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 / raising cp Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 4 5 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
wsfjlt
|
posted: 2016-08-27 18:50:03 (ID: 100084278) Report Abuse |
|
550 cp points available for coaching does not allow you to hire a coach for each position. I agree you should not be able to hire 100 cp coaches across the board but you should be able to hire a coach for each position
I believe there are 12 positions for coaches each needing a minimum 50cp that is 600cp to hire 12 50 cp coaches may I suggest making it 800 cp available this way you could hire a 100 cp coach and then a bunch of 55ish coaches for the other positions or you could elect to not have some coaches, but you should be able to hire a coach for each position |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-08-27 19:32:13 (ID: 100084281) Report Abuse |
|
wsfjlt wrote:
550 cp points available for coaching does not allow you to hire a coach for each position. I agree you should not be able to hire 100 cp coaches across the board but you should be able to hire a coach for each position I believe there are 12 positions for coaches each needing a minimum 50cp that is 600cp to hire 12 50 cp coaches may I suggest making it 800 cp available this way you could hire a 100 cp coach and then a bunch of 55ish coaches for the other positions or you could elect to not have some coaches, but you should be able to hire a coach for each position Agreed. I have been  for ages on this. Realism! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-08-27 20:25:29 (ID: 100084284) Report Abuse | |
|
Would you want to leave coaches wages the same as they are now?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-08-28 20:36:03 (ID: 100084350) Report Abuse |
|
I think it should be mandatory to fill all coaching slots. To me this seems more realistic.
To do so requires enough CPs (and coaches) to be able to hire a coach in each position at as wsfjlt suggested 55 CPs. The balance should then be available to increase that amount in whichever areas you chose. This still has the same effect as now where we choose an area to sink lots of CPs and then ignore some totally. In both cases we are still making a choice. Wages should correspond to the CPs and perhaps, to prevent abuse, should accelerate more rapidly the higher one goes above the base (55 in this particular example). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2016-08-29 04:45:25 (ID: 100084362) Report Abuse |
|
I was against this when I first read it ... but taking another look at the nearly identical coaching setups in Elite, where the "unworthy" coaching positions have < 3 teams using them, and the "mandatory" ones have 29+ using them ... it does seem that the low cap has kind of ended up with a mostly monotonous setup anyways. And it seems like it could have some good side effects as well.
- - - - - There are 11 assistant coaches, the head coach doesn't count against your CP pool. So right around 700 CP for the pool would probably be right, if the idea is to make it viable for all coaching spots to be filled. Then you could go 56*9 = 504 + 98 * 2 = 700 Or 64 * 10 + 60 * 1 = 700, for the completely balanced setup. Or somewhere in between. This might help differentiate the coaching setups some, and Pete has been saying he'd like to see more money coming OUT of the game / older squads. This would probably encourage both of those, especially if the coaching wages aren't adjusted downwards. Rather than making it mandatory (would make a lot of headaches for Pete implementing this - how soon does a team need to hire them, financial effect on new teams, etc. etc.) maybe just increase the penalty on positions with no assistant coach further, to strongly encourage the filling of all of them.  Last edited on 2016-08-29 04:46:46 by Gambler75 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-08-29 10:35:14 (ID: 100084377) Report Abuse |
|
Gambler75 wrote:... it does seem that the low cap has kind of ended up with a mostly monotonous setup anyways.
- - - - - This might help differentiate the coaching setups some, and Pete has been saying he'd like to see more money coming OUT of the game / older squads. This would probably encourage both of those, especially if the coaching wages aren't adjusted downwards. Rather than making it mandatory (would make a lot of headaches for Pete implementing this - how soon does a team need to hire them, financial effect on new teams, etc. etc.) maybe just increase the penalty on positions with no assistant coach further, to strongly encourage the filling of all of them. I can agree with this because as Gambler says the low cap has pretty much led to a mostly monotonous setup and a higher cap together with increased penalties on positions with no assistant coach would actually, in my opinion, better achieve Pete's goals of diversity and getting more money out of the game. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-08-29 11:23:45 (ID: 100084378) Report Abuse |
|
Having no AC at a position is like having an AC with 40 CP so if you have 3 empty AC spots they are actually worth 120 CP so you're effectively playing with a coaching set up worth (550+120) 670 CP. If you have 4 empty AC spots then you're actually effectively playing with a coaching set up worth 710 CP.
Other than getting money out of the game I don't think this suggestion would change much. Instead of having empty AC spots worth 40 we'd have a bad AC worth 50 in 3 or 4 positions. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-08-29 11:42:13 (ID: 100084379) Report Abuse | |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Having no AC at a position is like having an AC with 40 CP In my coach page the empty spots show AC points equally distributed, calculated with (550-CP spent)/n°_empty_positions Where those 40 points are from ? Last edited on 2016-08-29 11:53:16 by Yashin |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-08-29 12:52:09 (ID: 100084381) Report Abuse |
|
Yashin wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
Having no AC at a position is like having an AC with 40 CP In my coach page the empty spots show AC points equally distributed, calculated with (550-CP spent)/n°_empty_positions Where those 40 points are from ? It's not what it shows on the coaches page but it's how training is calculated. From the manual: "Coaches affect the training Each AC affects the training of those players he is responsible for coaching (defined by the players' position!). Of course this only valid for skills the player is using on his position. You do not need to know exactly how the training is calculated, but in case you are curious, the formula is as follows: There is an AC coach: This means that CP > 50 and the value used for AC-CP-Formula = CP - 40 Example: AC has 70 CP. For the training calculation, 30 CP will be used in the calculations. There is no AC coach: CP <= 50 and this means the value for AC-CP-Formula = 1 " |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-08-29 14:01:11 (ID: 100084385) Report Abuse | |
|
Thank you.
anyway this is only one of the possible outcome of AC CP, for instance : Final-CP = CP * EXP-CON-factor or factor=((AC CP + 45 + 1000) / 1100) + (rand(-50,50) / 10000) are not processed with CP=40 for missing AC. It should be used the number on the coach page for that, am I wrong ? Last edited on 2016-08-29 14:01:46 by Yashin |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 3 4 5 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / raising cp | |
