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: |< < 1 3 7 8 9 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-03-25 14:00:35 (ID: 100071436) Report Abuse |
|
God damn democraty!
  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-03-25 14:03:20 (ID: 100071438) Report Abuse |
|
Fincyril wrote:
God damn democraty! ... but two things about democracy is that a) the majority is not always right b) opinions change so there is still hope. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-25 14:06:54 (ID: 100071439) Report Abuse | |
|
This was the discussion, including the poll
I was walking through all the pages again now...and it seem it could happen a little different than I thought it would be cool. I will spend some time and coming up with a new idea, where there is no poll, but discussion only. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-03-25 14:53:46 (ID: 100071441) Report Abuse |
|
I feel like the suggestions we voted on and this one are very different.
The original question we voted on was "Cause penalty in ticket income for managers abusing their ACs by setting all players to the same position?" which is different from the suggestion to have minimum (or maximum) number of players per position. I feel like limiting the number of players at one position makes more sense. It'd be like saying "one coach cannot train more than 20 players so if you have 21 DL one of them won't train." |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-25 18:02:05 (ID: 100071473) Report Abuse | |
|
Fincyril wrote:
God damn democraty! That's it. You are free to say what you want but... you are not the ruler. Having "at least 1" player in a position would mean managers would not have the right to choose what O-formation they want to play that suits their strategy, as regards to their preference, rooster, development (TM for exemple), etc... There could be something like this : If a player is found out of position then depth chart will be ignored and for each player out of position a random player will be picked from the roster. A punter would play as QB, a RB would play as DL etc... Maybe adding a notification on each training u p d a t e so that the manager does not need to complain... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JohnnyAce
|
posted: 2016-03-25 18:10:57 (ID: 100071474) Report Abuse |
|
the way maxithlon does it:
the more players being trained by an AC, the less efficient the training is. So, for example, a DL coach training 6 or 7 guys is just fine. But the same coach training 12 guys trains at 80% efficiency...something like that. I think this is a cool system. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-03-25 19:09:10 (ID: 100071476) Report Abuse |
|
Drogon wrote:
Having "at least 1" player in a position would mean managers would not have the right to choose what O-formation they want to play that suits their strategy, as regards to their preference, rooster, development (TM for exemple), etc... I agree. That's why I don't think requiring a minimum number of players per position is a good idea but a maximum number would be OK I think. So you build your offense however you want (no TE, no FB, no RB etc...) but you can't have 30 WR on your team. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-03-25 19:33:25 (ID: 100071478) Report Abuse |
|
@Drogon & Meithesman: I think you misunderstood my proposition. I am not talking about the depthchart. You can do wathever you want in it. I am talking about the full roster (70 players max).
In this roster, you must respect the rules I proposed. That is why I am not talking about OLB/MLB, OC/OG/OT but only LB and OL. You can have 5 OC in your depth chart, I do not care. But you must have 5 OL. Moreover the minimum player I propose allows to each manager to pick any formation and play only this one if they want. For example, that is why I am not talking about minimum on Safeties because the Goaline defense does not have any. This is also why I proposed to have either 1 RB or one FB (but not both) in order a manager can only run Single back or Shotgun. Your counter proposition make sense, but for me it is a seperate one (and I would vote for it). It concerns the game performance: a manager puting a DL in OL position will play worse. But the manager will still abuse the training system thanks to a great DL coach and the appropriate facilities. This is this part I propose to deal with. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-03-25 19:38:15 (ID: 100071479) Report Abuse |
|
JohnnyAce wrote:
the way maxithlon does it: the more players being trained by an AC, the less efficient the training is. So, for example, a DL coach training 6 or 7 guys is just fine. But the same coach training 12 guys trains at 80% efficiency...something like that. I think this is a cool system. It could be a great idea too.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-03-25 19:52:54 (ID: 100071481) Report Abuse |
|
Fincyril wrote:
@Drogon & Meithesman: I think you misunderstood my proposition. I am not talking about the depthchart. You can do wathever you want in it. I am talking about the full roster (70 players max). In this roster, you must respect the rules I proposed. That is why I am not talking about OLB/MLB, OC/OG/OT but only LB and OL. You can have 5 OC in your depth chart, I do not care. But you must have 5 OL. Moreover the minimum player I propose allows to each manager to pick any formation and play only this one if they want. For example, that is why I am not talking about minimum on Safeties because the Goaline defense does not have any. This is also why I proposed to have either 1 RB or one FB (but not both) in order a manager can only run Single back or Shotgun. Your counter proposition make sense, but for me it is a seperate one (and I would vote for it). It concerns the game performance: a manager puting a DL in OL position will play worse. But the manager will still abuse the training system thanks to a great DL coach and the appropriate facilities. This is this part I propose to deal with. Yes I understood that you meant the entire roster and not just the depth chart but I still don't like minimums. What if a team has 5 OL and one of them retires? It will get fined for playing a TE at OL until it finds a better replacement on the market? Punishing this team is not really the goal of your proposition if I understood it correctly as that team was not abusing the system at all, it just had no back up at a certain position. Your goal is to punish teams having 30 players at one position on the roster, right? Not a team short at one position due to retirements, player sale or any other reason, is that correct? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 7 8 9 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Maximum and minimum players per position | |
