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 / Just expand number of draftees Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Mücke
|
posted: 2017-09-04 16:06:44 (ID: 100113549) Report Abuse |
|
Are you serious Pete? You mean several last spotted teams in draft wouldn't be eligible to pick in rd. 3 (e.g. #88 - #96)? Somehow it sounds interesting. Could it be that 96 draftees are then still eligible to draft for position #1 to #87 (e.g.)? (just to keep the initial suggested idea of having a choice alive
 ) |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-09-04 16:14:22 (ID: 100113551) Report Abuse | |
|
Somehow it was meant to be a joke, but serious at the same time. If we have leagues with too many draftees, could it be we have leagues with too few draftees as well? Then it would be kind of fun...
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-09-04 16:30:28 (ID: 100113554) Edits found: 2 Report Abuse |
|
It is an amusing idea, but I think it kind of goes counter too what Mücke was trying to accomplish with this suggestion. In real life there are thousands of players that are available to draft from. If you want to pick a SF in the 24th round, there are still hundreds to choose from. It seems a little too gimmicky to say there wouldn't be enough players to draft even 3 rounds...
Obviously it doesn't make sense to put a thousand players in our draft pools, but having more than the minimum needed keeps the 3rd round a bit interesting. Do you go for that RB with 42 speed, or does that 41 speed WR make more sense for your team needs. I could still see how variable number of draftees might be fun. Some leagues might only have 100 guys to choose from (so last few are still shafted), while others happen to have 120. But you might want to be careful of overall draft quality in that case, since leagues with 120 players might have better overall players (unless you make sure all the excess players over 96 always have low quality). Also, if you don't want to increase the overall number of players in the game, you can always just delete/retire undrafted players. Last edited on 2017-09-04 16:35:29 by Rock777 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Mücke
|
posted: 2017-09-04 16:50:03 (ID: 100113556) Report Abuse |
|
@Pete
..what I thought 1st before posting 2nd. Guiding readers into another direction to balance all yes and no sayers out, to finally stick with the old (and proven  ) 96 picks = 96 draftees system ... Niiiice! This Pete is a tactic fox.
Within last days I came up with: having 500+ eligible draftees with each having 1 or 2 blackened skill numbers or traits. To reveal the blackened out numbers a manager have to pay scouting $, on 500+ ... this means a task, dont you think. But this would be a little coding monster for you game developers ... ... while just adding a few more draftees to the draft lists isnt
Cheers and have a good season to all ... but stay away from last draft spots, finally you dont have a choice 
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2017-09-04 19:25:11 (ID: 100113564) Report Abuse |
|
I would like to offer an alternative suggestion.
We increase the number of draftees. My initial (out of the air) suggestion would be to something like 110-120. However, the quality of the last (from 96 onwards) would be markedly lower. This then gives the drafting team the option, in the 3rd round, of taking the good K/P etc which they may not need or diving a little deeper to pick up that slightly less useful player but one who will fill a slot that they do need. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-09-04 20:01:10 (ID: 100113565) Report Abuse |
|
That's very similar to what I was suggesting.
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-09-04 20:03:23 (ID: 100113566) Report Abuse |
|
Captain Jack wrote:
the quality of the last (from 96 onwards) would be markedly lower. I'm assuming you mean their starting abilities, right? But they could still have decent potential (if a bit behind the curve). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2017-09-04 20:23:31 (ID: 100113568) Report Abuse |
|
Rock777 wrote:
Captain Jack wrote:
the quality of the last (from 96 onwards) would be markedly lower. I'm assuming you mean their starting abilities, right? But they could still have decent potential (if a bit behind the curve). Yes that's right. Thanks for clarifying my post. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Just expand number of draftees | |
