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 / Discussions / morale hit Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 8 9 10 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
MonsterT95
|
posted: 2017-07-27 08:26:08 (ID: 100110461) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
So you think a team's expectations should be based on its best results ever? For example, Free Agent Mascots won the Elite League 3 times in its first 4 seasons (S14, S16 and S17) should his success from ~10 seasons ago still impact his ELO today and make his players today suffer a higher morale loss than had this team not won so much in the past? Best result ever does count, but keep in mind that those teams are almost every year in Elite, or at the very least in contention to go to Elite ( = win their 1.1 conference). That's what I call regular success. Don't forget legacy is for the better or the worse, ask Bills fans  Source: http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/shark1053.com/files/2016/10/Norwood-Jersey.jpg |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-07-27 08:44:42 (ID: 100110462) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Actually, I wouldn't mind a team's best ever season to be the benchmark for FANS expectations but we are talking about PLAYERS MORALE here which is a very different thing.
Hell, Eagles fans still talk about winning the championship in 1948 (before it was called the SuperBowl) so trust me I know that fans are irrational but I think it's completely ridiculous to think that an Eagles player today will suffer a higher morale loss than a player on another team because in 1948 the Eagles beat the Packers. Last edited on 2017-07-27 08:45:27 by Meitheisman |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2017-07-27 09:05:49 (ID: 100110465) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Captain Jack wrote:
Right now morale loss is unreasonable. Wrong! You lost a game, and therefore received the morale hit. Correction to my earlier post Currently in many cases the amount of morale lost is felt by many to be disproportionate and therefore unreasonable. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2017-07-27 09:09:46 (ID: 100110466) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Actually, I wouldn't mind a team's best ever season to be the benchmark for FANS expectations but we are talking about PLAYERS MORALE here which is a very different thing. I think it's completely ridiculous to think that an Eagles player today will suffer a higher morale loss than a player on another team because in 1948 the Eagles beat the Packers. Exactly. All that managers are asking is to have a more reasonable time frame for calculation of ELO. I believe 5 seasons was suggested. Given that we have to start somewhere - would anyone argue against 5 seasons? Last edited on 2017-07-27 09:10:02 by Captain Jack |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-07-27 09:11:52 (ID: 100110468) Report Abuse |
|
Five seasons sounds reasonable to me but Pete seems to think that using every game ever played by a team is reasonable so I'm not sure this is going to go anywhere
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
MonsterT95
|
posted: 2017-07-27 09:16:21 (ID: 100110469) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Actually, I wouldn't mind a team's best ever season to be the benchmark for FANS expectations but we are talking about PLAYERS MORALE here which is a very different thing. Hell, Eagles fans still talk about winning the championship in 1948 (before it was called the SuperBowl) so trust me I know that fans are irrational but I think it's completely ridiculous to think that an Eagles player today will suffer a higher morale loss than a player on another team because in 1948 the Eagles beat the Packers. Yes, I was too focused on fans rather than on players. Talking about player's expectations, I think jourdeprout's Modest Mouse illustrate it quite well too. Hint : jourdeprout has quit RZA because he failed to return to elite at the end of S25, after an appearance in S22 and despite being in the hunt for promotion every year since |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Schwabe
|
posted: 2017-07-27 09:18:42 (ID: 100110470) Report Abuse |
|
I think 10 seasons is a good timespan because this is the active time of a mediocre player in RZA.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
MonsterT95
|
posted: 2017-07-27 09:20:16 (ID: 100110471) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Five seasons sounds reasonable to me but Pete seems to think that using every game ever played by a team is reasonable so I'm not sure this is going to go anywhere I might be wrong, but I don't remember seeing him saying every game should count. I have to agree we are going anywhere, even if we are debating, because it's not the first thread talking about this, and surely won't be the last.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Schwabe
|
posted: 2017-07-27 09:22:10 (ID: 100110473) Report Abuse |
|
MonsterT95 wrote:
Hint : jourdeprout has quit RZA because he failed to return to elite at the end of S25, after an appearance in S22 and despite being in the hunt for promotion every year since Weak character = bad karma |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
MonsterT95
|
posted: 2017-07-27 09:22:10 (ID: 100110472) Report Abuse |
|
Schwabe wrote:
I think 10 seasons is a good timespan because this is the active time of a mediocre player in RZA.  Source: https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder587/500x/51276587/not-bad-obama-touch.jpg |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 8 9 10 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / morale hit | |
