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 / rule clarification Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 8 9 10 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2017-05-07 16:17:01 (ID: 100103506) Report Abuse | |
|
I think that your opponents, like me in your first season in 2.2, are not troubled at all if you decide to lose in blatant ways.
OF course the other non-opponents teams of your league have all the rights to be upset, since the tanking team is giving away matches favouring some teams for wildcard rush and that's is unfair. This is where league commissioners (aka Pete) have to intervene and stop some to spoil the fun of many. And please don't call it long-term strategy, because there is nothing strategic in losing to grant a single first pick each season, because in the long run you cannot have a competitive team of first picks, since each player has a career of maximum 35-19 = 16 seasons. In that timeframe you are not able to collect a winning team with only draftees. IMHO in the long run it is better to learn how to prepare a winning playbook, instead of relying only on first choices training. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-05-07 16:59:34 (ID: 100103507) Report Abuse |
|
Yashin wrote:
I think that your opponents, like me in your first season in 2.2, are not troubled at all if you decide to lose in blatant ways. OF course the other non-opponents teams of your league have all the rights to be upset, since the tanking team is giving away matches favouring some teams for wildcard rush and that's is unfair. This is where league commissioners (aka Pete) have to intervene and stop some to spoil the fun of many. And please don't call it long-term strategy, because there is nothing strategic in losing to grant a single first pick each season, because in the long run you cannot have a competitive team of first picks, since each player has a career of maximum 35-19 = 16 seasons. In that timeframe you are not able to collect a winning team with only draftees. IMHO in the long run it is better to learn how to prepare a winning playbook, instead of relying only on first choices training. 1. It's not 1 pick but 3 as there are 3 rounds not 1. You pick high every round not just the first. 2. If there is an outcry of effecting playoff race where is this outrage when the bots are simply automated tankers? 3. When tanking against a bot you can not effect a human or playoff race. It does make a good statement as to what one's opinion is of bots and you can see the community get their panties in a wad over losing to a bot. 4. In addition to 3 draft picks each season, not 1, there can be a substantial boost to exp. and that can be targeted to specific players. 5. It's fun to hear Johnny P's outrage at tanking against a bot. As you can see there are a ton of long term advantages to tanking against a bot. I didn't even mention Finciryl or Captain Jack. You just can't get entertainment like this anywhere. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-05-07 19:18:48 (ID: 100103515) Report Abuse | |
|
thomastem wrote:
2. If there is an outcry of effecting playoff race where is this outrage when the bots are simply automated tankers? I honestly believe the real reason why people don't like tanking is because it annoys them when a team ends up doing well after tanking, it's a psychological irritation. No one moans that the nature of the league set-up means there's imbalance in schedules, divisions and conferences which leads me to believe that the "it affects playoffs" reason is bollocks and only used cuz the real reason sounds like whining! I don't like ridiculous tanking (field goal attempt every play sort of thing) cuz it just seems stupid and spoils some of the escapist realism for me, if that happened in real life the league, press and fans would tear them to pieces! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-05-07 20:25:34 (ID: 100103524) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
thomastem wrote:
1. It's not 1 pick but 3 as there are 3 rounds not 1. You pick high every round not just the first. A player that can really be chosen in the position and with top tier skills is only in the first round, the other two you are forced to take what is left, even in 2.x with lot of bots drafting. If you want to build a powerhouse out of drafting, only the first choice could be worth the humiliation, other two are gambles. thomastem wrote:2. If there is an outcry of effecting playoff race where is this outrage when the bots are simply automated tankers?
Bots lose because they don't have the team and the management to have decent players and coaches. It sounds reasonable when the owner quits. Tankers have, theoretically, the team to try to win, but they do any effort to lose. IMHO the situation is completely different. thomastem wrote:3. When tanking against a bot you can not effect a human or playoff race. It does make a good statement as to what one's opinion is of bots and you can see the community get their panties in a wad over losing to a bot.
Tanking vs bots ... seriously ? Do you have any pride, guys ? If I were one of the fans, I'd wait for you out of your house with rotten tomatoes. thomastem wrote:4. In addition to 3 draft picks each season, not 1, there can be a substantial boost to exp. and that can be targeted to specific players.
Exp is as important as many other factors, but it is the same exp you'd gain winning. Focusing it on some (few) players doesn't help your team to become a powerhouse. thomastem wrote:5. It's fun to hear Johnny P's outrage at tanking against a bot.
thomastem wrote:As you can see there are a ton of long term advantages to tanking against a bot. I didn't even mention Finciryl or Captain Jack. You just can't get entertainment like this anywhere.
