions based on mostly offensive playing skills, the same scale could be considered to describe what used to be called a "tweener". That is, a player "in-between" positions and again, is usually determined by their height and weight. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2025-06-28 18:02:17 (ID: 100192228) Report Abuse | |
|
I have seen the bullshit they created in that other game when introducing weight and height. I was never cool with doing this, so I never did.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / New trait: Versatile mind | |
