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 3 7 8 9 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
ryandinho
|
posted: 2016-03-26 13:15:12 (ID: 100071590) Report Abuse |
|
This might not be possible due to the work it'd cause for Pete but would it be possible to implement some system where the skills are position specific? By that I mean training a player in strength as an OL only to transfer him to a QB doesn't mean the strength transfers 1:1. 50 strength as an OL might be set back to 40 when moved to QB or vice versa
Last edited on 2016-03-26 13:16:09 by ryandinho |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-26 13:17:51 (ID: 100071591) Report Abuse | |
|
I really don't understand what's really broken here.
It's a game and the coaching system is designed to make decisions on left out positions and therefore do manager have to find ways to overcome the gaps. No you want to lets say shorten the range of possibilities available. Why? Because it's unrealistic to have 2 QBs on a roster? It's already unrealistic to have a position without a coach. It's unrealistic of having a Youth Acadamy of only 22 players max and so on and so on. It's a game and it allows stuff and it does not allow other stuff, fine. You like to change things, fine. But to be honest, the current system does work quite good. Communicating the suggested changes will be an additional challenge on to of the already quite complicated rules and setups. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2016-03-26 13:46:02 (ID: 100071595) Report Abuse |
|
ryandinho wrote:
This might not be possible due to the work it'd cause for Pete but would it be possible to implement some system where the skills are position specific? By that I mean training a player in strength as an OL only to transfer him to a QB doesn't mean the strength transfers 1:1. 50 strength as an OL might be set back to 40 when moved to QB or vice versa I agree 100% with this idea, but really I think that should be implemented in addition to a quick fix. Othewise no fix is likely to be implemented 
Looking back at the stated problem. I believe the issue being called out is people exploiting the game's position system to get extra training benefit. There is already an OOP penalty in play on the field. It seems like applying a training penalty for extreme rosters would address the problem directly and not impact people who are playing normally. For example (ignoring the youth academy completely), if we say a coach can only effectively train 8 LBs and his efficiency starts to decline slightly for each LB on top of 8, then no team is going to go out with a squad of 50 LBs. It wouldn't impact on anyone using a reasonable roster, only encourage those with silly rosters to balance their team better. I don't see how such a simple rule change would require an extensive re-education campaign either. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
anderton46
|
posted: 2016-03-26 15:56:56 (ID: 100071602) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:
I really don't understand what's really broken here. It's a game and the coaching system is designed to make decisions on left out positions and therefore do manager have to find ways to overcome the gaps. No you want to lets say shorten the range of possibilities available. Why? Because it's unrealistic to have 2 QBs on a roster? It's already unrealistic to have a position without a coach. It's unrealistic of having a Youth Acadamy of only 22 players max and so on and so on. It's a game and it allows stuff and it does not allow other stuff, fine. You like to change things, fine. But to be honest, the current system does work quite good. Communicating the suggested changes will be an additional challenge on to of the already quite complicated rules and setups. I think the issue is having a person set in the wrong poosition to allow them to benefit more in training. Clearly this isn't an issue about realism but an issue about basically 'legal' cheating. It's taking advantage of a system that wasn't put into place with this in mind and it just needs to be amended to stop it continuing. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-26 17:48:41 (ID: 100071626) Report Abuse | |
|
anderton46 wrote:
jack6 wrote:
I really don't understand what's really broken here. It's a game and the coaching system is designed to make decisions on left out positions and therefore do manager have to find ways to overcome the gaps. No you want to lets say shorten the range of possibilities available. Why? Because it's unrealistic to have 2 QBs on a roster? It's already unrealistic to have a position without a coach. It's unrealistic of having a Youth Acadamy of only 22 players max and so on and so on. It's a game and it allows stuff and it does not allow other stuff, fine. You like to change things, fine. But to be honest, the current system does work quite good. Communicating the suggested changes will be an additional challenge on to of the already quite complicated rules and setups. I think the issue is having a person set in the wrong poosition to allow them to benefit more in training. Clearly this isn't an issue about realism but an issue about basically 'legal' cheating. It's taking advantage of a system that wasn't put into place with this in mind and it just needs to be amended to stop it continuing. But switching position does cost the manager MOR loss and TC loss on that player, so it's does not come for free. And I'm pretty sure we testers did in the past already mention that technique to Peter and at the end it went live, so I would not say this is legal cheating, I see it as optimizing with all pos and cons it has. And all teams do have the same system to work with, so there are no real losers regarding the optimization. The Bottom line is, if you change the system somehow, it has to be easy to understand. And putting different limits on ACs per position does not sound easy to understand. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-03-26 22:18:15 (ID: 100071700) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:
But switching position does cost the manager MOR loss and TC loss on that player, so it's does not come for free. That is very easily overcome in any case if it takes place on the roster. However, one big issue is where 20 OL are trained in the YA at the same time. Positions can be switched freely within the YA without penalty. So this change can happen just before they get promoted to senior or within their free time switching period in the senior squad. jack6 wrote:
The Bottom line is, if you change the system somehow, it has to be easy to understand. And putting different limits on ACs per position does not sound easy to understand. It's pretty straightforward to say that if you train more than X in a position then the efficiency of that training drops. (There are only so many hours in a day and in a week). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-26 22:35:55 (ID: 100071706) Report Abuse | |
|
if the limit is the same for all ACs, then it's easy, but discussed were different amounts for different positions.
