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 / How about when Fans dislike seeing a team full of DLs... Search Forum | |||||||
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 4 5 6 7 > >| | |||||||
| Rating: | |||||||
Poll: Cause penalty in ticket income for managers abusing their ACs by setting all players to the same position?,
Poll closed,
votes: 231
|
|||||||
| Poster | Message | ||||||
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2015-05-16 16:33:12 (ID: 100054369) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
JonnyP wrote:
I voted no, not because it's an exploit which should not be changed - it should!... but because there are better ways to discourage it. Maybe have experience in some way linked to positions played? For example, my current QB was drafted as a QB, spent several seasons as backup QB, before I switched him to CB to fill a hole. Then my star QB retired, and I was not able to get a suitable replacement, so I switched the CB back to QB. Under the experience penalty suggestion he would take 2 hits - the second hit for simply returning to his original position (after about 5 seasons as a CB). So my suggestion - individual positional experience. It might be complicated, but each player would gain experience for their current position - giving them multiple experience stats. Too complex? Maybe just making the fans unhappy would be simpler   Good idea.
Some teams have so much money, they would not care about the penalty. Another penalty could be to limit the Moral and TC to 70% or less. Last edited on 2015-05-16 16:34:10 by Buffalo |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2015-05-16 16:44:53 (ID: 100054370) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
JonnyP wrote:
I voted no, not because it's an exploit which should not be changed - it should!... but because there are better ways to discourage it. Maybe have experience in some way linked to positions played? For example, my current QB was drafted as a QB, spent several seasons as backup QB, before I switched him to CB to fill a hole. Then my star QB retired, and I was not able to get a suitable replacement, so I switched the CB back to QB. Under the experience penalty suggestion he would take 2 hits - the second hit for simply returning to his original position (after about 5 seasons as a CB). So my suggestion - individual positional experience. It might be complicated, but each player would gain experience for their current position - giving them multiple experience stats. Too complex? Maybe just making the fans unhappy would be simpler Exactly, the example you describe is what's unrealistic and should be changed. An EXP penalty sounds really good for that. A financial penalty means nothing to many managers while an EXP penalty would make you think twice before switching positions. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Schwabe
|
posted: 2015-05-16 17:38:36 (ID: 100054379) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
I'm for it, and this should be extended to all gave away games.
Moreover, I am also for the proposed rule in that an AC can only train a certain number of players (incl. YA) effectively and subsides with more players in the training success. Third, I think it's still a good idea to tie the EXP to positions or to add a penalty when changing position.  |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2015-05-16 17:44:18 (ID: 100054382) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
for those saying no because of "not enough penalty", please vote yes as well. We can have further polls if a majority is for penalties. the income penalty could be just a first step...
|
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2015-05-16 17:50:25 (ID: 100054385) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
pete wrote:
for those saying no because of "not enough penalty", please vote yes as well. We can have further polls if a majority is for penalties. the income penalty could be just a first step... I can't vote yes to something I disagree with. I don't agree with a financial penalty but I agree with an EXP penalty. If the question was "Should there be an extra penalty?" I'd vote yes but that's not the question being asked so I voted no. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2015-05-16 17:53:21 (ID: 100054387) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
Of course, if you are not OK with the financial penalty...no doubt
|
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Llana
|
posted: 2015-05-16 19:20:34 (ID: 100054415) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
I voted no for 2 reasons
one: I think money is the wrong "encouragement" two: for me there are a lot of open points: - is this limited to the senior team or the YA as well. - where is the limit? Can I 'distribute' my YA players over 2-3 coaches or 5-6 without penalty? - what's with the fact, that I dont have enough AC for all positions? Do I get a penalty, if I have no safety coach in my AC squad? this vote is way too early. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2015-05-16 19:27:12 (ID: 100054418) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
Llana wrote:
I voted no for 2 reasons one: I think money is the wrong "encouragement" two: for me there are a lot of open points: - is this limited to the senior team or the YA as well. - where is the limit? Can I 'distribute' my YA players over 2-3 coaches or 5-6 without penalty? - what's with the fact, that I dont have enough AC for all positions? Do I get a penalty, if I have no safety coach in my AC squad? this vote is way too early. Common sense... Money is the right thing, because it affects the team on a very tough point Because we are talking about income, and YA players never play a game, it answers itself 
No limits, a threshold: no players at a certain O/D position? Who cares about the ACs, it is about the players |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2015-05-16 21:11:10 (ID: 100054429) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
I agaree with earlier posts that it seems okay to do this in the Yoth Academy.
I'd be perfectly happy if teams could not play any players out of position at all. If you are training 53 DLs, then you have 53 DLs on your depth chart. Let the Game Engine pick QBs, RBs etc, just as it does now if you have both QBs injured in a game. "It's a integrity of the game issue." - - Roger Goodell Last edited on 2015-05-16 21:13:06 by Lee1950 |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Brewnoe
|
posted: 2015-05-16 21:22:36 (ID: 100054432) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Llana wrote:
this vote is way too early. 1. Form already hits ticket sales for teams that "screw their games" Would increasing the form penalty be worth a shot before slapping on a band aid? (From a quick eyeball test it looks like attendance for an 0-16 1.1 team is very similar to a 16-0 2.x team) 2. Where's the cutoff to avoid the penalty? If you just have to be under 100% at one position, it changes nothing. If you just have to be under 50% or 33%, you're just making them buy a couple more high-end AC's Any cutoff much below 25% starts to hit teams that are only trying to use their senior team build depth at one of the positions where you need more players (OL, WR, DL, LB, etc.) Comment on the YA discussion - DonWilliam wrote:
It is just an exploit. I have decided not to do it long ago. Because i just don't want my players in the YA to be all LBs (for example). But atm. this is the most efficient strategy for the YA... If you want to call using one position in the YA an exploit you can, but it's one that's pretty much necessary due to the uncertainty in the physical caps. I think the solution there would be either 1) add a strength and conditioning AC that hits only strength, speed, agility and PC. There would probably need to be some tweaks to the CP system or that AC would need to be separate from the the 550 CP limit (or we need more low-end coaches hitting the market so we can squeeze in an extra) 2) remove coaches from YAcalculations except for the bonus points and Youth pull bonuses and have the YA training effectiveness determined solely by the level of the YA and the players' TW |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| reply Mark this thread unread | |||||||
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 4 5 6 7 > >| | |||||||
| Main / Suggestions / How about when Fans dislike seeing a team full of DLs... | |||||||
