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 / Gambling in the game Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
158.3
|
posted: 2019-04-14 14:24:27 (ID: 100138876) Report Abuse |
|
My proposition is simple -
every team's owner to have a possibility to bet on 1 game weekly definite amount of cash (let's say 1 mil. bucks) or credits (for example 10 credits). Of course he won't be allowed to bet on his own team's games... 
The allowed choices for betting will be home/guest win or under/over etc... I don't know if my idea is technically possible for implementation to the game engine, but in the case of yes , there are details to be put on consideration furthur... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2019-04-14 17:10:42 (ID: 100138881) Report Abuse | |
|
I don't think gambling is a way the game should go.
I could imagine some kind of fantasy football option to play with, but even that would have to be done very carefully. But betting on wins with ingame money (not a good idea from my point of view, since this would a l t e r the financial system heavily) or even with credits (even worse idea, since this is basically a system which is created to bring in some real live money) is in this environment massively under cheating and betraying influence and should not be an option. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2019-04-14 19:42:56 (ID: 100138886) Report Abuse | |
|
on top, since Credits represent a real value, I am not allowed to run gambling based on existing laws. I was checking this, since this suggestion is not a new one.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2019-04-15 22:38:00 (ID: 100138920) Report Abuse | |
|
We've had ideas or suggestions about gambling, bets, shares, casino.
We have facilities, fanshops, markets, IG money. We don't have any bank. pete wrote:
(...) yes, I dislike bankers too posted: 2013-05-03 14:53:07 (ID: 94501) Can't we have a RZA Bank ? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2019-04-18 19:39:49 (ID: 100139028) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Maybe it would be possible think to improve a little bit the sponsor feature.
Now sponsor pay a price every win, maybe we can add something. What if managers have to predict their own regular season record committing on a target. The sponsor pays the prize only if the target is achieved Of course more challenging is the target more high is the prize. Let see an example Prize 200K for a win In the beginning of the season and before week 1 the manager commit on a regular season 10 win / 6 loss If he achieve the target the price is 200Kx10 = 2M In order to achieve the target the manager has to share the 30% of the prize with the team as a bonus on top the wages, and 15% guarantee So the manager agrees with the sponsor 2M prize if he win at least 10 games in regular season He pays immediately 15% (300K) as wage bonus. Target achieved he will get 2M and pay other 15% (300k) Target missed -50% morale and TC for the whole roster In this way you have to choose a challenging target but affordable. The same could work for target like winning Division / Conference / Bowl … And for Sc too. At the moment I cannot see a way to cheat… Maybe it only a foolish idea… Last edited on 2019-04-18 19:41:51 by PJRAVENS |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2019-04-21 20:33:53 (ID: 100139103) Report Abuse | |
|
PJRAVENS wrote:
Maybe it would be possible think to improve a little bit the sponsor feature. Now sponsor pay a price every win, maybe we can add something. What if managers have to predict their own regular season record committing on a target. The sponsor pays the prize only if the target is achieved Of course more challenging is the target more high is the prize. Let see an example Prize 200K for a win In the beginning of the season and before week 1 the manager commit on a regular season 10 win / 6 loss If he achieve the target the price is 200Kx10 = 2M In order to achieve the target the manager has to share the 30% of the prize with the team as a bonus on top the wages, and 15% guarantee So the manager agrees with the sponsor 2M prize if he win at least 10 games in regular season He pays immediately 15% (300K) as wage bonus. Target achieved he will get 2M and pay other 15% (300k) Target missed -50% morale and TC for the whole roster In this way you have to choose a challenging target but affordable. The same could work for target like winning Division / Conference / Bowl … And for Sc too. At the moment I cannot see a way to cheat… Maybe it only a foolish idea… I like the idea but see some issues in the figures, the morale loss would be devastating for a playoff team so doesn't make it at all worth while for the payout to go big, especially with the amount we get for playoff games. I also think, and i might have missed something here so sorry if i have, this favours stronger teams? The really good teams might look at their schedule and decide they'll easily win at least 12 games, they can then s e l e c t 10 to be safe. A weaker team might think they'll only win 5, s e l e c t 7 to push themselves and even if they achieve their goal they will still get less than the other team that chose an easily achievable target. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2019-04-22 07:29:03 (ID: 100139110) Report Abuse |
|
Jonny Utah wrote:
PJRAVENS wrote:
