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 / franchise players Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
wsfjlt
|
posted: 2017-03-28 22:58:51 (ID: 100101411) Report Abuse |
|
right now you are limited to 5 long term contracts. Could we increase this so players on a small budget could lock up a few more important players prior to there salaries soaring.
As I earlier suggested to make a penalty for any franchised player, that you had to keep him on your roster until the last 2 years of his contract. Right now I have 2 franchised players with their contracts ending in season 27. I am allowed to make contracts to that year with out using a franchise tag. Once a player who was franchised falls into this category, the franchise tag should be removed so that it could be reused. This would make the penalty phase of having to keep a franchised player until the franchise tag gets removed, as it would be removed when the player falls into this category. I would suggest raising the franchisee players to 10 or maybe 15 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-03-29 02:14:56 (ID: 100101416) Report Abuse | |
|
This would be a total game changer, if we had 15 franchise contracts my player wages would be cut in half, i'd be crazy rich!
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
wsfjlt
|
posted: 2017-04-11 22:45:40 (ID: 100102150) Report Abuse |
|
This would help those players with out money, as they would be able to lock up more of their talented players to be able to compete with richer teams.
Again the down side, if you franchise a player you cant drop him or trade him until the last 2 years of his contract. Now to unveil the big lie that this will help the teams with money. The penalty, of having to keep players that are locked up. Some players will not perform as well as others regardless of talent, exp or any of the other numbers that they have. Some players out perform while others under perform. So if a team had a lot of money, it would be senseless to lock up a player for 5 years where 3 of them you would have to keep him on your team regardless of how good he played. Rich teams are also always looking to improve, so locking up a great player would cost them if they found a better player for that position. You can see how it gets costly having to have to keep the player for 3 years. Next if you notice using the franchise tag it cost you more for the player in the first 2 years, the savings is in year 3 4 and 5. So a team with a lot of capital would receive no benefit for using this function, how ever teams with out a lot of capital could use this in a strategic way to compete with teams with a lot of capital. The down side of course would be the same, having to live with mistakes for 3 seasons. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-04-13 16:58:57 (ID: 100102282) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
I tend to franchise players when they are 1-2 seasons away from the max skills i want them to have, this means they get around 3 seasons of supercup and some league games before the tag, would this not be enough time for me to figure out if they're good or not?
Would the non-rich teams not also end up with under performing players making it difficult for them to compete? Last edited on 2017-04-13 16:59:25 by Jonny Utah |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
mikemike778
|
posted: 2017-04-14 07:33:26 (ID: 100102324) Report Abuse |
|
Jonny Utah wrote:
I tend to franchise players when they are 1-2 seasons away from the max skills i want them to have, this means they get around 3 seasons of supercup and some league games before the tag, would this not be enough time for me to figure out if they're good or not? Would the non-rich teams not also end up with under performing players making it difficult for them to compete? Best players to franchise are those who are aged 26 and who are 10 points away from their talent cap (or the level you want them to ultimately reach). Anyway this is a cracking idea. More franchise contracts means less tedious HR negotiations. Less tedious HR means RZA is a better game. What's not to like ? 10/10 from me. Might save a few quid overall in wages but will balance out the experience wage hike. So |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
JbHeng
|
posted: 2017-05-21 22:20:57 (ID: 100104870) Edits found: 2 Report Abuse |
|
Rookie contracts
This suggestion inspired me to the idea of rookie contract, in order to provide more long term contracts without driving the competitive edge to much in favor of teams with HR departments.  Last edited on 2017-05-21 22:23:00 by JbHeng |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / franchise players | |
