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 / New Thread about coaches Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-01-07 06:10:31 (ID: 22673) Report Abuse |
|
Turtlemania wrote:
I dont see the point and reason why to raise CPs With the 550 it is possible to have 10 AC - not 11, since i have to decide "where to weaken" my team I think it is more feasable to introduce DB Coaches instead having SF & CB RB Coaches instead having HB & RB (maybe this one would also train Block then - or if not every one who wants to have a good blocking FB would need to play him out of position for some time and list him as OL to gain Blocking) With this new structure reflecting "more" the NFL type coaching structure -> every player plays out of position gets a malus -> maybe we would have to lower the total CP, since it would be possible to have all (now only) 9 AC -> or the system would limit to have max 8 ACs I think either way works as they both accomplish the same thing essentially. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2012-01-07 06:45:23 (ID: 22674) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
I think either way works as they both accomplish the same thing essentially. Not total imo As long everything (aside from salary) stays the same Higher Total CP leads to faster training progress and also to this "cookie baking stuff players"  Last edited on 2012-01-07 06:46:14 by Turtlemania |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2012-01-07 09:02:04 (ID: 22675) Report Abuse |
|
I want to try to find a solution.
I think a high "out-of-position" ingame penalty will kill a new team more than me. If i rembember back to the days, when i started at RZA I was happy to play with a TE as 4. WR in a 4WR-Shotgun or with my 2. MLB as NT in a 5-5-3 Defense. At the start you have not so much players and playing out of position could be really useful. A penalty for this would limit the formations at the beginning you can play. So my suggestion is to have a minimum amount of players for each position. 1 QB, 2 HB, 1 FB, 2 TE, 2 WR, 5 OL, 3 DL, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 SF, 1 K, 1 P If you have less players at one position you will get the rooster penalty. (Same as for Rooster limitations: http://redzoneaction.org/football/index.php?page=help&subpage=manual&topic=Roster%20limitations) |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-01-07 18:40:46 (ID: 22777) Report Abuse | |
|
Buffalo wrote:
I want to try to find a solution. I think a high "out-of-position" ingame penalty will kill a new team more than me. If i rembember back to the days, when i started at RZA I was happy to play with a TE as 4. WR in a 4WR-Shotgun or with my 2. MLB as NT in a 5-5-3 Defense. At the start you have not so much players and playing out of position could be really useful. A penalty for this would limit the formations at the beginning you can play. So my suggestion is to have a minimum amount of players for each position. 1 QB, 2 HB, 1 FB, 2 TE, 2 WR, 5 OL, 3 DL, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 SF, 1 K, 1 P If you have less players at one position you will get the rooster penalty. (Same as for Rooster limitations: http://redzoneaction.org/football/index.php?page=help&subpage=manual&topic=Roster%20limitations) Why, shouldn't a new team gets a penalty if the TE plays WR? It's only the 4th player on a development team, not that hard, from my paint of view. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
TombKing
|
posted: 2012-01-07 19:10:18 (ID: 22781) Report Abuse |
|
Buffalo wrote:
I want to try to find a solution. ... So my suggestion is to have a minimum amount of players for each position. 1 QB, 2 HB, 1 FB, 2 TE, 2 WR, 5 OL, 3 DL, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 SF, 1 K, 1 P If you have less players at one position you will get the rooster penalty. (Same as for Rooster limitations: http://redzoneaction.org/football/index.php?page=help&subpage=manual&topic=Roster%20limitations) I think this one's a good idea. Anyway, we have to find a solution here rather sooner than later, or the ruleset could face some "exploitation". |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2012-01-07 19:42:46 (ID: 22791) Report Abuse |
|
TombKing wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
I want to try to find a solution. ... So my suggestion is to have a minimum amount of players for each position. 1 QB, 2 HB, 1 FB, 2 TE, 2 WR, 5 OL, 3 DL, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 SF, 1 K, 1 P If you have less players at one position you will get the rooster penalty. (Same as for Rooster limitations: http://redzoneaction.org/football/index.php?page=help&subpage=manual&topic=Roster%20limitations) I think this one's a good idea. Anyway, we have to find a solution here rather sooner than later, or the ruleset could face some "exploitation". Are we talking about the Roster (not Depth Chart), right? So if someone looks at my "Players" tab, they will always see at least these minimums at every position? I think it's a pretty good solution, Buffalo. Hopefully it's also easy to program. The exploit here, of course, is putting two useless players at SF and then don't play them. Still allows me to train all my SFs with CB AC and play them as SFs. It would be better, imo, to have the game engine automatically put these 25 at the top of each position on the Depth Chart (which won't happen, I'm sure) so those 25 would always be our starters. (Which would be helpful to new managers, I suppose, but irritating to oldsters.) Also - Buffalo: I applaud your attitude throughout the discussion ("chat", per Admin  ). I think you have always been seeking a solution and not trying to get an exploit for yourself. I really appreciate your concern for the game. Just my opinion, but I wanted it out there.  Last edited on 2012-01-07 19:51:26 by Lee1950 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2012-01-07 19:46:03 (ID: 22792) |
|
Buffalo wrote:
1 QB, 2 HB, 1 FB, 2 TE, 2 WR, 5 OL, 3 DL, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 SF, 1 K, 1 P I would like: 1 QB, 1 HB, 1 FB, 2 TE, 2 WR, 5 OL, 4 DL, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 SF, 1 K/P |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
NYDOGS
|
posted: 2012-01-07 19:52:08 (ID: 22793) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
1 QB, 2 HB, 1 FB, 2 TE, 2 WR, 5 OL, 3 DL, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 SF, 1 K, 1 P I would like: 1 QB, 1 HB, 1 FB, 2 TE, 2 WR, 5 OL, 4 DL, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 SF, 1 K/P  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2012-01-07 19:54:09 (ID: 22794) Report Abuse |
|
just in case it got missed (as long posts tend to
 ), let me repost my only negative comment to this option:
"The exploit here, of course, is putting two useless players at SF and then don't play them. Still allows me to train all my SFs with CB AC and play them as SFs. " |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2012-01-07 19:58:03 (ID: 22795) |
|
I am afraid, there is no solution for this problem.
We could do things like "the SF guy has to play max 50% of all plays as other position"....but this makes it really complicating. There is only the possible downside for having the useless SF on the field, too. Last edited on 2012-01-07 19:58:52 by Admin |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / New Thread about coaches | |
