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 5 6 7 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Cheesehead
|
posted: 2020-08-20 11:25:33 (ID: 100151765) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
In this case we do not need to lower the skills at aged players. To address the market issue, you would just need to lower wages when players get older. Like "Hey Boss, I am rich already. Just let me play some ball..." And this is what happens a lot in RL of course. But in RZA, xp is a real measurable stat. So you get extra options: do you want an experienced guy on your line to help the rookies. Of course xp for YA players would have to be seriously nerfed. Exp would be a hard to get stat and no player below 24 should have 5* xp. Using this you could build out a new chemistry-like metric in your team where team xp or total team xp has a hidden impact on how a team performs during a game / when behind / etc. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2020-08-20 13:01:09 (ID: 100151769) Report Abuse |
|
IMO you should not be able to take aLB and make him into a QB immediately (as I have done in the past).
Certain positions should be easier to transition into - e.g. CB to SF I don't think anyone is asking for a lock on positions but just to have positional experience so that switching has a price. If you wish to swap position for one of your team or a guy on the TM it should be possible but not done at the flick of a switch. It should require strategy and planning as you mention. angus wrote:
One of my favorite things about this game is fitting the players into the positions I think they work best. We all take players and fit their positions a bit differently. It takes planning and strategy to do it well. The hallmark of good gaming. If a player is stuck at his position then we lose this subtle strategy. I see lots of players on the TM that I might be interested in until I find them badly trained. Locking in the position almost makes the game simpler as now we can not gain a strategic edge by proper positioning. I am fine with making the game harder, but IMO this will not help. It will just remove a fun element. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2020-08-20 13:03:19 (ID: 100151771) Report Abuse |
|
Maynard wrote:
Cheesehead wrote:
Maynard wrote:
Almost half of every page of the transfer market has players 26+ for sale. Those players will cease to sell soon as the rule is implemented. Can't wait to hear the crying about the TM amplify when sales get chopped by 50 percent. Can't wait.    True but don't forget that due to the rules of supply and demand it will drive up prices for youth players and < 26 year olds so over a season or two it should correct itself I would expect and make the TM actually more active. I wish I could say for sure, but I "feel" like the game is already slanted toward a more active youth market. At first glance, you might think it's because of how quick they develop, but my opinion is that it's also because GMs put players up for sale with like 300k+ salaries, and most teams don't want to pay that for any player until it's time to compete in Elite. I'm sure you're right that the market will be more active, if not exclusively, for youth. Are we sure that's a desired outcome? Maybe if older player's salaries went down as their skills declined. But again, most teams don't want a player on the decline. I think it's just good to discuss not just the pros and say "okay, let's do it!" without throwing out the obvious cons as well. The desired outcome is to make the game harder, decling skills would definitely do that while at the same time making it more realistic as a bonus. I'm not sure what effects it would have on the TM to be honest but as long as it doesn't make the game easier somehow then it's not interfering with the original goal. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Maynard
|
posted: 2020-08-20 13:44:22 (ID: 100151772) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
The desired outcome is to make the game harder, decling skills would definitely do that while at the same time making it more realistic as a bonus. I'm not sure what effects it would have on the TM to be honest but as long as it doesn't make the game easier somehow then it's not interfering with the original goal. I'm not even sure that the logic works. "If I want to make the road harder for the chicken to cross, I should nuke the neighborhood." Then the goal changes, and becomes, "we need to rebuild the neighborhood!" Now, in trying to rebuild that, do you do it at the expense of something else? This could go on and on. Best come up with a complete blueprint with your ideas, and present it that way. Not piecemeal. And I don't mean what the idea is, I mean the math behind it. (what age do players start to decline, how drastic are the increments per season, etc). Also (how "difficult" do I want the game to be? How do I define difficult? Is a 9-7 record in Elite easy or difficult? If it's easy, maybe a more difficult goal is in order. If it's difficult, then you're served). Then there's this: making players degrade, while an interesting idea, will not make it more difficult for my team. While Tool is not exactly killing it, we are just coming off making it to the Conference Championship after a 14-2 season. Our average age? 22 years old. The team that beat us? The Philadelphia Eagles. They have MANY players 26 and older on their team. With what you're proposing, I would have won. Did the game get more difficult for me? Nope. It will change the style of play, it will diminish the total number of players that are useful, but I would argue it does not make it more difficult. Only for the teams that choose to have the older players, which most won't. It's a cool idea to have player skills diminish with age, it adds a new wrinkle (pun not intended), but I'm not convinced that it achieves your ultimate goal, nor serves the game as a whole, since it's going to cause other playability issues within the game. This is just my 2 cents. It's great to talk these things out. 
