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 / Make Out of Position Plays/Players more realistic Search Forum | |||||||
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 > >| | |||||||
| Rating: | |||||||
Poll: Should we make the Out of position penalty more harsh?,
Poll closed,
votes: 89
|
|||||||
| Poster | Message | ||||||
| posted: 2022-10-01 01:18:30 (ID: 100169814) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
BoaTek wrote:
I believe there is also a limit for training more than a certain number of players at any one position to deter this kind of strategy from getting out of hand. I don't recall if I read this in the manual or the guide. From the Manual: Maximum number of trainees per position: QB: 10 RB: 12 FB: 10 WR: 20 TE: 12 OL: 20 DL: 20 LB: 16 CB: 16 SF: 16 K: 6 P: 6 KR: 10 G: 10 I think it could be a bit more strict. How much more? Have no idea. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2022-10-01 07:04:16 (ID: 100169816) Edits found: 6 Report Abuse | |||||||
|
Captain Jack wrote:
Of course even if it is not a RL simulator I still feel it is wrong to have an entire roster composed of one position. People who do it must obtain some benefit from doing so. If they do not then surely the game should be designed to help them by limiting the numbers at each position and demanding a minimum at certain positions. I am one of those who do benefit from having practically entire roster made of DL. Precisely like in one of the posts above - I grabbed the AC DL and I am trying to make a quick progress on physical skills. Is it unrealistic? Yes. Is it realistic for the team under new ownership to consist (at the start) 90% of players 22 and younger, and having NOT ONE player with his main non-physical skill above 25? Just as unrealistic as the former. So - NO. Aside from realism, considering playability - is it good for the game if a new team keeps losing all games against non-bots by the margin of 100 to 0 for a long time? Will it reduce the number of bots if the number of seasons it will take before the results of a new manager - start making sense (realistically)? It won't affect me - rest assured. But based on my experience from tens of other managers - it won't reduce the teams going Bot frequency. Just the opposite - if anything, it'll lead to even more bots. So - NO. Is it true that there are NO penalties for having a team composed of 50+ DL's? Of course there already are. BOTH for the performance, AND for training. Because free position change is 8 weeks for "old" teams, a few weeks longer for "new" ones. So again - NO. All in all, I am all for increasing the penalties OOP  and I have already voted "Yes"!
On the other hand - I am totally against the idea Captain has got in the problem not covered by the current poll. 1 YES to 3 NO. I am against it 75%. 
ps. BUT - what I believe would be a GOOD change would be to increase penalties for changing player's position AFTER the free position change period!Because, may be noob that I am, it seems to me the penalties for that change (after the free position change period) are not harsh enough, to prevent from having the unrealistic lineup for much much longer than those 8 weeks - someone, who doesn't want to simply close the huge gap to other teams in his league, but who plans to only pretend he's playing for several seasons and then suddenly, BOOM - look who's best. ps ps - Oh, forgot to add - just in case someone was a new team's owner a long time ago and doesn't remember. It's a few weeks longer than 8 weeks ONLY for the unrealistically weak players you start with. And it's pretty certain most (if not all) of them will be dropped within a few first seasons. The players you YOURSELF hired (either by transfer, or from the draft/academy) have only the standard 8 weeks of free position change. From the start. ps ps ps Sorry for so many edits. My English command is really rusty. Plenty of spelling mistakes to correct  Last edited on 2022-10-01 07:34:44 by jpnwrt |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2022-10-01 10:34:30 (ID: 100169818) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
I'm not sure if I understand correctly what the challenge is here.
Is it ANY player that can not play an other position at any time? Say a WR who is good at carrying is not allowed to be positionend as HB on my Depth Chart? Or does it mean that I'm not allowed to assign a CB FIRST STRING to the position of FS, even if he's as good there as at his own position? |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2022-10-01 10:50:40 (ID: 100169820) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Chrill wrote:
I'm not sure if I understand correctly what the challenge is here. Is it ANY player that can not play an other position at any time? Say a WR who is good at carrying is not allowed to be positionend as HB on my Depth Chart? Or does it mean that I'm not allowed to assign a CB FIRST STRING to the position of FS, even if he's as good there as at his own position? I would personally agree with the option of allowing a CB to play FS or a WR at HB. I think the problem is how to differentiate between players. A team might have one, or perhaps 2 WRs that could play at HB but probably could not successfuly play all. The problem is how could the system differentiate? Also we have the question could an OL or DL play at QB etc? The problem is that if there is any loophole in the game some will seek to exploit it which is a shame because it interferes with things for genuine managers. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2022-10-01 10:56:20 (ID: 100169821) Report Abuse | ||||||
|
Just one further thought to add. If the poll succeeds then it still gives the option of having different penalties for different players playing different OOP (e.g. OL/DL = 95% penalty for QB; 90% for HB; 50% FB/TE; OL 95% for CB/SF; DL 60% LB, 85% SF/CB et etc) but I expect that this would be enormously complicated for Pete to a) decide and b) to code.
|
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2022-10-01 12:01:05 (ID: 100169822) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
Captain Jack wrote:
The problem is that if there is any loophole in the game some will seek to exploit it which is a shame because it interferes with things for genuine managers. I have been following this conversation and I think I am confused now. I don't see a loophole. * There is already a penalty for playing out of position and for exceeding position limits on the roster. * There is also a roster minimum. To get to that minimum, you would be forced to play OOP players. * I would also add that while playing OOP players is not recommended in the guide, the guide does recommend that managers stack players in a position that has an AC with high CP for faster development after leaving the YA. This just doesn't feel like a loophole. It is by design. I also don't think anyone is using this tactic to win games. There is manager in Fire that plays OOP all the time. I think they have the minimum number of players on their roster. Point is, this team is not getting to Elite anytime soon and they must enjoy the game as they have played for years. At least since Season 11. Also, think about how a change like this might effect new manager retainage when they get sideways on their finances. We are going to add yet another penalty for them to deal with when their roster gets cut to the minimum? I personally don't want to chase anyone off for the sake of adding a little more "realism" when we know we cannot even get close to real with this sim. We don't have enough managers in Fire as it is and this is not an issue that is being exploited for wins as far as I can tell. With all this said, this won't impact me tremendously one way or another. I just don't get the urgency on this one. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2022-10-01 12:48:27 (ID: 100169824) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
BoaTek wrote:
* There is already a penalty for playing out of position and for exceeding position limits on the roster. People think this one should be more harsh. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2022-10-01 13:08:10 (ID: 100169825) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
pete wrote:
BoaTek wrote:
* There is already a penalty for playing out of position and for exceeding position limits on the roster. People think this one should be more harsh. I personally would not chase outliers. This is not a winning strategy as it stands. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2022-10-01 13:12:43 (ID: 100169826) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse | |||||||
|
I guess some people are just annoyed when they lose to a team doing this. In my opinion, the loss does not happen because of the OOP play itself. At the same time I understand that no-one wants to see a team losing against an OL-playing bunch of QBs...
Last edited on 2022-10-01 13:13:06 by pete |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| posted: 2022-10-01 13:16:57 (ID: 100169827) Report Abuse | |||||||
|
pete wrote:
I guess some people are just annoyed when they lose to a team doing this. In my opinion, the loss does not happen because of the OOP play itself. At the same time I understand that no-one wants to see a team losing against an OL-playing bunch of QBs... Great take. I understand your point of view. |
|||||||
| Quote Reply Edit | |||||||
| reply Mark this thread unread | |||||||
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 > >| | |||||||
| Main / Suggestions / Make Out of Position Plays/Players more realistic | |||||||
