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 / Ideal traits? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2020-04-09 16:21:07 (ID: 100148241) Report Abuse |
|
sotko wrote:
If If can get blocking and agility to be functionally 2-2.5 points higher without paying the extra 30,000-50,000 in salary, that seems worth something. I agree and If I can I do the same I do not train OLs and DTs skills over an average of 42/43 due to budget reason. Having trait on BLK or TKL is very useful. Also having traits for players that do not have an AC is helpful. This compensate exactly the -5% they lose on the field at least for one skill. As you have pointed out The best effect of traits from the economical point of view is when you train to the top players with TAL=5* of course, if you have two traits you can chose to have a monster or paying a 50 skill player like a 47.5. sotko wrote:
I'm wondering how much people value that increase and if there are some traits other managers value much higher than others. If I can choose I prefer traits that have an impact every play versus trait that helps in turnovers. I would love have my DE with Fearsome/slippery and DT with Brick Wall/Sure Tackler my pass rushers with Fearsome/SPE=50 + Track Start and my MLB Sure Tackler/Slippery... … too much ? 
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-04-09 20:13:09 (ID: 100148265) Report Abuse | |
|
PJRAVENS wrote:
I agree and If I can I do the same I do not train OLs and DTs skills over an average of 42/43 due to budget reason. Having trait on BLK or TKL is very useful. Also having traits for players that do not have an AC is helpful. This compensate exactly the -5% they lose on the field at least for one skill. As you have pointed out The best effect of traits from the economical point of view is when you train to the top players with TAL=5* of course, if you have two traits you can chose to have a monster or paying a 50 skill player like a 47.5. I don't know what you meant with "compensate". Pete : "I like mistery very much... However, the vision/position @20/40 vs @40/20 between pass and rush makes not fully sense, even some effects will be there. You cannot compensate missing vision by positioning on rush plays, and you cannot compensate it the other way around at passing plays. Each skill has it's own "function" and "flaws". Imagine, if we would support "high positioning on rush defending"...the DT stays at his slot in the DL, and waits for the RB to break through...with some vision he would have "seen" the zone step of the Offense Line, and would have known about the toss play to the outer left...without vision he maintains his position opposite the Guard....yes, a little bit too much of black and white in here, but you will get the idea..." posted: 2018-03-26 21:37:45 (ID: 100126168) |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2020-04-09 20:27:06 (ID: 100148266) Report Abuse |
|
I was referring to the manual
The coaches influence the game A not hired coach slot makes your players perform worse. The math: factor=((AC CP + 45 + 1000) / 1100) + (rand(-50,50) / 10000) This will result in something like +-5%, if the player is playing his position, on the skills the AC is affecting. A not hired AC means CP = 0 Minfactor=((0 + 45 + 1000) / 1100) + (-50 / 10000) =0.945 Avgfactor=((0 + 45 + 1000) / 1100) + (0 / 10000) =0.95 Maxfactor=((0 + 45 + 1000) / 1100) + (50 / 10000) =0.955 Anyway you're right, I can't be sure at all I would have been better off saying "For what I understood ..." |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-04-09 21:02:03 (ID: 100148269) Report Abuse | |
|
I was not pretending you were wrong or I was right.
The thing I wanted to underline is I believe there isn't any compensation when a player or team lacks something. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
PJRAVENS
|
posted: 2020-04-09 21:25:40 (ID: 100148275) Report Abuse |
|
I agree with you.
If a player is not developed correctly we cannot talk about compensation. what I meant is Suppose you have a good SF proper physical skills , high INT. You develop him VIS=POS=TKL=44 You do not have a SF AC. On the field ("For what I understood ..." ) he is more or less like VIS=POS=TKL=44*0.95=41.8
If this good SF had Sure Tacle trait it would be nice. On the field he would be VIS=POS=41.8 TKL=44 Always if I am not wrong. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2020-04-09 22:45:00 (ID: 100148283) Report Abuse | |
|
PJRAVENS wrote:
I agree with you. If a player is not developed correctly we cannot talk about compensation. what I meant is Suppose you have a good SF proper physical skills , high INT. You develop him VIS=POS=TKL=44 You do not have a SF AC. On the field ("For what I understood ..." ) he is more or less like VIS=POS=TKL=44*0.95=41.8
If this good SF had Sure Tacle trait it would be nice. On the field he would be VIS=POS=41.8 TKL=44 Always if I am not wrong. That's just shrinking the complexity of the game. We know there are many components in Pete's recipe. We can try many recipes and the result may always taste good. But the Holy Grail will remain out of reach. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Ideal traits? | |
