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 2 7 8 9 > >| | |
Rating: | |
Poster | Message |
posted: 2016-03-25 20:13:04 (ID: 100071483) Report Abuse | |
I agree it should be based on maximums not mnimums, minimums would still leave it open for abuse, just not to such a great extent.
|
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
anderton46
|
posted: 2016-03-25 20:22:43 (ID: 100071485) Report Abuse |
JohnnyAce's is the best and most logical solution. It doesn't ban people from doing their own thing but it translates to the reality that a bigger amount of people to train results in less gains per person.
|
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2016-03-25 20:23:10 (ID: 100071486) Report Abuse | |
Fincyril wrote:
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. Fincyril wrote:
@Drogon 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). I did understand what i've read. DC is part of the roster. As to my suggestion, if you undo what a manager has done, where is the abuse if the manager can not take any advantage, except TM, since he is not playing the game RZA in accordance with football rules ? |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-03-25 20:27:43 (ID: 100071487) Report Abuse |
anderton46 wrote:
JohnnyAce's is the best and most logical solution. It doesn't ban people from doing their own thing but it translates to the reality that a bigger amount of people to train results in less gains per person. Agreed |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-03-25 20:47:37 (ID: 100071489) Report Abuse |
anderton46 wrote:
JohnnyAce's is the best and most logical solution. It doesn't ban people from doing their own thing but it translates to the reality that a bigger amount of people to train results in less gains per person. Although there are two arguments running here I think we are all on the same page - the bottom line is to stop abuse of monopolising one position. I agree JohnnyAce's is the best and most logical solution to deal with training issues. I think a second issue is the roster, which probably itself stems from the training abuse. I believe there should be bigger penalties for OOP but they should be 'reasonable' so that teams who are one short (to use Meitheisman's example - a team with 5 OL where one retires and replacing him with a TE will not be unduly punished). Also penalties should be on a sliding scale that would make it easy for a TE to play at FB but much harder for a CB to play at FB. However, there should be some loss of performance simply because that player inn the example (TE) is not a natural OL. Also one can argue that retirements are announced at the start of season so there is plenty of time to prepare for replacements. With a 70 strong squad there is no real reason why anyone would not have a replacement available. Managers should always be thinking ahead. However, it would be good if we could at least get the training issue resolved as a start. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2016-03-25 21:25:47 (ID: 100071499) 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. I like this way as well. However, it is limited to the training. In RZA the benefit out of ACs happens at game time as well. How can a maximum of player happen during game time? Based on roster? Based on DC? And, we would need to have different "max-counters", one per position group. It makes sense to deal with 8 DLs, but makes no sense to take care about 8 P, as example. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-03-25 21:30:52 (ID: 100071501) Report Abuse |
Meitheisman wrote:
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? I'd actualy prefer to prevent this situation by blocking the possibility to be below the minimum than by "punishing" the team. I proposed the fine as a back up solution in case it is maybe not possible to code but my first choice is the first solution I proposed. About the retiring hypothesis, I find it very unlikely because as it has been said, the manager has one year to find a substitute. But you are rigth it must be taken into consideration in the decision. Once again, I also really like the JohnnyAce idea. It will really solve the training abuse part. We just have to find the max number until when you can still train at 100%. However if we keep it at 20, a 70 players teams can still have only 4 positions in the roster. Having minimums on certain positions will lead to have all the teams with a decent roster able to actualy line up a full formation with good players. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-03-25 21:36:13 (ID: 100071504) Report Abuse |
pete wrote:
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. I like this way as well. However, it is limited to the training. In RZA the benefit out of ACs happens at game time as well. How can a maximum of player happen during game time? Based on roster? Based on DC? And, we would need to have different "max-counters", one per position group. It makes sense to deal with 8 DLs, but makes no sense to take care about 8 P, as example. A manager abusing the training system is getting penalized by his own strategy at game time by lining up only DL (for example). So I would not be shoked if Jonnhy proposition applies only at training. I agree about the different maximums. In a normal line-up, you have 5 OL and 1 P. So if we decide the maximum is 4 times the "normal" line-up in order to reach 20 as proposed, we should apply the same math for Punter leading to a maximum of 4. This is just an example and figures can be debated or decided by you. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2016-03-25 21:41:31 (ID: 100071507) Report Abuse | |
I disagree. To have a certain outcome, the "punishment" has to happen during training AND gametime. This is exactly the reason the earlier suggestion was about limiting the number of visitors to a game.
|
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-03-25 21:59:53 (ID: 100071510) Report Abuse |
pete wrote:
I disagree. To have a certain outcome, the "punishment" has to happen during training AND gametime. This is exactly the reason the earlier suggestion was about limiting the number of visitors to a game. That's why I suggested the penalty for OOP. I know nothing about coding but thought it might be quite easy to set up a scale. Two examples below: SF can play as a CB at 75% of ability. Any other position at 25%. TE can play FB/RB at 50% of their original ability, OL at 40%, WR at 75%. Any other position 25%. (Ability could be Exp, Non-physicals etc. The actual figures can be discussed) With this suggestion we probably wouldn't need a cap on players on the roster. This could also mesh with JohnnyAce's suggestion that the more players being trained by an AC, the less efficient the training is. However, if we do need to cap the roster how about relating this to the optimum number of players per position on the Depth Chart? Maybe 2x that number - e.g. I would find it hard to work out why someone would want more than 6 QBs (2x3). |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
reply Mark this thread unread | |
Navigation: |< < 1 2 7 8 9 > >| | |
Main / Suggestions / Maximum and minimum players per position |