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 / force retirement Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-03-13 19:20:23 (ID: 100100124) Report Abuse |
|
This suggestion is simple. To have a setting. To kick your retiring players off your team. After your team has been knock out of the COC,Supercup,and league.
This will open up valuable roster spots before the rollover. To buy players for next year or promote YA players. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Sharkn20
|
posted: 2017-03-13 21:08:03 (ID: 100100130) Report Abuse |
|
Alternatively as proposed in other Topic. Allow player to retire right away after the last "official" game.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-03-13 21:58:54 (ID: 100100134) Report Abuse | |
|
I dont get that. I was introducing a "keep your retirees until season end" thing, and the suggestion is to change it, after....1 day? No, for sure I won't do that!
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-03-13 22:08:43 (ID: 100100137) Report Abuse |
|
ALL i want is my roster spots back once the COC,supercup and league games are done. AS far as i care you can charge the salary for the rest of the off season the moment they are cut.
just want my roster spots. shoot pete you can put a team in a real bind. I can see team having 5 to 15 vets that with bad luck could all retire in the same season. Now they are stuck with them threw the offseason IT NOT RIGHT. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-03-13 22:12:42 (ID: 100100139) Report Abuse |
|
Pete i have no idea why you wanted to change this part of the game.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-03-13 22:12:59 (ID: 100100140) Report Abuse | |
|
But it was your decision on season start to stick with these 15 retirees. You were keen to play them, since you like the experience, the power on the field of these veterans. If this was your decision, you have to deal with the downside of bblocking roster-spots. I do not see why the game should adapt to a certain strategy of roster management.
Btw, I am totally ignoring ones opinion when the other starts screaming in capitals. So please, don't do that. It makes no sense, does not add anything to the conversation, and won't cause me changing my mind at all. No offense taken, so far. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-03-13 22:20:54 (ID: 100100145) Report Abuse |
|
pete while i have not run 70 man roster for a while.
But i know if i was. This would be pain. And will be pain. As I am always bringing 2-3 YA players up very season. Now instead of running 70 man roster i must run 67 to 68. But either way I wish to know your reason for this crazy change. P.S. on the other hand thank you for making my choice on keeping retiring player thew the season real easy. Fire now |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-03-13 22:28:59 (ID: 100100149) Report Abuse | |
|
It is not crazy at all. It is just not matching your strategy.
In my opinion, you have to make a decision per season. And now you are forced to make it. If you decide to kick your retirees, this is fine. If you decide to keep them, it is fine as well. But make a decision. By making this change we force you to make one. In my opinion, there is plenty of room in each roster. There are managers working on a roster of 50 people, and are successful. Others would raise the limit to 80 or more. I am fine with 70. As always, there is no last word spoken, never. Maybe I decide to not count the promoted youngsters against the limits once you promote them after point X in the season. Maybe there are other ideas. Maybe it stays the way it is. However, I am not ready to announce a change on a function most of you know for 24 hours now... However, it was a long day. Good night. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-03-13 22:32:37 (ID: 100100150) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
fair enough on your point of view
But why the change? other than "forcing a decision" Last edited on 2017-03-13 22:37:55 by andrew2scott2 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
oakbark
|
posted: 2017-03-14 19:55:41 (ID: 100100234) Report Abuse |
|
andrew2scott2 wrote:
fair enough on your point of view But why the change? other than "forcing a decision" It promotes balance, a loaded deep team can't also have a YA full of top drawer talent without there being some risk. So teams either have to choose to forego top payers now and leave space for the future or risk losing players. The spreading of talent promotes balance. I guess it's like the NFL in that teams need to make compromises and choices rather than having their cake and eat it. With 70 roster spots it's easily managed after the pain of the first season and making the initial adjustments. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / force retirement | |
