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 / Rookie Area / DL madness Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 5 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-11-04 14:50:52 (ID: 66290) Report Abuse |
|
This is a simple consequence of customizable players.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
IdRatherFlyFish
|
posted: 2012-11-04 15:28:16 (ID: 66298) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:
The OOPP has to be the same for all positions, otherwise it just basically destroys the sense of having ACs for position. This is not a In-Real-Life-It-Is-That-Way-Thing, it's a Here-It-Is-Needed-For-Game-Balance-Thing. pete wrote:
@Fish:This means nothing else than playing with a load of DLs on the DC to spread them across the defense is ok...in real life I would agree, but here we other "conditions" - Edit: as Jack pointed out. However, I get where you are coming from... @Jack - - then we need to change the way AC's work. Such as, if the players listed position is SF, and they are currently playing CB - they get no in-game bonuses from their Position Coach. @Pete - - If all you are trying to do is stop people from gaming the system, then dont even allow players to play out of position. Then there is no worry about a penalty, or coaching bonuses. I still think the best thing is to have OOPPs that are dependent on the players natural position, and the position you are asking them to play. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
shimauma
|
posted: 2012-11-04 15:46:51 (ID: 66300) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:
The OOPP has to be the same for all positions, otherwise it just basically destroys the sense of having ACs for position. This is not a In-Real-Life-It-Is-That-Way-Thing, it's a Here-It-Is-Needed-For-Game-Balance-Thing. Sorry but what is ACs? So many abbrevations in this discussion 
EDIT: Oh, Assistant/Position Coach? Last edited on 2012-11-04 15:47:38 by shimauma |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Monkey
|
posted: 2012-11-04 16:02:16 (ID: 66303) Report Abuse |
|
shimauma wrote:
jack6 wrote:
The OOPP has to be the same for all positions, otherwise it just basically destroys the sense of having ACs for position. This is not a In-Real-Life-It-Is-That-Way-Thing, it's a Here-It-Is-Needed-For-Game-Balance-Thing. Sorry but what is ACs? So many abbrevations in this discussion
EDIT: Oh, Assistant/Position Coach? yeah assistant coach |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2012-11-04 17:00:31 (ID: 66316) Report Abuse |
|
Here my toughts of increasing the OOP penalty.
As I understood the OOP-right, than all skills are lowerd by 25%. Does this make sense? Loose a RB his Speed, if he play FB? Would a CB tackle worse, if he play SF? Loos a LB his INT if he play as DL? I think in reality tactical skills and the team chemisty is lowered, if a player play not at his original position. I would have no problem to lower VIS and POS by 50% or 75%, but it make no sense to lower physical skills, tackling, blocking, catching .... I think the impact of low tactical skills would be high enough. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Ranagol
|
posted: 2012-11-04 17:05:04 (ID: 66318) Report Abuse |
|
AFAIK physical skills don't get lowered, neither does INT
Still what you said is true, and I agree. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-11-04 17:14:39 (ID: 66320) Report Abuse |
|
Again, if you don't make the OOPP great enough, then here's the tactics -
HC ~ 99 QB AC ~ 99 TE AC ~ 99 LB AC ~ 99 RB or FB AC ~ 99 (optional) After a few seasons training, all your players are so good that they have all overcome the OOPP. Also, you could later put all your players in their ideal positions, get the right ACs and make a run for a title doing so.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-11-04 17:35:08 (ID: 66325) Report Abuse | |
|
hosh13 wrote:
Again, if you don't make the OOPP great enough, then here's the tactics - HC ~ 99 QB AC ~ 99 TE AC ~ 99 LB AC ~ 99 RB or FB AC ~ 99 (optional) After a few seasons training, all your players are so good that they have all overcome the OOPP. Also, you could later put all your players in their ideal positions, get the right ACs and make a run for a title doing so. Please be aware that this combination would cost you something around 50 mio+ per year for coaches. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-11-04 17:36:11 (ID: 66327) Report Abuse | |
|
IdRatherFlyFish wrote:
@Jack - - then we need to change the way AC's work. Such as, if the players listed position is SF, and they are currently playing CB - they get no in-game bonuses from their Position Coach. @Pete - - If all you are trying to do is stop people from gaming the system, then dont even allow players to play out of position. Then there is no worry about a penalty, or coaching bonuses. I still think the best thing is to have OOPPs that are dependent on the players natural position, and the position you are asking them to play. And that's hw it is, a SF playing CB doesn't get the SF bonus and gets a OOPP on top. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
philiom
|
posted: 2012-11-04 18:04:10 (ID: 66332) Report Abuse |
|
can't you just limit how many guys an ac can give his coaching bonus too??
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 5 > >| | |
| Main / Rookie Area / DL madness | |
