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 / Maximum and minimum players per position Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 7 8 9 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-03-25 08:48:27 (ID: 100071408) Report Abuse |
|
Hi there!
In my oppinion, a team should not be able to have all his players (or almost) in the same position. I know this topic has been discussed in the past, but I still see the point in Pete's To Do list and I actualy want to propose something else on it as it seems to concern only the games. However I can not find the initial topic so I hope it has not been proposed before... So currently it is possible to have a team full of players at the same position. This is not reallistic and it is mostly used to abused the training bonus from a coach and facilities. What I propose is that a team must have a least a minimum number of players at some positions at all time based on the playbook formation. Each formation in the PB has at least: 5 OL, 3 DL, 1 QB, 1 WR, 2 CB, 1 LB. Also there is at least either 1 RB or FB, 2 WR or 1WR+2TE, 1K or 1P. So to sumerize I would be OK to force managers to have in their team: - no more than 20 players at the same position - 11 Offensive players at least - 11 Defensive players at least - 1 QB at least - 5 OL at least - 2 WR or 1WR and 2 TE at least - 1 RB or 1 FB at least - 3 DL at least - 1 LB at least - 2 CB at least - 1K or 1P at least To do that, 2 options on paper (I do not know how it works to code them): 1/ If a manager tries to break one ot these rules, an error message appears saying it is not possible due to minimum/maximum players limitation per position. 2/ On each financial update, the team is fined 500K per violation. My preferrence goes for solution 1 as it is still possible to change the positions back before and after the update. I am looking forward to get your feedback. 
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
DonWilliam
|
posted: 2016-03-25 09:49:55 (ID: 100071414) Report Abuse |
|
I totally agree.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-25 10:37:10 (ID: 100071420) Report Abuse | |
|
We had this before, and I made a suggestion that was refused. So the story is over for me, sorry
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-03-25 10:46:21 (ID: 100071421) Report Abuse |
|
Too bad.
And what about the point still in the To Do list (about the games)? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-03-25 12:28:09 (ID: 100071428) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
We had this before, and I made a suggestion that was refused. So the story is over for me, sorry Is it worth looking at your suggestion again? There may be more in favour this time as it seems there are a number who fell the current system of &0 DL or OL is ridiculous. Or maybe just increase the OOP so that it becomes totally detrimental. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2016-03-25 12:34:59 (ID: 100071429) Report Abuse |
|
My biggest problem With this. As I run no TE or RB playbook. SO why do I need place holder because I chose to run this way.
Plus some changing would need to be made with training on the no coach position before I would support a cap on any position. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-03-25 12:43:15 (ID: 100071431) Report Abuse |
|
andrew2scott2 wrote:
My biggest problem With this. As I run no TE or RB playbook. SO why do I need place holder because I chose to run this way. Plus some changing would need to be made with training on the no coach position before I would support a cap on any position. I wouldn't necessarily agree with the mandate that each team must have x RB, TE etc but would like to see a reality check on position. To me it would seem easiest just to make the OOP the controlling factor. So there would be, for example, a relatively minor penalty for playing a TE at RB but it should be impossible, for example, to play an OL at SF. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2016-03-25 13:04:34 (ID: 100071432) Report Abuse |
|
Captain Jack wrote:
andrew2scott2 wrote:
My biggest problem With this. As I run no TE or RB playbook. SO why do I need place holder because I chose to run this way. Plus some changing would need to be made with training on the no coach position before I would support a cap on any position. I wouldn't necessarily agree with the mandate that each team must have x RB, TE etc but would like to see a reality check on position. To me it would seem easiest just to make the OOP the controlling factor. So there would be, for example, a relatively minor penalty for playing a TE at RB but it should be impossible, for example, to play an OL at SF. I would be more than Happy to agree to stronger OOP that slide form little effect to very strong base on what position being played by the out of position |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-03-25 13:47:12 (ID: 100071434) Report Abuse |
|
andrew2scott2 wrote:
My biggest problem With this. As I run no TE or RB playbook. SO why do I need place holder because I chose to run this way. Plus some changing would need to be made with training on the no coach position before I would support a cap on any position. I totaly agree with you. Thai is why i proposed a minimum of either 1 RB or 1 FB, not both. Like this every team kind have only RB (like in single back big) or only FB (shotgun 2WR) or both. Sorry if it was not clear, english is my second language only. 
Same for WR. It is either 2 WR (like in flexbone) or 1 WR + 2 TE (Big I), not both. And more generaly 11 offense players and 11 defense players. But Pete's decision seems taken. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-25 13:51:00 (ID: 100071435) Report Abuse | |
|
Fincyril wrote:
But Pete's decision seems taken. Just to make this clear: I as all for limiting the rosters and positions. But the proposal was denied by a huge number of managers in that poll. So I decided to keep it as it is. Now I am not the one bringing same things up again and again... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 7 8 9 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Maximum and minimum players per position | |
