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 4 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Viking
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:27:05 (ID: 71875) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
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. Fair enough, but if we are speaking about "fair play" - will not cancelling of coaches point caps help to new teams quickly catch older teams? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Spiff
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:29:09 (ID: 71876) Report Abuse |
|
I don't want to comment on the AC discussion but as far as the out-of-position penalty, I'm fine with the way it is and I think it's even most realistic.
For example, if you play a CB as a SF in reality he has probably the same skillset, minus the game smarts I would say. So, in reality, the CB is a good SF but not an elite one, hence the penalty. If you play a QB as a SF he probably has the game smarts required but not the athletic skillset. So, I think in reality the QB plays the SF position worse than the CB would. In RZA, it's the same thing: you get an equal penalty for playing a player out of position, regardless of the position. If you play the CB as a SF, you have the out-of-position penatly but other than that, the skillset should be the same (e.g., tackling etc.). But if you play the QB you will have a SF that's playing even worse because he can't tackle AND has the out-of-position penalty. So, for me, the out-of-position penalty is just fine because it penalizes you for playing a player in a position he isn't used to play, just like in real life. Everything else is up to the players' abilities. I hope I can get my point across. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:29:31 (ID: 71877) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
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! This is not cosmetic at all and can be a part of any future engine. The more discussion the better because the more crap there is in future versions, the more it gets cemented in over time. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:31:46 (ID: 71878) Report Abuse |
|
Viking wrote:
pete wrote:
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. Fair enough, but if we are speaking about "fair play" - will not cancelling of coaches point caps help to new teams quickly catch older teams? If anything I think it would widen the gap, as the 'older' teams have more money and can therefore afford better coaches than newer teams |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Viking
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:40:39 (ID: 71880) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
If anything I think it would widen the gap, as the 'older' teams have more money and can therefore afford better coaches than newer teams Not exactly, as far as you maximize you stadium the income per season is more less same, as new team have not so good players, they are cheaper and therefore they will be able to spend more money for coaches. My players have salary around 210.000 per week, I doubt that team in 1.1 division has so low salary ... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:44:48 (ID: 71882) Report Abuse |
|
Viking wrote:
ptossell wrote:
If anything I think it would widen the gap, as the 'older' teams have more money and can therefore afford better coaches than newer teams Not exactly, as far as you maximize you stadium the income per season is more less same, as new team have not so good players, they are cheaper and therefore they will be able to spend more money for coaches. My players have salary around 210.000 per week, I doubt that team in 1.1 division has so low salary ... I am in 1.1 and my weekly player salary is less than 150,000 per week  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:47:51 (ID: 71883) 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. Fair enough, thank you for the response  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Viking
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:49:26 (ID: 71885) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
I am in 1.1 and my weekly player salary is less than 150,000 per week No offence but according rating, strength of you team is not exactly great, you are on same level as me  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
ptossell
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:52:27 (ID: 71886) Report Abuse |
|
Viking wrote:
ptossell wrote:
I am in 1.1 and my weekly player salary is less than 150,000 per week No offence but according rating, strength of you team is not exactly great, you are on same level as me Agreed - I am still building my team but I am competitive. You have probably spent too much too quickly as you dont need to be spending that much on wages to get out of Division 3 - you could have saved more money to spend later on when you will really need it |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Viking
|
posted: 2012-12-11 15:57:30 (ID: 71888) Report Abuse |
|
ptossell wrote:
Agreed - I am still building my team but I am competitive. You have probably spent too much too quickly as you dont need to be spending that much on wages to get out of Division 3 - you could have saved more money to spend later on when you will really need it You are right, but most money I have spend per young players 18-22 years old, so I hope they are future of my team  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Out of position penalty too low? | |
