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 / Two ideas on recruiting youth acadamy players Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2020-07-21 07:10:01 (ID: 100150833) Report Abuse | |
|
Yesterday, when I read the posts regarding youth players age and their skills I had two ideas.
When a professional team has a youth development department they do look everywhere to get the best talent they can get, in real life. So my ideas are to give premium acadamy owner an additional chance to recruit, based on their needs or wishes. 1st idea: You get the chance to send scouts to foreign countries and they search for players more specific to your needs, specified by positions, let's say 3. You have to pay the trip, let's say 50.000$, and the scout comes back with, let's say 3 players, from different countries than the clubs country is, and they age better than the regular acadamy recruit, say draft quality - 20%, but age 18, not younger. So basically you get a bit better prospects, but the con is they are already 2 years older than the initial 16 year old. They have a better chance on higher physicals, but less exp than the 16 year old would have, if stayed 2 seasons already in the acadamy. And you pay extra. 2nd idea: A professional acadamy should not be dependent on luck, at least not that much. So my idea was to add an age selection to the acadamy, which will lead to only players with age at that age+/- 1 year. So if selected prior the u p d a t e at age of 16, you get only 16 and 17 year old players, in any quality. Selecting 17 as age, you get 16, 17 and 18 year old, with majority on 17 years and so on. This would boost of cause the premium acadamy a bit more, but for 500K per uodate, this might be a small benefit, since you still need luck in the selection process. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-07-21 15:49:57 (ID: 100150836) Report Abuse | |
|
do we agree all these changes (not only yours) influence the already difficult transfer market, even more? This is no yes or no to the ideas.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2020-07-21 16:01:02 (ID: 100150837) Report Abuse |
|
What affects the TM most is the increased training speed, if we went back to the slower training speed there would be fewer beasts in all of RZA, decreasing the supply of beasts should increase their demand and therefore price.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-07-21 16:49:09 (ID: 100150838) Report Abuse | |
|
pete wrote:
do we agree all these changes (not only yours) influence the already difficult transfer market, even more? This is no yes or no to the ideas. From my point of view the 1st idea would eventually have a positive impact on the transfer market, since a good pospect still not fitting might get good prices. On the other hand, to push the 1st idea even further, such a "good" kid might come for the price of not being cast off until he hit 20, so something of 1-2 seasons he blocks a spot in the acadamy, if excepted. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ashlee
|
posted: 2020-07-23 03:16:19 (ID: 100150891) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
do we agree all these changes (not only yours) influence the already difficult transfer market, even more? This is no yes or no to the ideas. I'll support a simple adjustment : Paying additional $$$ in Premium Academy per week/chance to remove 20yo from the youth pull pool. Nothing else is adjusted. So instead of probability of 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; the youth pull odds will be slight better at 16, 17, 18, 19. But at a sufficiently high $$$, to take money out of old farts. The parameters to skills and traits are unchanged. This should not affect the TM too much, while adding new feature to the game. Speaking of the Transfer Market ... ... What are the benefits of propping up the transfer market? I know this had been discussed, and i'm trying to read back, but so far, i've only found this Big transfers discussion If i recall the bits and pieces of discussions floating around ... - values not as high as before - difficult for sellers to make money + easy for newbies to buy quality players For me, the TM is a reflection of the state of the RZA world. It moves as demand and supply dictates. Why do we want to artificially influence it to move or not move in certain directions? Does the lower prices takes the joy out of the game? Maybe for some yes, but it is now so much easier for new players to level up via TM. Bear in mind, I am a pure seller, I should opposes low price TM. But yet, at our current trend, I think bringing in and KEEPING new blood is more important. So most suggestions (like the one above) that may result in a lower TM is no problem for me. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
badgers
|
posted: 2020-07-23 03:29:15 (ID: 100150892) Report Abuse |
|
ashlee wrote: But yet, at our current trend, I think bringing in and KEEPING new blood is more important.
Very good point ashlee. I just posted in the other YA suggestion thread something that would increase the value of the TM, but now that you say that I may have to change my mind. Several regions are being hit hard by bot problems, and part of that is surely the slow growth. If we can have every division 1 league full, I'm all for it, even if it means sacrificing the value of the TM. Current Division 1 bot numbers: Admirals 3 bots Claymore 8 bots Dragons 3 bots Fire 4 bots Galaxy 7 bots Monarchs 8 bots Sea Devils 9 bots 
Thunder 6 bots For a grand total of 48 bots in division 1. That's 19% of division 1. I think it's a problem. Nobody wants to play bots. It sucks. You're seeing a change of mind from my latest post to this one. I agree with ashlee. We need to grow the game more than we need a thriving TM. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2020-07-23 05:20:19 (ID: 100150895) Edits found: 2 Report Abuse |
|
Maybe I have been missing somenthing...
I cannot evaluate how much removing from the pull 20yo players can affect the TM. I think we are all removing them before to pick already now... so instead of having with a Premium YA, seven prospects per turnover we have less among choose. But in any case we can pick only one. If I had in the pull seven 16yo players or six 20yo players and one 16yo I always pick one 16yo. The probability to pick a good players having 7 possibility is higher than one I agree... but if this is the problem it is easier remove 20yo and reduce the number of prospects available per turnover as well. At least we can spent 10 minutes deciding which player pick instead as now saying.... o well the younger is him ... picked! Last edited on 2020-07-23 05:23:15 by PJRAVENS |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-07-23 06:14:22 (ID: 100150897) Report Abuse | |
|
ashlee wrote:
I'll support a simple adjustment : Paying additional $$$ in Premium Academy per week/chance to remove 20yo from the youth pull pool. Nothing else is adjusted. So instead of probability of 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; the youth pull odds will be slight better at 16, 17, 18, 19. But at a sufficiently high $$$, to take money out of old farts. The parameters to skills and traits are unchanged. This should not affect the TM too much, while adding new feature to the game. For me, that's not worth money at all. Funny is, I did suggest 2 changes/adjustments and no one is dicussing them at all. They are, at least from handling point of view, easy and simple. 1. will bring in some chance on extra talent and add some additional gameplay 2. does basically add some better selection process, which from my point of view ill not change much of status quo, since you still need to s e l e c t 1 out of 7 and this could still be a bust. Only the age factor is a bit better. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
badgers
|
posted: 2020-07-23 20:42:24 (ID: 100150911) Report Abuse |
|
I guess I wasn't very clear in actually getting a point across, so I'll try again. Jack6's proposals would more likely than not increase the overall level of players across RZA. With that said, each team will probably have at least one YA player that is a solid prospect, but without space for him on the team. The manager will sell the player, and there will be more good players on the market. Young teams will be able to pick up on these players more easily, and therefore grow their team faster. I think that's where the TM discussion comes into play, is if we want the market to be buyer-friendly to attract new managers or seller-friendly to encourage team-building from within.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-07-24 15:56:59 (ID: 100150928) Report Abuse | |
|
to make room to discuss the original suggestion: the "no 20 ys old" was done. We can keep focus now
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Two ideas on recruiting youth acadamy players | |
