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 / A Slower, More Difficult Game? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Cheesehead
|
posted: 2020-08-24 15:59:19 (ID: 100151899) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
If Pete shared private data with such group it would give them an unfair competitive advantage. If Pete didn't share private data with said group I don't see why everything you listed couldn't be done here. This is why the forum is the least bad place to do all of this  I disagree. The idea is that discussion can take place amongst a few instead of all and with Pete sharing with these few what is realistic to change. The problem with forum is that all can have their say but this dilutes the conversation and the views are too widespread to get to one workable recommendation by Pete. The few would be able to get to this workable recommendation I believe. Pete would not need to share private data this few. Of course this a just an idea which is subject to discussion by all via this forum  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-08-24 16:15:57 (ID: 100151901) Report Abuse | |
|
I suggest different: you guys discuss a topic in discussions, as you would in the suggestion board. Once the direction of a suggestion is clear, the OP goes for the final suggestion in suggestions, and links that post to the discussion in here. I can than rely on the very first post in suggestions, and join here for questions.
We had such a closed group before, called the Advisers Board. It has some real downsides. We create an Elite of forum users, where the others are suspicious about the Elite knowing more/not telling all etc. I dislike going down this way, again. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Kanar
|
posted: 2020-08-24 17:49:48 (ID: 100151912) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Jonny Utah wrote:
Kanar wrote:
Jonny Utah wrote:whenever I read on the forum that we should all have a minimum number or tights ends and fullbacks, [...] I want to slam my face against the desk in dumbfounded frustration.
Why that? 
I'd be happy to discuss it with you. My visualisation of an extreme reaction was done for comedic value, but my views stem from the enjoyment I get from seeing individuality in team set-ups. In real life I like watching the triple option teams (stupid Yellow Jackets gone mainstream!) who basically play Flexbone formation the entire time. The battles between spread offenses and older-school run 1st offenses is fascinating for me. My opinion is that it's boring to see everyone playing every formation with very similar squad set-ups, it narrows the game in my view. I also feel very frustrated when it seems like people don't understand the difference between a formation and a play, you could run a ton of plays from one formation, the defence might be able to get better match-ups over time, they're still not going to know exactly what's coming though, compared to throwing it down one flank out of a ton of formations, I know that's an extreme example, but makes my point. I understand it all came about because of people disliking seeing teams do nothing but SG4 all game long, I totally understand how annoying it can be, and the feeling they've put very little time into planning their playbook, etc. Going for the total opposite, in my opinion, is just causing the same fundamental issues, they just look different. I understand. But having a minimum of players was initially proposed to have a more balanced roster, limitate the position switching made only for training system abuse and resulting in limitating the salaries inflation. But I agree that having all the position in a roster would allow managers to use more formations. Imo, that’s a bonus. But there would not be any downside if the manager wants to stick with SWR4. I don’t see in what that would cause self mutilation with a desk. Last edited on 2020-08-24 17:50:49 by Kanar |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-08-24 19:11:20 (ID: 100151921) Report Abuse | |
|
Kanar wrote:
I understand. But having a minimum of players was initially proposed to have a more balanced roster, limitate the position switching made only for training system abuse and resulting in limitating the salaries inflation. But I agree that having all the position in a roster would allow managers to use more formations. Imo, that’s a bonus. But there would not be any downside if the manager wants to stick with SWR4. I don’t see in what that would cause self mutilation with a desk. I thought the training abuse was fixed by having a position switch period and maximum number of players per position? I don't understand how it limits the salary inflation? But I should probably read all the posts in the thread to get that one 
I think we might be arguing different points on the positions bit? My issue was about having a minimum amount at each position. In that situation there would definitely be a downside to managers who only wanted to use SG4, as the example, as they would have RB's and TE's taking up roster spaces, and wages, but never playing a snap at their designated position. Also, a minimum amount per position is only a bonus in formation usage to the managers who want to use all, or almost all, of the formations, to the other managers it's not a bonus. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2020-08-25 08:04:28 (ID: 100151936) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
I suggest different: you guys discuss a topic in discussions, as you would in the suggestion board. Once the direction of a suggestion is clear, the OP goes for the final suggestion in suggestions, and links that post to the discussion in here. I can than rely on the very first post in suggestions, and join here for questions. We had such a closed group before, called the Advisers Board. It has some real downsides. We create an Elite of forum users, where the others are suspicious about the Elite knowing more/not telling all etc. I dislike going down this way, again. Exactly, this is the reason why I started this thread   |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Kanar
|
posted: 2020-08-25 14:00:08 (ID: 100151958) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
We create an Elite of forum users, where the others are suspicious about the Elite knowing more/not telling all etc. I dislike going down this way, again. Too bad. It would have constituted a "deep" RZA we could have called the Illumina-Pete's. In addition to take advantage of the other managers, the group could have sold our private data to Chinese pharmaceutical companies in charge of developing vaccines with nano 5G chips.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-08-25 14:11:45 (ID: 100151961) Report Abuse | |
|
Kanar wrote:
In addition to take advantage of the other managers, the group could have sold our private data to Chinese pharmaceutical companies in charge of developing vaccines with nano 5G chips. Damn whisteblowers... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >| | |
| Main / Discussions / A Slower, More Difficult Game? | |
