Login
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 / Expand the YA Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 10 12 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2026-03-23 17:54:25 (ID: 100198677) Report Abuse | |
|
MacsUltraVideosYT wrote:
also that leads me to bring up this: an RZA March Madness tournament where each group of ELO ranked teams (1 to 12 for #1s 13 to 24 for #2s and so on... to get to #192 which is part of the #16s) and each one of these groups s e l e c t a member to compete in this tournament: 16 teams, each representing that group of 12 to 13 people and they play in a single elimination tournament against each other for the crown! how about that? thoughts and do you think this is plausible (because it would be really fun ngl) Additional tornaments were suggested often. It’s a schedule Problem in the 1st Place, then, whether Income or not and then how to manage it. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-03-23 18:25:16 (ID: 100198678) Report Abuse | |
|
jack6 wrote:
we could have it on Sundays or Wednesdays or Fridays... and the teams in that seed group based off of their ELO would decide their representative; income would be split in half so the further you go you make more stadium $$$ it could work...MacsUltraVideosYT wrote:
also that leads me to bring up this: an RZA March Madness tournament where each group of ELO ranked teams (1 to 12 for #1s 13 to 24 for #2s and so on... to get to #192 which is part of the #16s) and each one of these groups s e l e c t a member to compete in this tournament: 16 teams, each representing that group of 12 to 13 people and they play in a single elimination tournament against each other for the crown! how about that? thoughts and do you think this is plausible (because it would be really fun ngl) Additional tornaments were suggested often. It’s a schedule Problem in the 1st Place, then, whether Income or not and then how to manage it. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-03-23 18:37:55 (ID: 100198679) Report Abuse | |
|
here are the qualifications for a seed:
#1 seed (Global rank #1 to #12) #2 seed (Global rank #13 to #24) #3 seed (Global rank #25 to #36) #4 seed (Global rank #37 to #48) #5 seed (Global rank #49 to #60) #6 seed (Global rank #61 to #72) #7 seed (Global rank #73 to #84) #8 seed (Global rank #85 to #96) #9 seed (Global rank #97 to #108) #10 seed (Global rank #109 to #120) #11 seed (Global rank #121 to #132) #12 seed (Global rank #133 to 144) #13 seed (Global rank #145 to #156) #14 seed (Global rank #157 to #168) #15 seed (Global rank #169 to #181) #16 seed (Global rank #182 to #193) Each qualifying member of a seed votes or decides on their representative in the tournament, as a bonus the group members receive $2 million per win of their seed rank so even if your not making the $$$ by playing the games you still will benefit so the best teams will be picked as a result... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-03-23 19:20:04 (ID: 100198680) Report Abuse | |
|
Just a remark, because I feel it's needed right now:
My goal with RZ* has always been to have fun while writing the code. I wanted to create a time-wasting machine for those who actually need one. A game for people who enjoy tweaking things over and over until success is achieved - and if it takes seasons, it just takes seasons. It was never my goal to have huge user numbers, to make big money with RZ*, or to create one of those games where you join, spend money, and become superior overnight. That never was the idea, and it never will be. I've been playing this game since day one. I wrote everything, yet I was never able to compete at the very top. Others invested more time, more thought, and the persistence and some stubornness to keep going season after season and they earned their success. And honestly, that’s exactly how a management game should work in my opinion. Maybe this is where the misunderstanding comes from: this is not an American Football simulator. It is an American Football management simulator. Notice the word "management". Some might be disappointed by that. Sorry, but not sorry. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-03-23 19:24:44 (ID: 100198681) Report Abuse | |
|
Oh, and a quote from one of the coaches that thought me American Football earlier in my life: if you dislike the outcome, just do better ...
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-03-23 20:14:33 (ID: 100198682) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
Let's see if I can make my opinion understood, which is sometimes difficult with the change of language.
Okay, Pete has created a mountain, his mountain. Some (few) have managed to "understand" it very well and have reached the summit. The rest, the majority, have stayed at the "base camp" watching these privileged people from below. The years will pass and the image will be the same, a few at the top of the summit and the rest looking at it from the base camp. The few who have reached the summit deserve it, they have achieved what the creator of the mountain wanted. They have "understood" how to climb it little by little, avoiding the risks of avalanches, with the help of good materials. Our most sincere recognition and admiration. But there are fewer and fewer people at the base camp, some have gotten tired of trying to reach the summit, others don't even try. Personally, I like being here, I enjoy the mountain to the level I want and I'll stay there until the owner lets me. But I wonder if it would be possible, without wanting to create an amusement park, to "bring" the base camp closer to the summit and make it accessible to more people. I have no idea how to do it. I don't know anything about mountains and I'm an illiterate code writer. 
