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 / Too Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2011-12-20 17:08:14 (ID: 20451) |
|
Buffalo wrote:
Admin wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Add for each season one random superstar (with a drafty-skillset) to the starting rooster, when a new manager joins the game. Please explain a bit more. I don't get it completely, I am afraid Managers who join in season 2 get one Star to their starting rooster. Jonining in season 3 having 2 Stars in the starting rooster. Joining in Season 4 having 3 Stars ...... and so on. So the gap between rookies and veterans will be a little bit smaller. This won't work, since the economy doesn't match the progress of the team |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Chatral
|
posted: 2011-12-20 18:33:10 (ID: 20462) Report Abuse |
|
Re: So the gap between rookies and veterans will be a little bit smaller.
I'm giving my opinion here as a rookie 10 days in. I think first and foremost that the game needs to be more stable before worrying about balance of older players vs. new. I think older players need to be aware that a day will come where the design is largely stable, and that to enable game balance for new entrants the older positions may need to be toned down (or new positions ones scaled up). With some unstable game elements, any balance you try to strike now will get squished by game design changes. I think that game balance in any game design needs to be based around the 'currency' of that game. In this case I think the logic currency is dollars - the real game economy (in a CCG like magic the currency is mana). I therefore think the ultimate balance would be spending caps - such as a limit on stadium size (limiting income) and a salary cap (limiting direct spend on players) There are opportunities to introduce 'wrinkles' into each area of income/expenditure as well. So, for income a more exponential less linear approach to costing stadium size increase could slow down the 'arms race' of income generation (and in fact sticking 1,000 extra seats in your local 5,000 seater stadium is much cheaper than sticking them into Wembley or the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff, or Lambeau Field). For expenditure, maybe indirect spend via better or phased/graded training facilities might make for an interesting angle for coaches to invest in. But. . . as I say, I think the game needs to be more stable first. My *first impressions* are that the game engine tends to generate results where a brand new team will beat bots 41-3 (33% overal team rating vs. 34% - which should be a close gamein theory), and lose to a second season human-controlled team by a similar amount(33% team overall rating vs. 35% - again something that should be much closer). That makes me think that there is a lack of game engine balance - somewhere. So, fix the engine, get stable game play, and THEN worry about rookies. The game is not yet ready for a 'casual rookie' in my opinion - only folk who recognise that what we're playing is a live Beta game will stick around at the moment. Regards all |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
NYDOGS
|
posted: 2011-12-20 18:40:59 (ID: 20463) Report Abuse |
|
The overall rating is not a real indicator (you could lower yours if you have for example no Gunners in your team). It's just an idication quite meaningless...
Moreover, even with a close overall gap, your Playbook and strategy is what gives the difference. BOTs have none and poor Physical Condition. But the goal of the game is not to have serious opposition from BOTS... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Monkey
|
posted: 2011-12-20 19:44:06 (ID: 20477) Report Abuse |
|
yes there is lots that you have to do when you get started like DC and play book but once you have them set up and working without issues then you dont need to change them for every game(i havent changed my play book since midway through season 1) after that its fairly easy to keep up with the team and watch it grow with very little influence from me other than checking training a couple of times a week and keeping my shop stocked. it will take some trial and error setting up coaches again but its not gonna be something you need to check all the time once its done
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2011-12-20 22:43:22 (ID: 20517) |
|
Chatral wrote:
Re: So the gap between rookies and veterans will be a little bit smaller. I'm giving my opinion here as a rookie 10 days in. I think first and foremost that the game needs to be more stable before worrying about balance of older players vs. new. I think older players need to be aware that a day will come where the design is largely stable, and that to enable game balance for new entrants the older positions may need to be toned down (or new positions ones scaled up). With some unstable game elements, any balance you try to strike now will get squished by game design changes. I think that game balance in any game design needs to be based around the 'currency' of that game. In this case I think the logic currency is dollars - the real game economy (in a CCG like magic the currency is mana). I therefore think the ultimate balance would be spending caps - such as a limit on stadium size (limiting income) and a salary cap (limiting direct spend on players) There are opportunities to introduce 'wrinkles' into each area of income/expenditure as well. So, for income a more exponential less linear approach to costing stadium size increase could slow down the 'arms race' of income generation (and in fact sticking 1,000 extra seats in your local 5,000 seater stadium is much cheaper than sticking them into Wembley or the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff, or Lambeau Field). For expenditure, maybe indirect spend via better or phased/graded training facilities might make for an interesting angle for coaches to invest in. But. . . as I say, I think the game needs to be more stable first. My *first impressions* are that the game engine tends to generate results where a brand new team will beat bots 41-3 (33% overal team rating vs. 34% - which should be a close gamein theory), and lose to a second season human-controlled team by a similar amount(33% team overall rating vs. 35% - again something that should be much closer). That makes me think that there is a lack of game engine balance - somewhere. So, fix the engine, get stable game play, and THEN worry about rookies. The game is not yet ready for a 'casual rookie' in my opinion - only folk who recognise that what we're playing is a live Beta game will stick around at the moment. Regards all Thanks for the ideas and opinion! Just a note: it is wanted behavior that bots could be beat easily as long as a newbee is doing the homework. We recognize bot teams as what they are, just placeholders in the league structure. This is why we have a bot flush at season rollover. This is the reason why we remove developed players from teams that are going bot, too. And finally, bots are not only limited on tactics and player skills (no training here), bots have to "fight" with "disadvantages" on game simulation time. If you ever lose to a bot, you know you made something serious wrong, or your team had a really worse day. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Chatral
