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 / Brainstorming on training system overview Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 7 8 9 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2018-11-14 16:43:44 (ID: 100134424) Report Abuse |
|
janos wrote:
noodle wrote:
Hi, how are you linking training with transfers? because we can train good players and so don't need to buy? there is some truth in that but for me it was all relative, when i was a newer team i trained some players but they were not that great, as time has gone on my YA rookies have got better. same with transfers, when i was a newer team i bought a few, and as time has gone on, some were replaced as they were not good enough as my team developed and now i buy less, perhaps 1 or 2 a season maximum to fill gaps from retirees that i cant fill with YA promotions or current 2nd string etc. I wonder how you have got in a financial crisis, that would be the first thing to decipher. if you don't figure out how, you might just repeat it again in a few seasons. my team is only 2 years old, but nowhere near financial crisis and i have about 1.5 million more in player/ coach salary. When I had a 2yo team I didn't have a crisis either. And I want to sell now, but the market is dead. I have hardly ever purchased any player from the market, so relied on YA all the time. The problem with YA is, that initial experience of players is rather low (<2) comparing to draftees and until they are at a decent training level it is not possible to play them to collect more. The draftees experience is volatile. There are ones with 2 star, others with 3,5-4 star. That is absolutely unreal. So if they start with tck=20 their tackling skills practically spans out from 8 to 16. How can you close the gap in training with a guy tck=8 and exp=2 comparing to one with tck=16 and exp=4? Draftees should be close to each other in terms of performance. How can a draftee have 60-80% of all possible experiences already collected at the age of 21, after 2-3 years of NCAA...? There are so many training slots available to train to the market, that produces excess supply. So a guy with exp<4 is never purchased at the age of 28-30. Or I can mention a CB spd<48. Do div2 teams ignore spd=46, 47 CB-s, whose spd is still trainable...? Sorry for the intrusion... According to https://redzoneaction.org/football/index.php?page=community&subpage=thread&thread_id=6503&startpage=1 A player with low EXP means of course that is penalized ... but not so heavily as in your example. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2018-11-14 21:16:33 (ID: 100134430) Report Abuse | |
|
The market is dead because of too less new teams and too many established teams, cobined with anhanced training speed and the premium YA.
That's from my point of view no reason to change the training system, it is only a reason to overthing the individual approach of managing the own team. Getting into financial trouble is usually a consequence of some kind of bad management. And I always said and always will say, if such stuff happens, react, fast. Sure, in the past it was possible to get rid of good and expensive players to lower the wage amount and get something worth in return, often was 1 sale enough to bridge the gap until season start of the next game. That's no longer possible with most players, only special players do get still quite high prices, but the rest can be found quite often, so they are cheap. So, the strategy to get out of the financial trouble has to change, not the training system. In fact it was never easier to sustain a high level skilled team and coaches than now, since the income of the mediacenter does aid very much. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2018-11-14 21:50:53 (ID: 100134432) Report Abuse | |
|
To add: if a manager starts acting once he is in the minus, it is too late. A good manager would act if the revenue trend starts going down, but there is still room on the bank account. We provide tools to learn about trends, a manager should use these tools...
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Mücke
|
posted: 2018-11-15 12:31:23 (ID: 100134437) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:
The market is dead because of too less new teams ... Even with new teams; they dont have full access to the market once a the starting bid price is higher than the junior manager's bidding cap. The starting price was once installed for reasons that goes back to the so called "Barcelona Affair". But the solution that was found back then (setting the start price by the engine) overshot the initial goal, in a way that it led to disadvantage for junior managers. The full story can be found here and there. The discussion linked above ended up with the idea, that the selling manager should be able to decide if he wants to set a player with a starting price of 0 (zero) or the standard price assigned by the engine. If a manger decides to set a player on TM with starting price at 0 (as of today I would rather say $50.000 as the lowest minimum), junior manager have at least a shot to grab that player by placing a bid and no one else is interested. At the moment where "TM is dead" a good possibility for juniors to close gaps for low costs. And for sellers to get at least something in return. One would argue that it doesnt solve the "TM dead" discussion, in a sense of getting most $ out of my Trade. Thats true. But it would end the disadvantage for junior managers that was settled in as a negative side-effect by finding a solution for a totally different problem. Further ideas to solve (if solution ever wanted) the "TM dead" issue: - open Free Agent market during off-season only - reduce, not raise(!) the wage-claims by players who literally get cut by setting them on the TM ok, enough text for today. Cherio, and good luck with your trades 
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2018-11-15 14:01:13 (ID: 100134440) Report Abuse | |
|
Brand new Teams don't have full Access. sure, but since you can have your Stadium full set in less than a Season there is plenty of time and Money for newer Teams to buy a lot of Players.
But since there are less and less to come in and stay, and less Players Overall, which does also mean less rework of rosters and rebuildings and whatever Situation you can be to buy a Player, the demand is very low. Combine this with the quite high (but still resonable) starting Prices for Players and you have the Situation you have right now. Easiest way to fix this would be to just Change the whole System and ban buy and sale processes, instead of bidding on selling Prices, bid on wages, combined with only a few periods where you can bid on Players at all, so that the competition is higher, like once every 4 RZA-weeks or only after Rollover for 1 week or so. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
gnikeoj
|
posted: 2018-11-15 20:06:21 (ID: 100134445) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:only after Rollover for 1 week or so.
I think this would give the feel of real-life free agency. I think this could be very fun. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
dumpling
|
posted: 2018-11-15 20:59:33 (ID: 100134447) Report Abuse |
|
gnikeoj wrote:
jack6 wrote:only after Rollover for 1 week or so.
I think this would give the feel of real-life free agency. I think this could be very fun.This type of change of restricting transfer periods would be a hinderence to new players to the game - they would be restricted (and bored). One of the reasons that puts me off from buying players is the high cost of wages compared to their overall set of skills. If you don't have a huge bank balance or a large revenue stream you shy away from players with high wages. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
noodle
|
posted: 2018-11-16 03:08:25 (ID: 100134454) Report Abuse |
|
dumpling wrote:
This type of change of restricting transfer periods would be a hinderence to new players to the game - they would be restricted (and bored). One of the reasons that puts me off from buying players is the high cost of wages compared to their overall set of skills. If you don't have a huge bank balance or a large revenue stream you shy away from players with high wages. i agree. the inability to sell some players is due to the way they were trained. i see many that are heavily trained in certain skills when on longer contracts and then put on the transfer market in the last season. invariably they wont be sold due to the reasons you mention above (too high wages) |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
noodle
|
posted: 2018-11-16 03:11:35 (ID: 100134455) Report Abuse |
|
Janos,
I just wonder how your team got in the red. bad financial planning in game or in real life leads to debts. ultimately if you were making money up to year 2, what happened after that to cause a large loss of money? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2018-11-16 14:22:48 (ID: 100134462) Report Abuse | |
|
I know the one time I went into financal trouble was I was doing well til buying $300k salary players not knowing any better. Two season later is when I started to feel the pinch. Like Pete says by then it was 2 late. Cant sell those players. Went a whole season unable to train.
I think one thing is the value of a player with over 40 skills. His performance definitely isnt worth the money. Maybe decreasing wage increases after say 41 skills for example. Making the top wage somewhere in the $300-350k range. Another idea is to be able to sign a franchise player 10 years or up to age 32. Calling the last 2 years a player option in case a player decides to retire before 32. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 7 8 9 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Brainstorming on training system overview | |