Last edited on 2026-03-23 20:17:23 by Quimriera |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-03-23 20:25:39 (ID: 100198684) Report Abuse | |
|
MacsUltraVideosYT wrote:
jack6 wrote:
we could have it on Sundays or Wednesdays or Fridays... and the teams in that seed group based off of their ELO would decide their representative; income would be split in half so the further you go you make more stadium $$$ it could work...MacsUltraVideosYT wrote:
also that leads me to bring up this: an RZA March Madness tournament where each group of ELO ranked teams (1 to 12 for #1s 13 to 24 for #2s and so on... to get to #192 which is part of the #16s) and each one of these groups s e l e c t a member to compete in this tournament: 16 teams, each representing that group of 12 to 13 people and they play in a single elimination tournament against each other for the crown! how about that? thoughts and do you think this is plausible (because it would be really fun ngl) Additional tornaments were suggested often. It’s a schedule Problem in the 1st Place, then, whether Income or not and then how to manage it. You are here since only a few weeks, so no surprise you don't know the setups and problems with such suggestions coming. Let's start with the basics, the scheduling is basically set right now. Mon. and Thur. Supercup with income. Tues. and Sat. League with income. Wed. and Sun. Friendlies, usually cups, with NO income, just for fun, and it generates income to RZA in credits, Fri. is friendly day and COC with income. If you take the regular season, the income for all teams are quite similar, except the sponsor income. The only exception is the CoC income, which is way higher than friendly income, and of course friendly income itself is only possible for a friendly set up. No friendly, no income. With the playoffs, we get into the area where a team with deep runs earns more money, while the left behind can only earn some extra money on Tues. and Sat. on additional firendlies. Why do I post this? Because your proposal does directly shift the scheduling and income balance we right now have. You would exchange a RZA credits income day for a managers income day. That doesn't sound right. The second problem is, you said income for the participants split, but the far the team gets, the more it earns. So like playoff time. With the highest seat most likely to advance against a low seated team, it means, likely the so called rich teams will get richer. The suggestions section is full of Supercup substitution formats (because this format you suggested is closer to that than league games) and all were short down. And as last comment on your suggestion, any system suggested should be flexibile to work with 200 teams, 100 teams, 50 teams, or 10000 teams. In total I did not get your suggestion in detail, it seems not all teams do even participate, which I personally don't like at all. But if so, you should decribe, how this should be handled and who decides what how? If you like your suggestion, post it as seperate suggestion, here it will just vanish. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-03-23 20:29:33 (ID: 100198685) Report Abuse | |
|
Quimriera wrote:
I have no idea how to do it. I don't know anything about mountains and I'm an illiterate code writer.
Not meant personally, but this is exactly the problem I do see, whenever I see a cry for change. I think every change is welcome, as long it would really enhance the situation and not make it worse. Your roster proposal is not bad as example, but how doing that, if a roster is max 70 players and 55 should play. Sure, setting up the rule and then the managers have to deal with it, is a way to go, but in the background more is needed than just the rule. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-03-23 20:44:01 (ID: 100198686) Report Abuse | |
|
jack6 wrote:
Thats why there is 12 teams for each group will post it as a separate suggestion though...MacsUltraVideosYT wrote:
jack6 wrote:
we could have it on Sundays or Wednesdays or Fridays... and the teams in that seed group based off of their ELO would decide their representative; income would be split in half so the further you go you make more stadium $$$ it could work...MacsUltraVideosYT wrote:
also that leads me to bring up this: an RZA March Madness tournament where each group of ELO ranked teams (1 to 12 for #1s 13 to 24 for #2s and so on... to get to #192 which is part of the #16s) and each one of these groups s e l e c t a member to compete in this tournament: 16 teams, each representing that group of 12 to 13 people and they play in a single elimination tournament against each other for the crown! how about that? thoughts and do you think this is plausible (because it would be really fun ngl) Additional tornaments were suggested often. It’s a schedule Problem in the 1st Place, then, whether Income or not and then how to manage it. You are here since only a few weeks, so no surprise you don't know the setups and problems with such suggestions coming. Let's start with the basics, the scheduling is basically set right now. Mon. and Thur. Supercup with income. Tues. and Sat. League with income. Wed. and Sun. Friendlies, usually cups, with NO income, just for fun, and it generates income to RZA in credits, Fri. is friendly day and COC with income. If you take the regular season, the income for all teams are quite similar, except the sponsor income. The only exception is the CoC income, which is way higher than friendly income, and of course friendly income itself is only possible for a friendly set up. No friendly, no income. With the playoffs, we get into the area where a team with deep runs earns more money, while the left behind can only earn some extra money on Tues. and Sat. on additional firendlies. Why do I post this? Because your proposal does directly shift the scheduling and income balance we right now have. You would exchange a RZA credits income day for a managers income day. That doesn't sound right. The second problem is, you said income for the participants split, but the far the team gets, the more it earns. So like playoff time. With the highest seat most likely to advance against a low seated team, it means, likely the so called rich teams will get richer. The suggestions section is full of Supercup substitution formats (because this format you suggested is closer to that than league games) and all were short down. And as last comment on your suggestion, any system suggested should be flexibile to work with 200 teams, 100 teams, 50 teams, or 10000 teams. In total I did not get your suggestion in detail, it seems not all teams do even participate, which I personally don't like at all. But if so, you should decribe, how this should be handled and who decides what how? If you like your suggestion, post it as seperate suggestion, here it will just vanish. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-03-23 21:55:07 (ID: 100198693) Report Abuse | |
|
As usual, a suggestion thread became a discussion page... about a different topic.
  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 10 12 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Expand the YA | |
