Error Icon
Check how to improve security while using RedZoneAction.org
Community - American Football Management Simulator
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  2  3 4  5  6  7  >   >|  
Rating:
Rating
  Poll: Cause penalty in ticket income for managers abusing their ACs by setting all players to the same position?, Poll closed, votes: 231
141
Yes, please!
48
No, please!
42
Your turn, Master Yoda!
Poster Message
Captain Jack
posted: 2015-05-16 22:08:27 (ID: 100054437) Report Abuse
Schwabe wrote:
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.



I agree that there should be a penalty but, the financial penalty will not be enough to deter the wealthy teams. However, I did vote 'yes'.

Perhaps if as suggested by Schwabe the ACs had a limit on their effectiveness. So whatever that figure is it would be 100% for x players and then drop according to the number of players coached.

To make this more understandable let's take the example from the manual:

There is an AC coach:
This means that CP > 50 and the value used for AC-CP-Formula = CP - 40
Example: AC has 70 CP. For the training calculation, 30 CP will be used in the calculations.

So 30 CPs are used in the training calculations. Let's say that it is agreed that an AC can effectively train 5 players. Then for every player over this limit the penalty would apply. Let's say this penalty is 5 CPs per extra player. So for 6 players it would be only 25 CPs (not 30) used in the training calculation. For 7 players it would drop to 20 and so on.

The exact figures could be determined but the general principle is to reduce the coach effectiveness the more players he has to train.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Meitheisman
posted: 2015-05-16 22:38:16 (ID: 100054441) Report Abuse
Would the penalty be on the 55 (or less) men on the depth chart only or for the 70 players on the roster?
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Cassiano
posted: 2015-05-16 22:44:57 (ID: 100054443) Report Abuse
Captain Jack wrote:
The exact figures could be determined but the general principle is to reduce the coach effectiveness the more players he has to train.

I Like this idea. it actualy makes sense. but IMO teams should be able to hire more than 1AC per position.
But overall I agree with the money penalty.

Changing the natural position of a player just to benefit some bonus that they shouldn't have is wrong and we all should agree to try to avoid the exploitation of the rules.
I do that in my YA and sometimes it feel wrong, but most of them i'm not sure what position they will play (as they are still learning the game). But that shouldn't happen in the main squad.

Last edited on 2015-05-16 22:47:26 by Cassiano
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Captain Jack
posted: 2015-05-16 22:45:25 (ID: 100054444) Report Abuse
I think we probably need another thread and discussion as to what is reasonable but my gut feeling is that it should apply to all 70. In RL you would not have a squad of 55 and then a reserve of 15 DLs (plus another 20 in the YA).

So whatever solution is applied would, in my opinion, need to cover the whole 70 on the roster plus all of the YA.

Admittedly the YA is awkward because they are not maxed out on STR/SPD but it still feels odd to have all of them in one position. Maybe we do need a STR/SPD coach.

Last edited on 2015-05-16 22:47:27 by Captain Jack
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Drac32Drac
posted: 2015-05-16 22:48:45 (ID: 100054445) Report Abuse
Captain Jack wrote:
I think we probably need another thread and discussion as to what is reasonable but my gut feeling is that it should apply to all 70. In RL you would not have a squad of 55 and then a reserve of 15 DLs (plus another 20 in the YA).

So whatever solution is applied would, in my opinion, need to cover the whole 70 on the roster plus all of the YA.


I disagree in that I think that the YA issue should be handled separately from the main team.

Captain Jack wrote:
Admittedly the YA is awkward because they are not maxed out on STR/SPD but it still feels odd to have all of them in one position. Maybe we do need a STR/SPD coach.


I'd settle for just letting the HC be directly responsible for the youth training amount at a slightly reduced rate. It might need a slightly modified formula, but it certainly makes more sense than setting the entire YA to one position. Also, I am not suggesting a change to the YA points.

Last edited on 2015-05-16 22:53:32 by Drac32Drac
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Meitheisman
posted: 2015-05-16 23:09:09 (ID: 100054446) Report Abuse
Well, last page Pete said "Because we are talking about income, and YA players never play a game, it answers itself " implying that YA players would not be impacted by this rule.

Then he used the word "play" hence my question about 55 men on the DC or 70 men on the roster because technically only 55 men play.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Gambler75
posted: 2015-05-16 23:54:54 (ID: 100054448) Report Abuse
Playing on relaxed and outright tanking should get a penalty first - before attacking something like this.

How are fans okay with teams outright throwing games, but seeing a LB/CB pisses them off more?

Doesn't this actually penalize the "little guy" more as well?

Last edited on 2015-05-16 23:57:13 by Gambler75
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Meitheisman
posted: 2015-05-17 00:07:45 (ID: 100054449) Report Abuse
Good point, who are we trying to penalize here exactly? How many teams really are full of DLs? I've checked the roster of a few Elite teams and haven't seen anything like that so it doesn't seem to be a recipe for success anyway. I don't really remember playing against many teams doing that, playing CB at SF or RB at FB yeah but I've rarely seen a team full of DL. Is this really a problem in RZA? Could someone point me to a few examples please?
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Drac32Drac
posted: 2015-05-17 00:11:03 (ID: 100054450) Report Abuse
Meitheisman wrote:
Good point, who are we trying to penalize here exactly? How many teams really are full of DLs? I've checked the roster of a few Elite teams and haven't seen anything like that so it doesn't seem to be a recipe for success anyway. I don't really remember playing against many teams doing that, playing CB at SF or RB at FB yeah but I've rarely seen a team full of DL. Is this really a problem in RZA? Could someone point me to a few examples please?


Honestly, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I tried using LB's as SF's and it didn't work out very well at all. I also tried FB's as RB's and got many crazy fumbles all the time. What more penalties do we need for such a team?
Quote   Reply   Edit  
Gambler75
posted: 2015-05-17 00:41:39 (ID: 100054451) Report Abuse
Just to put my own 2 cents in.

I rushed up to G1.1 very quickly. I've been stuck there ever since, not very competitive. (.500 ish for about 4-5 seasons now)

Rather than outright tank, I moved my SF/CB to LB to try to improve them a TINY bit faster. I still have pretty solid ACs at several other positions (OL/WR), so this isn't a team with a 99 + a bunch of 52-54's.

It's probably cost me 1-2 games a season playing my entire secondary out of position. I moved my two veteran SF to their natural position to try to cut a bit of the damage on 50+ yard passes.

That said, this would be removing one of the few avenues I have to try to "catch up" a bit, short of tanking back down to 2.X - this would increase that issue, indirectly IMO.
Quote   Reply   Edit  
reply   Mark this thread unread
Navigation: |<   <   1  2  3 4  5  6  7  >   >|  
Main / Suggestions / How about when Fans dislike seeing a team full of DLs...
© 2009 - 2024 by Pete     Visit our sister game RedZoneClash.org           IPv6 disabled! Booo, you are using old style IPv4...