Still can't see the exploit/cheat whatever. 20 players are coached by the OL, so what? most of the time he trains STR, so why can't the best coach train them the best way STR? Then the kid is send to the WR maybe to train SPE. Why should that not be allowed? Only to have a nice sorted roster? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-27 08:30:09 (ID: 100071736) Report Abuse | |
|
I have to agree and say i don't see the problem other than it irritates people. I couldn't find many teams in the elite doing it which suggests it's not that great a tactic. Also the oop and having weaker coaches in the other positions for games feels like there's a lot of negatives for doing this. I'm not saying this because i use it, i don't because i don't think it's the best way forward so i don't really care if other managers want to go down this route.
It also makes it easy to scout their weak points when playing against them!  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2016-03-27 14:48:35 (ID: 100071764) Report Abuse |
|
people are always claiming about clone players and roster. Well this would make more clone rosters. AND encourage a even Coach staff instead of what many teams use. 1 to 3 great coaches and the spreading out the rest cp.
I like choices. And several of the suggestions as of late. Seem to want to limit just that. Now if pete decide go though with it. I'll deal with it. With the way I stated above. But I suggest as big as change this would be. To very clear what was change. As many things already hidden with try to figure out why a player not training. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
mikemike778
|
posted: 2016-03-28 08:29:54 (ID: 100071808) Report Abuse |
|
andrew2scott2 wrote:
people are always claiming about clone players and roster. Well this would make more clone rosters. AND encourage a even Coach staff instead of what many teams use. 1 to 3 great coaches and the spreading out the rest cp. I like choices. And several of the suggestions as of late. Seem to want to limit just that. Now if pete decide go though with it. I'll deal with it. With the way I stated above. But I suggest as big as change this would be. To very clear what was change. As many things already hidden with try to figure out why a player not training. I think you've got this nailed on ... The game forces you down certain routes ... -You must build your stadium to max -You pretty much must build balanced clone players -You must max YA Even coaches which were probably designed to encourage choices go down the same route. The maximum CPs means virtually no-one has Special Team coaches or Safety coaches. They pretty much push you down the route of choosing (Ok fair doos that's a choice) a RB or a FB which limits the formations you can choose. There needs to be more options - more things you can spend your money on where it isn't black and white over whether or not its the 'optimal' strategy. Hence my youth academy suggestion which got shot down. With that in mind ... I would -Drop the CP limit and give people the freedom decide how much they want to spend on coaches (do they want an extra ST coach for example). Knowing that anything they spend on coaches goes out the playing budget. -Add the extra layer on Youth Academy as per other thread but at a price that would make you have to choose whether or not you want to spend the money -Fix the wage system which has effectively broken the player development model -Reduce the depth chart size to 45 so you need to decide over whether to have backups or ST specialists I don't actually mind having min and max players per position but its doesn't fit in with the CP limits .. you are making us have a player for every position but can't have a coach for the position. Crazy .. Last edited on 2016-03-28 08:30:04 by mikemike778 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 7 8 9 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Maximum and minimum players per position | |
