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 / Out of position penalty too low? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 14:56:49 (ID: 71863) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
ptossell wrote:
But this still doesn't address the AC issue, which will be he bigger challenge. How would you propose we change the ACs? Issue? Ummm, scrap CB and SF ACs and have a DB AC!  Exactly the answer I thought you would give! This doesn't address the issue as we currently have to make choices about which positions we have ACs for. If we reduce the number of positions by one, then it makes it easier to have ACs for more positions which was not what Pete intended in a MANAGEMENT game |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:03:47 (ID: 71864) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
hosh13 wrote:
ptossell wrote:
But this still doesn't address the AC issue, which will be he bigger challenge. How would you propose we change the ACs? Issue? Ummm, scrap CB and SF ACs and have a DB AC! Exactly the answer I thought you would give! This doesn't address the issue as we currently have to make choices about which positions we have ACs for. If we reduce the number of positions by one, then it makes it easier to have ACs for more positions which was not what Pete intended in a MANAGEMENT game Simply reduce the number of points teams have for ACs? Currently we have 500 points for 11 positions so for 9 positions (RB/FB merged as Tailbacks) we should have 409 points... round it to 400 and we have slightly tougher decisions to make. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Viking
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:08:12 (ID: 71865) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
If we reduce the number of positions by one, then it makes it easier to have ACs for more positions which was not what Pete intended in a MANAGEMENT game Then question is, if this should be imaginary MANAGEMENT GAME or GAME close to reality as much possible. In my opinion, if you allow to have AC for all position but keep cap on CP, you still need to make serious manager decision - have all AC, but most of them with pure quality or have just few of them, but really good. I personally will delete all caps, but increase salary progression for both players and coaches and included STR and SPE in wage calculation. Then each manager (as income per season is limited) will have to decide where to spend his money - have excellent coaches but weaker players (possible road for new team) or have great players without great coaching system (probably choice for older teams) or going spend most of budget on TM .... still plenty of manager decision to make |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:09:12 (ID: 71866) Report Abuse |
|
Err...I think we currently have 550 points for 11 positions so that would make it 450 for 9 positions.
I am not completely opposed to the change, but it seems like a lot of work for something that won't make a great deal of difference imo. The current structure seems to work fine for me, apart from the point raised in the OP, which is that we need some higher OOP penalties. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:11:14 (ID: 71867) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
Exactly the answer I thought you would give! This doesn't address the issue as we currently have to make choices about which positions we have ACs for. If we reduce the number of positions by one, then it makes it easier to have ACs for more positions which was not what Pete intended in a MANAGEMENT game Walked right into that one, didn't I? Now all I need to do is work out what your point is! 
A 10% difference, right? What about inside/outside LB and DT/DE ACs? This is about the same difference that exists between CB/SF. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:12:41 (ID: 71869) Report Abuse |
|
Viking wrote:
ptossell wrote:
If we reduce the number of positions by one, then it makes it easier to have ACs for more positions which was not what Pete intended in a MANAGEMENT game Then question is, if this should be imaginary MANAGEMENT GAME or GAME close to reality as much This is a good point, and the difficulty is in finding the right balance. As when it comes to creating games, there are certain situations where if you try to replicate reality you will create loopholes that people will abuse. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:15:48 (ID: 71870) Report Abuse |
|
hosh13 wrote:
ptossell wrote:
Exactly the answer I thought you would give! This doesn't address the issue as we currently have to make choices about which positions we have ACs for. If we reduce the number of positions by one, then it makes it easier to have ACs for more positions which was not what Pete intended in a MANAGEMENT game Walked right into that one, didn't I? Now all I need to do is work out what your point is!
A 10% difference, right? What about inside/outside LB and DT/DE ACs? This is about the same difference that exists between CB/SF. I think I will just leave it to Pete to explain why he created the positions the way they are. For someone, who has made such a big deal out of not making further cosmetic changes until the engine is (in his opinion) fixed, you sure like to make a lot of suggestions around cosmetic changes! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:16:38 (ID: 71871) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
I am not completely opposed to the change, but it seems like a lot of work for something that won't make a great deal of difference imo. The current structure seems to work fine for me, apart from the point raised in the OP, which is that we need some higher OOP penalties. This is an unfortunate consequence of the allergy to position specific experience more than anything else. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-12-11 15:19:20 (ID: 71873) Report Abuse | |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Viking wrote:
for example CB can easily play SF, but hardly OL ... Not in the Pete's RZA-world. The OOP should exactly prevent the use of CB and SF in exchange. Why would we want to prevent CB/SF to be able to be efficient anywhere in the backfield when it's something that happens fairly often in real football? Official answer: We like to encourage our users to carry a full roster. This is why we don't like to allow any positional switching at all, except on special teams. We know that this is not like in real life, but this should not matter in this special case. Much more it is a question of "fair play" and economical needs. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:20:54 (ID: 71874) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Viking wrote:
for example CB can easily play SF, but hardly OL ... Not in the Pete's RZA-world. The OOP should exactly prevent the use of CB and SF in exchange. Why would we want to prevent CB/SF to be able to be efficient anywhere in the backfield when it's something that happens fairly often in real football? Official answer: We like to encourage our users to carry a full roster. This is why we don't like to allow any positional switching at all, except on special teams. We know that this is not like in real life, but this should not matter in this special case. Much more it is a question of "fair play" and economical needs.  thanks Pete |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 6 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Out of position penalty too low? | |
