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 / More coaches, more realism Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2022-09-29 10:02:48 (ID: 100169790) Report Abuse |
|
I would like to make a couple of suggestions to add more realism and management options to the game. Perhaps I will put these as separate items in the suggestions Forum but want to float them here first - 1) to explain my reasoning and 2) to explain why I had these thoughts.
To begin. The thing that sparked off my thoughts was seeing a team with the following squad - 1 K, 1 KR, 1 OL, 50+ DL. Now this is not to criticise the manager. He is merely working within the confines of the game and trying to build his team well. However, if this were done in the NFL the fans would laugh and surely would not turn up to see any of the games. Item 1: Teams inherited from Bots seem to be absolutely crazy. There is no realism in this. NFL teams that lose their coach(es) or owner(s) do not suddenly fall apart. I would, therefore, like to propose that teams continue as they were, under their previous owner. Perhaps training could be downgraded to basic. If this is not acceptable then another option would be for an incoming manager to be given a basic team, perhaps with some choice. E.g. they could choose from a set of ‘Standard’ RBs. These guys would not be fully developed and would have skills trained in different areas. So one might be trained up in CAR, another in POS, another in VIS and so on. The remaining skills would all be at a set level (e.g. 20). Itlem 2: We have reduced the number of players that can be trained by one coach (Training Limits) but from a realistic viewpoint it is still too many. I think the number for each position should be halved. Which team in RL would train 10 QBs, 6 Ks etc? Item 3; We should have dedicated trainers in the YA for STR, SPD, AGL. These could be 3 different trainers. We could hire them in the same way as we do coaches. Having these trainers should help to avoid us having to put all 20 youth as DL or LB or RB or whatever. We should also boost positional training and increase the penalty for OOP. Again this will help to funnel players into the correct positions. It should be harder to swap a player from LB to QB (as I have done) and then continue playing as if nothing extraordinary had happened. Btw - my swapped player was already in the senior team but I have been able to move him to QB and be successful. IMO this should not have been possible and I should have been forced to look for a new QB via the TM or YA or Draft. I hope these suggestions will, as I said, add more realism and management options to the game. I am quite happy to look into these in more depth but wanted to gauge the general opinion before spending too much time on this project. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-09-29 11:10:12 (ID: 100169791) Report Abuse | |
|
I like Item 2. I think we should discuss better numbers for position training limitations.
Item 3 could be part of a more complex coaching remodeling involving training coaches (CP increase), assign coach skills (similar to what players have) and stuff like that. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-10-01 08:14:45 (ID: 100169817) Report Abuse | |
|
(1) I don't like the idea of limiting the number of players being trained for the specific position. Precisely because it's MORE unrealistic than having 10 players trained as QB.
(2) Plus, I'm not sure if limiting the number of players per position would correspond to having 78 players on the team. I'd need a suggested spread of how many per position to be able to have an opinion if it makes sense (because it wouldn't, to be forced to have exactly this many QB and this many RB), would it. I like the idea of having new specialties of coaches, and actually - I'd have my own idea that, it seems to me, would help with the primary concern of Captain Jack. My idea: - - remove the bonus weeks for new teams (i.e. - 8 weeks free position change should be for all players, new team or old) - - add the new option ONLY for players during the free position change: NO POSITION - - add new AC coach for NO POSITION players, AC supporting ALL SKILLS (physical and non-physical) - - remove the limits on the number of players per position completely - - introduce HARSH penalties for changing the position AFTER the free position change period - - introduce penalties for performance OOP (NO POSITION considered IN POSITION in that respect, but NOT getting any bonus for performance from position dedicated coaches) I think the last one on that list doesn't need to be harsh, mind you. Your team will never perform well if you don't get the bonus from coaches and in addition you are penalized for oop, and the harsh penalty for changing the position beyond the free position change period would take good care of someone who'd like to cheat the system (and co-players) by first training at maximum speed for a looong time and then suddenly fixing his team's positions. But that's the part (of the list of my proposals) I'd prefer to listen to rather than lecture experienced players in RZA so treat as it deserves - a private opinion of an inexperienced player. 
EDIT. Actually - not just that last one, but all of the above deserve the same treatment. And one other thing - the list above is intended as a combo. Taking some and dropping others doesn't seem to me being capable of fixing anything. Unless appended with some other alternative elements. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2022-10-01 10:41:18 (ID: 100169819) Report Abuse |
|
Thanks jp, appreciate your feedback. This is all about gathering opinions to try to make improvements here and there.
