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 / Paradise Lost: Manager gambles.. Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-08-17 15:29:00 (ID: 52804) Report Abuse |
|
SfNiner brought about a great thread in which he draws out a future dilemma and how it was that it came to be that way.
Its now season 5, many of us were here from the first two seasons, and there are no doubt quite a bit of cautionary tales that could be shared among fellow travelers (I'll get the marshmallows.. who wants to light the fire?). I would like for this thread to be where managers can speak freely about some of the gambles they have taken in the game, be it one time or strategic, and how that gamble failed in the long run. You dont have to give away strategies or the like but just general tendencies that any manager could see by simply being astute. For myself... I brought this up in Sfniner's thread.. but my one single campaign loss was in how I decided to train my players into specialist instead of being more well rounded football players. For a 5th season manager I still have quite a bit of players from my original roster (something close to 25%) and used them to build what i call the "one shot" player. Meaning he's got one job and he better do it well. This can work well when everyone else is cross training players left and right meanwhile I've got players who are extremely comfortable with their roles.. but eventually you will over pay exponentially for such a player. A certain bit of cross training is key if for no other reason than to curve the financial depression that comes with training guys too high in one single skill. Overall my M.O. from the beginning was to minimize the TM, build through the draft, promote solid youth players.. and build specialist. I only have 3 philosophies now. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-08-18 02:34:28 (ID: 52869) Report Abuse |
|
I would like to know whether there is any advantage to having a player very high in 1 skill.
As you mentioned, cost rises exponentially for players from about the high 30s skill level onward. The question - do you get an exponential advantage for a large skill discrepancy vs an opponent or is the advantage simply linear and thus not worth it? eg. lets say carrying was the exact opposite of tackling. Lets say a ball carrier had carrying of 40 and another of 50, and a LB Tackling of 30. There is a discrepancy of 10 and 20 respectively. Does the 50 break twice as many tackles as the 40, or 3 or more times as many? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Ranagol
|
posted: 2012-08-18 02:41:43 (ID: 52871) Report Abuse |
|
Nope, but he will fumble less! Carrying has nothing to do with breaking tackles...
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-08-18 02:55:05 (ID: 52873) Report Abuse |
|
Ranagol wrote:
Nope, but he will fumble less! Carrying has nothing to do with breaking tackles... Ok, so will he fumble half as much, 1/3, or..............? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2012-08-18 14:37:57 (ID: 52912) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
Ranagol wrote:
Nope, but he will fumble less! Carrying has nothing to do with breaking tackles... Ok, so will he fumble half as much, 1/3, or..............? I dont think you can put a value on it just like you cant put a value on it in real life football. Its just one of those things that happens. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-08-18 14:45:19 (ID: 52913) Report Abuse |
|
Let me rephrase - does a growing skill descrepancy between 2 players going head to head produce an exponential difference the same as wages do, or is it more linear.
Probably only the devs could answer. Not that big of a deal, just curious. If the benefit does not rise like the wage then I see little point having many players with skills around and over 40. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sneaky_minotaur
|
posted: 2012-08-18 17:44:10 (ID: 52923) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
Let me rephrase - does a growing skill descrepancy between 2 players going head to head produce an exponential difference the same as wages do, or is it more linear. Probably only the devs could answer. Not that big of a deal, just curious. If the benefit does not rise like the wage then I see little point having many players with skills around and over 40. Just a guess but I assume it is more linear. Otherwise one skill wonders really would be the way to go. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-08-18 17:46:02 (ID: 52924) Report Abuse |
|
sneaky_minotaur wrote:
Just a guess but I assume it is more linear. Otherwise one skill wonders really would be the way to go. Well it would be more attractive but the cost is still there and you could probably accomplish the same thing with a more rounded player for much less still. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-08-19 01:18:40 (ID: 52966) Report Abuse |
|
Hosh you brought up a phenomenal point and one I wanted to ask myself and just flat forgot.
What I'm wondering is do "Superstar" players make that much of a difference in comparison to how much they cost. We know today that you cant field a team of Superstar players at every position. Theres just not enough money to spend in the game... what I dont think we know is just how much an impact one Superstar player has at that position in comparison to guys who are just very good. If your avg league 2 team is college level and your avg league 1 team is pro... shouldnt the Superstar player put up BIG numbers vs the league 2 team? We see it in college where the NFL caliber guys just murder the pack so if the equivalent is here we should see similar results. If thats not the case then even more I believe that guys who are in the "Talent is the most overrated value" in the game are correct. The money it costs to max out a player wouldnt really be worth it if that guy makes relative standard impact on the field. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Paradise Lost: Manager gambles.. | |