I wait for some hevily-tanking team to show us all their exceptional results, before changing my mind about blatant losing. Last edited on 2017-05-07 20:28:21 by Yashin |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
frankie nice boy
|
posted: 2017-05-07 21:08:56 (ID: 100103528) Report Abuse |
|
Stanford87 wrote:
frankie nice boy wrote:
I play RZA since S8 and till now I never played relaxed, not even a single friendly match. I think it's a better choice to field your reserves playing normal, so they can gain some experience still keeping up a competitive team to a certain extent. But I don't want get rid of any option, contrarily I would like to have even more options to play, more choices and more differentiated opportunities. A richest game is a better one, not a "mutilated" game. Even worse is to mutilate a game because of cheaters and misfeasor. I suppose everyone is engaged in a sport management game has also a sporting philosophy and way of life, I know I am ingenuous in this regard...I want to win every single match or at least give my best and ruin my opponent's plans. IMHO this is the way to play the game! Also take into account that cheaters and sly ones are able to speedily exploit any loophole, so penalise all the managers because of few ones isn't for sure a good idea. Instead kick them out, it's a far better solution lose such harmful people. I think you're confusing long term strategies with missing passion to win games here. I guess nobody starts playing RZA with the goal to loose as many games as possible, but players are willing to sacrifice short term for the sake of long term achievements. In this regard it's vaild to say that tanking is just a extreme form of rebuilding, as it is no different than selling all your players, buying a "rookie squad" and saving all the incoming money. So a player who owns 40 2* players but has $1 billion in his bank account is also tanking, because he is not fielding the best team possible. No, tanking isn't an extreme form of rebuilding, an extreme form of rebuilding is leaving your team to become bot and then refound a new one. In this way at least you can reduce the negative effects that your choice bring on the other managers. Anyway cycles do exist, I saw many strong teams changing radically their rosters and then, after few seasons, returning as strong as before. You can't confuse a weak roster with tank, tank equals to cheating and voluntarily falsify a match. In real life this wouldn't be admitted, why should we? Maybe a manager may have different purposes, for example to grow youngsters and then he can't be competitive in the short term. This is a legitimate way to play. Stanford87 wrote:
Bringing this thought to an end it's also valid to say that every RZA player who owns more money than he needs to get through the offseason is tanking, because he is not fielding the best team possible. Serious, did you ever hear the word "savings" in economics? It's obvious to save money for future investments (buy new players, improve facilities, YA etc.), but if your only goal is to become a billionaire you win nothing in this game. And not only you win nothing, but maybe you induce the good Pete to introduce a new supertax to constrast such a malicious accumulation of money and I don't want to see also my savings being penalised because of your misbehavior. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
gabriel06
|
posted: 2017-05-07 21:41:55 (ID: 100103530) Report Abuse |
|
can someone give the above poster a medal for his reply.
brilliantly said and absolutely spot on.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-05-07 22:08:38 (ID: 100103532) Edits found: 3 Report Abuse |
|
There is a difference between a Basketball team playing its scrubs to get more ping pong balls and this:
Watch the exciting game on YouTube If it gets you banned from the sport, you've probably crossed the line. Last edited on 2017-05-07 22:15:59 by Rock777 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
thomastem
|
posted: 2017-05-08 01:44:23 (ID: 100103537) Report Abuse |
|
Yashin wrote:
I wait for some hevily-tanking team to show us all their exceptional results, before changing my mind about blatant losing. Exceptional? How about above average or substantially better than your own results? Rock or Buddy Ryan can come on here and confirm that my tanking has been despised in the past. I got here mid season 18. None of the trophies in my case are from friendly tournaments. You are vastly understating the value of picks and exp. If you compared what the 2.1 pick can get you on average on the TM compared to the 2.30 do you really think over time the value difference is a crap shoot? It's not. Also taking out and resting all 5 star exp vets and playing young future stars both on offense and defense, both ways, is not the same exp gain as playing best lineup to win that game. Just taking a core of 5 getting 150 snaps a game times 6-8 games a season is substantial. Further your 5 star vets do not need as much PC training for upcoming critical games and more training can be dedicated to skills for them. As for the point on bots being very realistic... if NFL teams took all of the players on a team when an owner had to retire in the middle of the season and flew them to space to blow them all out of an airlock erasing there existence and then went to grammar schools to recruit 5th graders to play for that same team then, you would have bot teams being realistic to real life. Hopefully this example demonstrates how absurd stating bots are realistic when taking over for an owner that goes inactive after a season starts. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-05-08 14:23:42 (ID: 100103569) Report Abuse |
|
Yes, thomastem is a good example of success through tanking. And he wasn't banned by the Badminton World Federation.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
gabriel06
|
posted: 2017-05-08 14:46:00 (ID: 100103570) Report Abuse |
|
He wouldn't have had anything like the success he has had if he was playing Admirals football....hell Rock, even you would be pretty dominant in Thunder 1.1!
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 8 9 10 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / rule clarification | |