I have to say I am puzzled by your first point as I don't understand why limiting training numbers is more unrealistic than having 10 players trained as QB. Which team trains 10 QBs and why? And the next question is how? Surely it must be more difficult and require more resources (trainers/coaches) to train more players? That is why I am suggesting a limit per trainer. So, for example, if we set the limit as one trainer able to train 5 QBs then you would need two trainers to train 10 etc. My suggestion of limiting the number of players per position is intended to stop abuse of one coach, say OL, being able to train all players in STR and then at the last minute switching those players into positions where they would benefit from STR. The exact numbers per position would need to be pro rata to the number of players needed on the field. I think there would be general acceptance that most teams would have 1 QB fielded; some might occassionally put in 2 for a trick play; some might have no QB. If there is no QB it would not be unreasonable to have penalties on other players trying to pass. (You may note from another topic, not by me, of the OOP QB completing 13/13. This is totally unrealistic). Anyway if you (generally) have 1 QB on the field why would you need to train 10? Numbers of players on the field would vary but should not be wildly excessive. For example fielding 1 QB and 10 OL would never happen in real life nor should it be allowed here. I think though that it would take a while to work through what all would agree is an acceptable number. Just to answer other points - free position change is available to all teams but only applies to players newly joining the team. I think this is fine because once you have played the position for a time you would find it more difficult to switch to a new position. Your NO POSITION option could be interesting. Perhaps it could be something like not setting the position until x weeks have passed. We could have something like development coaches who would 'find out' the best position for each player. I would still like to see coaches training fewer skills though to try to avoid 'one coach does all' and any possible abuse of this. I take what you say about your suggestions being a combo. However, I think the problem is that because the game is already developed in a certain way that it is more difficult to make multiple changes. (I could be wrong). That is why although I have 3-4 ideas I was intending to 'drip feed' them as I think it is easier to change one thing per time than four. I think it doesn't matter if one has played for 10 weeks or 10 years. Sometimes the best ideas come from people new to the game who can see things in a different way. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2022-10-01 12:14:49 (ID: 100169823) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |
|
Captain Jack wrote:
I have to say I am puzzled by your first point as I don't understand why limiting training numbers is more unrealistic than having 10 players trained as QB. Which team trains 10 QBs and why? My point is this - why is it that no team is training 10 QB's instead of 2 QB's and 8 DL's? Not because the rules (IRL rules) forbid it, but because it is worse of these sample two options. So this is the sense in which I use the word "realistic". Of course there is a question if it's realistically possible to link the realistic reason to realistic end effect. The list of my changes is an attempt to reduce the artificial factors. But you are probably right that having the idea is one thing, that idea being possible to introduce (without a revolution) quite another. So here's another version. Less complicated to introduce, and at the same time closer to your original one (and after all - this is YOUR suggestion we discuss here, not mine). - - Remove completely the Free Position Change period. For new teams and old ones. Instead, add the way players can gain physical skills optimally without resourcing to tricks of temporary position - - Change of position reduces by half player's experience - - OOP players do not gain experience (development penalty) - - OOP players' experience is set to zero while playing OOP (performance penalty) How do I justify (from the realistic point of view) the last clause? When a DL plays as a quarterback he doesn't lose his passing skill, regardless the reason why he has it in the first place. But having a skill is not the same as being able to effectively use it. And that's the closest approximation of the word "experience", in my opinion. By the same token, the third clause. When that DL returns to playing his DL, QB experience shouldn't be of much value. The second clause, if a young player comes from the academy, his experience is naturally smaller, than experience of a vet that came off the transfer. Accordingly, IRL the effect of changing the position shouldn't be equally harsh to both. And for a young player, whose owner suddenly decided that player will be more useful elsewhere, the cost should be relatively small. I am not going to discuss if it should be really by half. May be more, may be less. I strongly believe it shouldn't be reducing that experience to zero. There is another question here - would the combination of experience and not being helped by the AC be harsh enough. I don't play long enough to dare evaluate that. So I just stress that it's my leading assumption - that it would. As a side effect, it could be (in some instances) beneficial to keep even an academy adept as HB (even though his skills seem like FB would be more ideal), just to avoid losing that experience he's already got. If that experience (from imaginary younger years) is large enough. Realistic, if you ask me. Regarding the first clause, I think Captain Jack's idea of taking over the roster of the bot team would be way more fun than the longer free position change period. Provided there would be some way of preventing such new teams from unusually high gains from the sellout of the vets. Otherwise we could end up with the situation, that 2 teams that started on the same day, after a month have nearly identical lineups, except one of them is several millions richer. May be such "inherited" vets couldn't be sold - only fired without financial penalty? EDIT: Just to clarify - the loss of 1/2 Exp of course permanent. Otherwise it wouldn't be any real deterrence from switching back and forth between positions. Also - experience seems to me the most realism based candidate (unused skills get "rusty" - like my English command ;-) ). But there might be also some reduction of other non-skill attributes. Like team chemistry, for example. Last edited on 2022-10-02 08:14:38 by jpnwrt |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / More coaches, more realism | |