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
dumpling
|
posted: 2020-08-20 13:49:10 (ID: 100151773) Report Abuse |
|
Why not just go for a wage cap - Max £xM for player salaries (where x is TBD)
This would make all players pick and choose where to invest in their roster |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2020-08-20 15:29:59 (ID: 100151778) Report Abuse |
|
Maynard wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
The desired outcome is to make the game harder, decling skills would definitely do that while at the same time making it more realistic as a bonus. I'm not sure what effects it would have on the TM to be honest but as long as it doesn't make the game easier somehow then it's not interfering with the original goal. I'm not even sure that the logic works. "If I want to make the road harder for the chicken to cross, I should nuke the neighborhood." Then the goal changes, and becomes, "we need to rebuild the neighborhood!" Now, in trying to rebuild that, do you do it at the expense of something else? This could go on and on. Best come up with a complete blueprint with your ideas, and present it that way. Not piecemeal. And I don't mean what the idea is, I mean the math behind it. (what age do players start to decline, how drastic are the increments per season, etc). Also (how "difficult" do I want the game to be? How do I define difficult? Is a 9-7 record in Elite easy or difficult? If it's easy, maybe a more difficult goal is in order. If it's difficult, then you're served). Then there's this: making players degrade, while an interesting idea, will not make it more difficult for my team. While Tool is not exactly killing it, we are just coming off making it to the Conference Championship after a 14-2 season. Our average age? 22 years old. The team that beat us? The Philadelphia Eagles. They have MANY players 26 and older on their team. With what you're proposing, I would have won. Did the game get more difficult for me? Nope. It will change the style of play, it will diminish the total number of players that are useful, but I would argue it does not make it more difficult. Only for the teams that choose to have the older players, which most won't. It's a cool idea to have player skills diminish with age, it adds a new wrinkle (pun not intended), but I'm not convinced that it achieves your ultimate goal, nor serves the game as a whole, since it's going to cause other playability issues within the game. This is just my 2 cents. It's great to talk these things out.
Well, all good points but I feel like we want different things from this thread. My goal when starting this thread was to find find out if the community was in favor of making RZA more difficult or not, and if yes, then how? I'm not sure I've got your answer to either question btw. If you want me to be more specific I think team building became too easy/fast. Around 20 seasons ago out of ~800 managers 2 had a team rated 80 or above, now there are 57 out of ~300 managers. Before the Mediacenter, improved Draft Picks, Premium YA etc... I would break even maintaining my team around 78 rating, now I've been around 85 rating for a few seasons and I use a fully homegrown team so I've already imposed extra limitations on my team and still think it's too easy/fast. Could I impose more limitations on my team? Of course, I could train all my CBs in kicking or not have coaches or something silly like that but that's beside the point. The easier we make team building the least it matters in terms of competition between managers. If everyone has OLs with 50 STR then we might as well remove STR from the equation for OLs since they're all maxed out. If it's hard to find 50 STR players then the managers who do take the time to search and find or train these players get an advantage. I'm not dead bent on the idea of skills declining for players over a certain age btw, I'm fine with anything that would make team building more difficult again. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Maynard
|
posted: 2020-08-20 15:40:16 (ID: 100151779) Report Abuse |
|
You're right, I'm going to give the idea of making the game more difficult as far as team building goes. I haven't given it much.
