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 8 9 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-03-31 10:00:28 (ID: 100072262) Report Abuse |
|
I'm not sure of Xeno's point here but it looks like there are two:
1) Teams should not consist entirely of TEs - or any other position. IRL it doesn't happen - and in RZA it looks stupid. So the question is why do people do it? Is it because they see some perceived advantage? This leads to: 2) Does anyone know exactly what are the OOP penalties? I tried searching for this in the manual and on the forum but could not find anything definitive. However, there were some posts claiming that the OOP penalty is insufficient. Depending on the answer to both questions would help determine if there is an issue to be addressed which may or may not strengthen the argument for max and min players per position. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-03-31 10:06:07 (ID: 100072263) Report Abuse |
|
Captain Jack wrote:
I'm not sure of Xeno's point here but it looks like there are two: 1) Teams should not consist entirely of TEs - or any other position. IRL it doesn't happen - and in RZA it looks stupid. So the question is why do people do it? Is it because they see some perceived advantage? I think these are the wrong questions to ask. The real important question is "do the most successful teams in RZA use this strategy?" To which the answer is a resounding "no" so I don't see the problem if mediocre teams use bad strategies. If they want to win big they'll have to stop doing that anyway. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-03-31 10:12:40 (ID: 100072266) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Captain Jack wrote:
I'm not sure of Xeno's point here but it looks like there are two: 1) Teams should not consist entirely of TEs - or any other position. IRL it doesn't happen - and in RZA it looks stupid. So the question is why do people do it? Is it because they see some perceived advantage? I think these are the wrong questions to ask. The real important question is "do the most successful teams in RZA use this strategy?" To which the answer is a resounding "no" so I don't see the problem if mediocre teams use bad strategies. If they want to win big they'll have to stop doing that anyway. Then that sort of answers the question in any case because if there was an advantage in doing so then it would perpetuate. Having said that it still puzzles me as to why people do it? Could it just be a carry-over from the YA where perhaps they have a mega coach or two so they train all their YA as TEs (for example)? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-31 10:24:23 (ID: 100072270) Report Abuse | |
|
If the POS is no more displayed on team's page or player's page (having ?? instead of QB), one question will remain : should I scout a team to complain ?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-31 11:00:03 (ID: 100072281) Report Abuse | |
|
Captain Jack wrote:
Then that sort of answers the question in any case because if there was an advantage in doing so then it would perpetuate. Having said that it still puzzles me as to why people do it? Could it just be a carry-over from the YA where perhaps they have a mega coach or two so they train all their YA as TEs (for example)? I can only speak for the obvious gains, not some strange fun aspects. You can put all your Players on one AC, which could be a Monster AC with 95+ CP and get the fastest Training on those Players. The Problem is, not only the OOP Penalty in games, but also the limited Training on all needed A-Skills. example TE: Trains STR, SPE, AGI, BLO and CAT. So no defense Skills. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-03-31 14:29:49 (ID: 100072322) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:
It's one Thing to let Managers develop their roster the way they would like to do this and another on to Change the game rules itself. Regarding your examples: This would be valid for all Teams, so no benefit or malus on any Team. It wouldn't be the original rule for the game, but not all rules/bahavior here are also seen in real live, at least not in one league structure. Whether you like it or not, but it's a Basic Feature in this game to let Managers Switch Players positions. Now you can Limit this or not, that's a rule decision. My Point is that the total freedom granted at the Moment does not help extreme Setups. So there is already a Penalty. Changing this to a more restricted Approach would lead to a lot of communication efforts to be made, either in the Manual (which is often not read) or on the roster page (which would Need a rework in that case from my Point of view). Overall I think it's simply not worth the effort. A word on real live Football: The freedom to develop Players and tactics within the rules is one reason Football is still interesting after all those years. Teams can decide on their roster Setup and that's good. Granted, no one is having 50 TE, but that's just a side effect of the freedom and the RZA Coaching System. You already made your point disagreeing with the suggestion. As I said, it is your fair rigth. However you disagreeing does not mean the suggestion is bad. Many other managers liked it in totality or partially. This is in Pete's hand to do something about it or not. (By the way Pete, your statement would be very welcome  ) |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-03-31 14:31:14 (ID: 100072323) Report Abuse | |
|
aehm...
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Xeno72
|
posted: 2016-04-02 06:49:21 (ID: 100072586) Report Abuse |
|
Jonny Utah wrote:
This misses the point. It isn't any where near american football Johnny, it's a version of people who play this or any game to find ways to EXPLOIT a game of football, much as the same as if the Indianapolis Colts decided it was best for Andrew Luck should play MLB next season.
Heck yeah, if you don't like what another team's doing then go out there and beat 'em! Don't go whining to the officials, this is (american) footballl damn it!  If there was a lot of time and effort to re-train him for this position was observed, then I would understand. But if you saw the game I pointed out, it is a very young coach who clearly sought out to find a loop hole in the game. I have played many online games, and there is always a clown out there attempting to find ways to exploit it. I just want to play the game as is, in some game respecting manner, which is why my plea against those that don't please don't bother even challenging me. Again, people have a right to be and do wrong. Play the game as is if you play my team. I'm trying to grow my team, not entertaining losers that wish to exploit a game. Winning every game is and has never been my concern; ever. "It's not about winning, it's about how you played the game." There really needs to be some kind of boundaries, else the game becomes more arcade than real. I've posted something similar about this I think with kickers making fieldgoals from 70+ yards out a long time ago. I am reinforcing that statement then, now. Realistic or arcade, what is best for any game to be honest? This is up to pete, I will support his decision. I'm just saying to anybody that does something this ridiculous, who will learn nothing as a result of doing so, please don't bother playing me. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2016-04-02 09:09:58 (ID: 100072592) Report Abuse |
|
Switching positions around is a natural reaction to the limited skills which an assistant coach trains.
Want good footwork on that LB'er? Best shove him at DL or OL for a spell. Want your TE to not miss every #$&@  #$&@ tackle on the silly special teams setup we have at the moment? Better shove him at a DL/LB/CB/SF spot for a season or so.
Etc. etc. You don't see LB'er coaches in "real life" unable to put their players through a tire drill to work on their feet ... so the "real life" argument to me, is equally as silly as a team of 50 tight ends. Unless the mechanics concerning coaches were to change, I am still 100% against penalizing folks for a natural reaction to the mechanics we've been handed. My 2 cents, YMMV.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-04-02 09:11:06 (ID: 100072593) Report Abuse | |
|
Didn't the '85 Bears win it all playing 11 DL's? I'm joking! I do understand where you're coming from but the only way i could ever see it as useful is for building up a new team quicker. Once that teams gets higher up they'd need to change their coaches and swap player positions to be able to compete to their full potential. The morale and TC hit from doing that could wreck them. I believe the OOP negates the one position tactic in games against good teams with similar ratings. If it changes though then fair enough, the only way it might affect me is if those dudes actually started getting good!
 Last edited on 2016-04-02 09:13:14 by Jonny Utah |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 8 9 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Maximum and minimum players per position | |
