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 9 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2016-04-02 09:26:36 (ID: 100072595) Report Abuse |
|
Correct, the 1-2 positions only thing, helps a newer team train a teensy bit faster / not go broke on coaches quite so badly. While making them absolutely awful on the field. My brother Brewnoe ran his team that way for a few seasons, I believe TE + DL coaches ... the OoP penalty is already pretty brutal from what he told me.
So in essence, when I look at this - it's penalizing what looks to me like a non-problem, that *very* slightly helps newer teams trying to scratch and claw their way up with home grown talent, rather than buying a team through the TM ... doesn't seem like a needed change from that perspective to me. Wouldn't impact me personally, the only thing I really do that for is safeties - I don't run a SF coach, and my ex-LB/CBs find their way over there as they get old.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-04-02 09:43:31 (ID: 100072596) Report Abuse | |
|
Your LB Coach is responsible for 38 guys at the moment. Wouldn't it be just natural if he would focus less to a single player, therefore the players get less progress from that coach? If we introduce kind of a maximum of lets say 20 LBs, your LBs would receive only half of the training progress then. Would you feel punished?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-04-02 10:28:17 (ID: 100072597) Report Abuse | |
|
That's logical, maximum not minimum and 20 in this case is more than enough. Flick the switch Pete quick before anyone can disagree!
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2016-04-02 11:22:37 (ID: 100072598) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Your LB Coach is responsible for 38 guys at the moment. Wouldn't it be just natural if he would focus less to a single player, therefore the players get less progress from that coach? If we introduce kind of a maximum of lets say 20 LBs, your LBs would receive only half of the training progress then. Would you feel punished? Punished? Not necessarily - but from a game design standpoint, wouldn't that be just introducing another level of micro managing for the players without really adding anything of interest? More busy work - prioritizing who gets the LB @ 90, and who gets the DL @ 81 in my case? It would be a pretty simple case of "adding complexity, without adding substance" while simultaneously increasing player fatigue. Again, my 2 cents - YMMV. Last edited on 2016-04-02 11:23:24 by Gambler75 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-04-02 12:48:29 (ID: 100072602) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Your LB Coach is responsible for 38 guys at the moment. Wouldn't it be just natural if he would focus less to a single player, therefore the players get less progress from that coach? If we introduce kind of a maximum of lets say 20 LBs, your LBs would receive only half of the training progress then. Would you feel punished? The more I think about it the least I like this limitation to be honest. In theory yes it makes sense to limit the number of players a coach can train but in real life there is no limit to how many coaches a team has. Furthermore no NFL team is forced to pick between coaches, it can have one (or more) for each position. In RZA we're limited by CP so if we're going to limit the number of players a coach can train then we should remove the CP limit. And if we limit the number of players a coach can train to say 20 instead of having one TE coach for the entire team we'll have 1 TE coach for 20 guys, one DL coach for 20 guys, one LB coach for 20 guys and one RB coach for another 20 guys. Is this really an improvement? Having 20 RB/DL/LB/TE and no QB/WR/OL/SF... makes no more sense than having 70 TEs on the team. And like I said before the main reason why we all manage teams here is because we want to win. The teams employing this strategy don't win. Why do we want to stop a strategy that simply doesn't work? Should we also stop managers from playing a dumb dude at QB? Should we stop them from playing a weak dude at NT? Should we make it impossible to call 3-3-5 D against the run? etc... As long as doing things this way does not bring success to managers (and it doesn't) I'm not sure anything needs to be done. Last edited on 2016-04-02 12:49:30 by Meitheisman |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-04-02 15:37:52 (ID: 100072614) Report Abuse | |
|
Of course it needs to change. Don't you understand that it irritates people greatly regardless of the fact it doesn't affect them, simply that it's out there gets under their skin borrows to their core! If people won't conform to their views of what is correct then rules must be put in place to force it!
 Last edited on 2016-04-02 15:38:43 by Jonny Utah |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
spartans11
|
posted: 2016-04-02 20:23:15 (ID: 100072652) Report Abuse |
|
I have most of my YA listed as WR's for the training but when they become active players on my team or need to train them to tackle they switch. I do not want to get hit with the playing out of position penalty. As for the rest of the discussion I don't think anything should be changed IMO.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-05-23 10:21:32 (ID: 100077172) Report Abuse |
|
The karma news made me think about this old topic. Indeed if we can recognize a play diversity we can consider to grade the player position diversity and penalize the coach effectiveness during games AND training.
Pete hou seemed open to change on the topic but did not give a final call. What about now?  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-05-23 20:22:03 (ID: 100077267) Report Abuse |
|
Fincyril wrote:
The karma news made me think about this old topic. Indeed if we can recognize a play diversity we can consider to grade the player position diversity and penalize the coach effectiveness during games AND training. Pete hou seemed open to change on the topic but did not give a final call. What about now? I agree. It seems wrong to have a penalty on lack of formation diversity when the lopsided tactics in coach effectiveness during games and training is not penalised. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-05-23 20:24:23 (ID: 100077269) Report Abuse | |
|
I cannot answer this for the moment, sorry.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 7 9 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Maximum and minimum players per position | |