What do you think of chemistry items between "personalities" or "birthdates" (astrologically speaking)? So you see an OL guy in the draft or your Youth Pull. 50STR, but dang it, he is a Cancer, and that's not going to mesh well with a couple Capricorns on your roster. You're either going to pass on him, eat the fact that they aren't going to be a perfect unit, or draft him knowing someone out there needs a strong Cancer. And what if we figured out that should you have almost ALL Capricorns, across the board, you've created a sort of "Chemistry Build" and your team performs really well, despite not having STR50. Instead of signs, you could say personalities like "professional" "Aloof" "Loyal" etc. There are also bonuses for how long players have stayed together. So maybe you're willing to take that "decline" hit to your QB, cause 8 seasons with the same receivers have their pass and catch numbers flying through the roof. And also, when you release or sell old man QB, the receivers take quite a sustained morale hit. I'm ripping these ideas off other games. I will think more for myself and if I come up with something, I will certainly share it. Thanks for the thoughtful response. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Kanar
|
posted: 2020-08-20 15:46:51 (ID: 100151780) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
Dumplings, don't you dare changing our currency to pounds!
On a most serious tone, I must say I am a little bit scared with the turn that the discussion is taking. My initial proposition was already making the game harder enough in my opinion, but compared to the others I read since, it is quite nothing. 
I really doubt people left the game because it became too easy. We actually loose a lot of noobs because it is already quite hard. It is true that many new managers quit because they managed badly their finances. I would rather us to review the whole noob licence process to make it harder to take early bad decisions and I would like to see more warnings (pop-up or permanent banners rather than mails) related to the finances. Without giving it to much thought, here a very few examples: - add a quick test with questions on finance management. Based on the score, you get some cash money. I may develop this idea later in the suggestion forum. - review the manager rank in order to have TM limits by players salaries and not transfer cost - have a more intrusive explanation about the media center and especially the fact that it is free the first two seasons, it brings 70 Millions during this period that won't be there on season 3. - if possible, calculate the average salary increase of RZA managers over the first 5 to 8 seasons so each noob can have an idea of what's coming for him. Last edited on 2020-08-20 15:47:14 by Kanar |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
badgers
|
posted: 2020-08-20 16:21:32 (ID: 100151784) Report Abuse |
|
Sidetracking from Kanar’s last post a bit to address Maynard’s last post. I think the second half of your post was solid, but I don’t like the idea of using astrological signs to influence chemistry. I think it would be better if we used like maybe a country influence (players like to play with people from their own country, for example). As I say that I like it less but I would prefer that to using fantastical astrological signs.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2020-08-20 16:38:32 (ID: 100151785) Report Abuse |
|
Maynard wrote:
You're right, I'm going to give the idea of making the game more difficult as far as team building goes. I haven't given it much. What do you think of chemistry items between "personalities" or "birthdates" (astrologically speaking)? So you see an OL guy in the draft or your Youth Pull. 50STR, but dang it, he is a Cancer, and that's not going to mesh well with a couple Capricorns on your roster. You're either going to pass on him, eat the fact that they aren't going to be a perfect unit, or draft him knowing someone out there needs a strong Cancer. And what if we figured out that should you have almost ALL Capricorns, across the board, you've created a sort of "Chemistry Build" and your team performs really well, despite not having STR50. Instead of signs, you could say personalities like "professional" "Aloof" "Loyal" etc. There are also bonuses for how long players have stayed together. So maybe you're willing to take that "decline" hit to your QB, cause 8 seasons with the same receivers have their pass and catch numbers flying through the roof. And also, when you release or sell old man QB, the receivers take quite a sustained morale hit. I'm ripping these ideas off other games. I will think more for myself and if I come up with something, I will certainly share it. Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm not a fan of the astrology idea tbh, seems a bit too fantastic to me but I like the direction you're going with the idea. Bonuses for players who have played longer together sounds more promising to me, the threshold would have to be discussed of course but it could force managers to make more tough decisions, which is exactly what I'm after.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 6 7 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / A Slower, More Difficult Game? | |