Maybe it would be possible think to improve a little bit the sponsor feature. Now sponsor pay a price every win, maybe we can add something. What if managers have to predict their own regular season record committing on a target. The sponsor pays the prize only if the target is achieved Of course more challenging is the target more high is the prize. Let see an example Prize 200K for a win In the beginning of the season and before week 1 the manager commit on a regular season 10 win / 6 loss If he achieve the target the price is 200Kx10 = 2M In order to achieve the target the manager has to share the 30% of the prize with the team as a bonus on top the wages, and 15% guarantee So the manager agrees with the sponsor 2M prize if he win at least 10 games in regular season He pays immediately 15% (300K) as wage bonus. Target achieved he will get 2M and pay other 15% (300k) Target missed -50% morale and TC for the whole roster In this way you have to choose a challenging target but affordable. The same could work for target like winning Division / Conference / Bowl … And for Sc too. At the moment I cannot see a way to cheat… Maybe it only a foolish idea… I like the idea but see some issues in the figures, the morale loss would be devastating for a playoff team so doesn't make it at all worth while for the payout to go big, especially with the amount we get for playoff games. I also think, and i might have missed something here so sorry if i have, this favours stronger teams? The really good teams might look at their schedule and decide they'll easily win at least 12 games, they can then s e l e c t 10 to be safe. A weaker team might think they'll only win 5, s e l e c t 7 to push themselves and even if they achieve their goal they will still get less than the other team that chose an easily achievable target. Despite my basic English you did not missing anything.
I undestood your points. Put a part for a moment the example end let us focusing on the idea. You choose a target and you have to commit on acheaving it By definition more challenging is the target more high must be the prize. If not we cannot even talking about a challenge. If you fail to achive the target you have to pay! More challenging was the target more you have to pay. If not you will always choose the more challenging target and if you failed to achive it would be free of charge. So yes this would favour stronger teams, but the variable part of the prize of the present sponsor feature work already like this and you do not even need to commit on a target. Now we can enjoy to talk about how should be the prize and how much we should pay ... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Schwabe
|
posted: 2019-04-22 07:51:14 (ID: 100139112) Report Abuse |
|
PJRAVENS wrote:
Jonny Utah wrote:
PJRAVENS wrote:
Maybe it would be possible think to improve a little bit the sponsor feature. Now sponsor pay a price every win, maybe we can add something. What if managers have to predict their own regular season record committing on a target. The sponsor pays the prize only if the target is achieved Of course more challenging is the target more high is the prize. Let see an example Prize 200K for a win In the beginning of the season and before week 1 the manager commit on a regular season 10 win / 6 loss If he achieve the target the price is 200Kx10 = 2M In order to achieve the target the manager has to share the 30% of the prize with the team as a bonus on top the wages, and 15% guarantee So the manager agrees with the sponsor 2M prize if he win at least 10 games in regular season He pays immediately 15% (300K) as wage bonus. Target achieved he will get 2M and pay other 15% (300k) Target missed -50% morale and TC for the whole roster In this way you have to choose a challenging target but affordable. The same could work for target like winning Division / Conference / Bowl … And for Sc too. At the moment I cannot see a way to cheat… Maybe it only a foolish idea… I like the idea but see some issues in the figures, the morale loss would be devastating for a playoff team so doesn't make it at all worth while for the payout to go big, especially with the amount we get for playoff games. I also think, and i might have missed something here so sorry if i have, this favours stronger teams? The really good teams might look at their schedule and decide they'll easily win at least 12 games, they can then s e l e c t 10 to be safe. A weaker team might think they'll only win 5, s e l e c t 7 to push themselves and even if they achieve their goal they will still get less than the other team that chose an easily achievable target. Despite my basic English you did not missing anything.
I undestood your points. Put a part for a moment the example end let us focusing on the idea. You choose a target and you have to commit on acheaving it By definition more challenging is the target more high must be the prize. If not we cannot even talking about a challenge. If you fail to achive the target you have to pay! More challenging was the target more you have to pay. If not you will always choose the more challenging target and if you failed to achive it would be free of charge. So yes this would favour stronger teams, but the variable part of the prize of the present sponsor feature work already like this and you do not even need to commit on a target. Now we can enjoy to talk about how should be the prize and how much we should pay ... I like the idea as well, but after we have something like this already, I think we can use the space for datas better. Too less fun for too much effort. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Gambling in the game | |
