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 / restructure of coaches Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-05-16 06:41:41 (ID: 40331) Report Abuse |
|
It seems that this has come up before but I don't know if anything came of it or if it was denied.
I am aware that there are 11 current AC's and 500 cp available so that you can't have high level coaches everywhere. 1st my reason against the current set up: All players on a football team have an AC they deal with. It is strange to have players not have an assistant coach to report to. The current setup prohibits all players having an AC. I understand the reasoning, but... 2nd, my proposal: Current is one AC per position type (QB, RB, FB, WR, TE, OL, DL, LB, CB, SF, sp team). We will keep the AC's now that are realistic in NFL (QB, OL, DL, LB, Sp team). So that is 5 AC's. Now we will consolidate RB and FB to just RB's. Name stays the same but it combines both of them. We are now up to 6 AC. CB and SF should really fall under the "secondary coach" title. Combine those two. We are now up to 7 AC. Now there are a few different things we could do from here... Have one AC for WR and one for TE, bringing us up to 9 AC. Then there could be a choice between either selecting a Def Coord or Offense coord for a VERY slight off or def bonus in game. or... Have 1 AC for wr and 1 for te and leave it at that with 9 ac total. So that is 9 ac with 500 points to split up. That would be an average of 55 cp per AC. This provides the ability for people to diversify like now, but also the option to have a true balanced approach. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-05-16 06:45:32 (ID: 40333) Report Abuse | |
|
Just a note: this makes the Coaches useless IMO. The idea of introducing coaches was to have differences from teams to teams.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2012-05-16 06:47:00 (ID: 40335) Report Abuse |
|
We had a very long discussion on the teststage about the coaches. How many positions should we have, how many CPs .....
I think the result was a good combination of many ideas and after one season I think the effect of the ACs is great. The different ways of creating your coaching staff, lead to different styles of the teams. The Leeds Celtics have a very consequent way with the focus on the performance on the field and my focus was on the training. The result is that Leeds is the League champion and I'm the trainingchampion. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-05-16 06:54:59 (ID: 40338) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Just a note: this makes the Coaches useless IMO. The idea of introducing coaches was to have differences from teams to teams. I know you have dealt with plenty of...borderline hostile discussions as of late. I want to start off by saying I am in no way trying to do that, but I do want to ask a question and provide a reasoning. I am not clear how it makes AC's useless. My reason for the change is that now you can have at best 10 coaches at 50 exactly. It is more likely the best you can really have is 9 coaches with 55 each. My proposal still keeps with at best 9 coaches at 55, but you can still diversify and ignore a position if you choose to and focus somewhere else. But now there is a coach for each player. I don't think that people are going to wholesale change based on this, but for those that are more balanced this would more accurately represent a balance approach. I personally wouldn't do this as I like my coaches a lot. I do think it strange to not have just a secondary coach or just a Back coach. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-05-16 06:57:36 (ID: 40339) Report Abuse | |
|
That was the element that makes teams different from each other...you have to hire coaches for success, and you cannot hire coaches for all positions. If we allow to have basic coaches for each position - no matter of the numbers and CP, we kill a part of the gameplay here, IMO
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-05-16 08:15:09 (ID: 40345) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
My reason for the change is that now you can have at best 10 coaches at 50 exactly. It is more likely the best you can really have is 9 coaches with 55 each. This statement is actually incorrect. There are NO coaches with CP of 50 ....if coaches with CP of 50 existed then you could have all 11 Coaching slots filled with coaches of 50 points each. Check my team and you'll see that the max coaches you can have is 10 coaches out of 11 with an average CP of 55 points each. I disagree with your proposal for two reasons .... (a) Everybody who currently has coaches thought long and hard about which "road to take" on the coaching strategy front. I made my decisions based upon the rules in place when I made the decision, to fundamentally change the rules now is totally unfair to those who currently have coaches and a big advantage to those who have no coaches and can amend their strategy with no pain (financial or otherwise). (b) This one has got "Height and Weight" written all over it ... i.e. I think you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I currently think that the current "Coaching Conundrum" is an absolute work of genius ... the reason ? There are so many coaching options/strategies/routes to take that it will be difficult to tell for a long time (if ever) whether you've made the 'correct' decision. I like the fact that a manager has to make difficult decisions, and RZA Coaching strategy is one of the most difficult of all. Sorry Sfniner, I respect your opinions on plenty of subjects, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-05-16 20:06:45 (ID: 40462) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
sfniner08 wrote:
My reason for the change is that now you can have at best 10 coaches at 50 exactly. It is more likely the best you can really have is 9 coaches with 55 each. This statement is actually incorrect. There are NO coaches with CP of 50 ....if coaches with CP of 50 existed then you could have all 11 Coaching slots filled with coaches of 50 points each. Check my team and you'll see that the max coaches you can have is 10 coaches out of 11 with an average CP of 55 points each. I disagree with your proposal for two reasons .... (a) Everybody who currently has coaches thought long and hard about which "road to take" on the coaching strategy front. I made my decisions based upon the rules in place when I made the decision, to fundamentally change the rules now is totally unfair to those who currently have coaches and a big advantage to those who have no coaches and can amend their strategy with no pain (financial or otherwise). (b) This one has got "Height and Weight" written all over it ... i.e. I think you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I currently think that the current "Coaching Conundrum" is an absolute work of genius ... the reason ? There are so many coaching options/strategies/routes to take that it will be difficult to tell for a long time (if ever) whether you've made the 'correct' decision. I like the fact that a manager has to make difficult decisions, and RZA Coaching strategy is one of the most difficult of all. Sorry Sfniner, I respect your opinions on plenty of subjects, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Everyone has good reasons for their opinions on this. I'm with SFniner though. Pete i think your wrong in that if you allow managers to fundamentally have coaches that cover every position that it will detract from the individual nature and custom setup of a team. [customery simulation/reality intro] blah blah.. so as you can see all teams in major levels of competition have coaches that cover every position and yet not all teams' strategies are equal or performances on the field. A heavier weight on CP= high performance could greatly constitute a difference in team customization without the feeling that you are basically neglecting a whole side of the field. An addition... if I'm not mistaken football preparation is pretty much divided by the individual coaches (the actual player development), Off/Def coordinator (gameplanner), and HC (overall tempo, overall strategy, culture of team). You can cover all bases of team individuality by allowing managers to focus on an aspect instead of angle of neglecting an aspect. I think thats what SFniner is getting at. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-05-16 20:16:35 (ID: 40463) Report Abuse | |
|
I think now we are talking on different topics, both named Coaches.
You are talking about to change Coaches to make it more like reality. That is not the goal of the Coaches I implemented. My Coaches are there to add another level of differences between teams. And I am afraid we can't have both at the same time. Did I cover your thinking the right way? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-05-16 20:31:07 (ID: 40466) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
I think now we are talking on different topics, both named Coaches. You are talking about to change Coaches to make it more like reality. That is not the goal of the Coaches I implemented. My Coaches are there to add another level of differences between teams. And I am afraid we can't have both at the same time. Did I cover your thinking the right way? I think thats the object in real life as well. Each coach brings something unique to the table all starting from the top which is the overall philosophy of the HC. What I and I think Sfniner is suggesting is instead of relying on us as managers to choose a position(s) in which we dont have a coach.. we focus on team strengths from the point of view that we allow for the stronger coaches to have a greater impact on a team. Every player will have atleast one coach between him and the HC. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-05-17 08:47:48 (ID: 40618) Report Abuse | |
|
It is not clear to me how we can reach both goals in one solution. This is not meant to be a NO to the suggestions, I just try to understand it.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / restructure of coaches | |