|
posted: 2011-12-21 07:11:32 (ID: 20532) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
Chatral wrote:
Re: So the gap between rookies and veterans will be a little bit smaller. I'm giving my opinion here as a rookie 10 days in. I think first and foremost that the game needs to be more stable before worrying about balance of older players vs. new. I think older players need to be aware that a day will come where the design is largely stable, and that to enable game balance for new entrants the older positions may need to be toned down (or new positions ones scaled up). With some unstable game elements, any balance you try to strike now will get squished by game design changes. I think that game balance in any game design needs to be based around the 'currency' of that game. In this case I think the logic currency is dollars - the real game economy (in a CCG like magic the currency is mana). I therefore think the ultimate balance would be spending caps - such as a limit on stadium size (limiting income) and a salary cap (limiting direct spend on players) There are opportunities to introduce 'wrinkles' into each area of income/expenditure as well. So, for income a more exponential less linear approach to costing stadium size increase could slow down the 'arms race' of income generation (and in fact sticking 1,000 extra seats in your local 5,000 seater stadium is much cheaper than sticking them into Wembley or the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff, or Lambeau Field). For expenditure, maybe indirect spend via better or phased/graded training facilities might make for an interesting angle for coaches to invest in. But. . . as I say, I think the game needs to be more stable first. My *first impressions* are that the game engine tends to generate results where a brand new team will beat bots 41-3 (33% overal team rating vs. 34% - which should be a close gamein theory), and lose to a second season human-controlled team by a similar amount(33% team overall rating vs. 35% - again something that should be much closer). That makes me think that there is a lack of game engine balance - somewhere. So, fix the engine, get stable game play, and THEN worry about rookies. The game is not yet ready for a 'casual rookie' in my opinion - only folk who recognise that what we're playing is a live Beta game will stick around at the moment. Regards all Thanks for the ideas and opinion! Just a note: it is wanted behavior that bots could be beat easily as long as a newbee is doing the homework. We recognize bot teams as what they are, just placeholders in the league structure. This is why we have a bot flush at season rollover. This is the reason why we remove developed players from teams that are going bot, too. And finally, bots are not only limited on tactics and player skills (no training here), bots have to "fight" with "disadvantages" on game simulation time. If you ever lose to a bot, you know you made something serious wrong, or your team had a really worse day. Okay, so I understand the Bot concept from that - thank you. I think I'd do it differently, but that doesn't really matter. I DO think that getting creamed in a game vs. a human player when there is a less than 1% overall team rating difference is a concern. But, I'll wait until I have a bit more statistical evidence (of similar events) before commenting further. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2011-12-21 11:12:50 (ID: 20553) Report Abuse |
|
Would it be possible to make the Teamrating set in relation to your DC and not your rooster? If a player is twice on the DC only the highest position of the Player in the DC would count.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2011-12-21 11:26:41 (ID: 20554) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Admin wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Add for each season one random superstar (with a drafty-skillset) to the starting rooster, when a new manager joins the game. Please explain a bit more. I don't get it completely, I am afraid Managers who join in season 2 get one Star to their starting rooster. Jonining in season 3 having 2 Stars in the starting rooster. Joining in Season 4 having 3 Stars ...... and so on. So the gap between rookies and veterans will be a little bit smaller. This won't work, since the economy doesn't match the progress of the team The basic idea from Buffalo is not bad! And even with 3 "stars" like the draft player we get in the team financial will cause no problem for any starter team AND it will make it more interesting for them to stay when they already have some nice player in team instead of "watching" on the transfer market for players they can not afford to buy! Why financial is no problem? With lot of teams with big stadiums even friendly game and espceciall the cup games will get them good money and even stadium build will not stall! Run a simulation! With the current system a new smart manager could build easily stadium full in 20 weeks with 100.000 player salary from start. One condition i would include: the new team are not possible to sell the "superstars" for e.g. 3 season! They shall not harm the own team by selling them - they do not need the money of the sell to build stadium. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2011-12-21 11:40:28 (ID: 20556) |
|
this all makes it just more complicating
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Toni Gorilla
|
posted: 2011-12-22 00:22:37 (ID: 20606) Report Abuse |
|
Chatral wrote:
Re: So the gap between rookies and veterans will be a little bit smaller. ... and lose to a second season human-controlled team by a similar amount(33% team overall rating vs. 35% - again something that should be much closer). That makes me think that there is a lack of game engine balance - somewhere Regards all Hi there. I think you are wrong here. I noticed the same: 2nd season teams with relatively low average skill playing extremely well. However, you have to take into account that they may have a low average skill because they pulled lots of young, unskilled talents who are sitting at the bottom of rotation or only play in friendlies. The core of the starters usually has a much higher average. Last edited on 2011-12-22 00:27:23 by Toni Gorilla |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Too | |
