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 / Does talent really matter to make a good team? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
KingOfTh3Hil
|
posted: 2012-03-14 20:22:57 (ID: 32593) Report Abuse |
|
Turtlemania wrote:
Maybe this will happen Im waiting for this because this would proof Admin wrong if high skill players perform better than round build players I know i have to be patient for more seasons but this fun is for sure worth to see the result  How about a player that is a round build players with all needing skills at 40 VS A player that is a round build players with all needing skills at 45? Who will be better? (but ofc int, tw, PC and fysicals will play its part) It will only take around 1 season to improve 3-5 skills from 40 to 45 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
KingOfTh3Hil
|
posted: 2012-03-14 20:24:43 (ID: 32594) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
Turtlemania wrote:
Im waiting for this because this would proof Admin wrong if high skill players perform better than round build players LOL, what did I done to you 
Based on the used math a multiple 35 skill player will always perform better than a 40 or even 45 OSW. But it takes a shorter amount of time in creating a OSW then it would take to create a miltiple skilled player at 35... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2012-03-14 20:32:26 (ID: 32595) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
Turtlemania wrote:
Im waiting for this because this would proof Admin wrong if high skill players perform better than round build players LOL, what did I done to you
Based on the used math a multiple 35 skill player will always perform better than a 40 or even 45 OSW. Nothing! If i can not proof you wrong i will be the first to salute and congratulate  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bellj
|
posted: 2012-03-14 20:59:50 (ID: 32597) Report Abuse |
|
Well, I just can't wait until season 20 when I will finally have this all figured out, and that is when I plan to win my first trophy.
Of course, a couple of demotions to lower leagues is also in my plans for those 20 seasons.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2012-03-14 21:48:13 (ID: 32601) |
|
KingOfTh3Hil wrote:
Admin wrote:
Based on the used math a multiple 35 skill player will always perform better than a 40 or even 45 OSW. But it takes a shorter amount of time in creating a OSW then it would take to create a miltiple skilled player at 35... For sure! It would be worse if it would be the other way, right? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2012-03-14 21:48:45 (ID: 32602) |
|
Turtlemania wrote:
If i can not proof you wrong i will be the first to salute and congratulate DEAL  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Ranagol
|
posted: 2012-03-14 22:01:23 (ID: 32609) Report Abuse |
|
It's interesting how this only came up so late (if season 3 can be called late
 ).
On your YA thread I've already said my oppinion about talent, something like I'm setting the bar for my YA players as low as 2 stars. A few people thought that's too low, I should aim higher, but I also considered the numbers you wrote in your first post. So yeah, except a few 4-5* talents who can become my superstars with a 3-4 year contract (so relatively cheap), the other players don't need that many stars behind their names... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-03-15 02:38:51 (ID: 32629) Report Abuse |
|
Ranagol wrote:
It's interesting how this only came up so late (if season 3 can be called late ).
On your YA thread I've already said my oppinion about talent, something like I'm setting the bar for my YA players as low as 2 stars. A few people thought that's too low, I should aim higher, but I also considered the numbers you wrote in your first post. So yeah, except a few 4-5* talents who can become my superstars with a 3-4 year contract (so relatively cheap), the other players don't need that many stars behind their names... Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here on strategy. I'm open with it as I'm positive I'm not the only one pulling this move.. Basically I'm stockpiling cash. I havent done a single spread about it but my goal is to keep my three draft picks per season (gotta be savy in the draft room) and by season 5 have 15 draft players on my team with atleast 7 of them superstar status. I have about 5 guys on my YA that I think can be quality starters with time. If I keep my TM activity to a minimum and not buy a player one dollar of my value for them.. is it possible by year 7 or so I can field a starting unit of pretty much all draft players and high quality YA developed? I get that I'll be loosing money most like each season but the cushion I'll have going in this endevour and the fact I can always sell a draft player once I get a certain number of them I think gives me a little room for this to workout.. am I wasting my time on this? and dont lie about either.... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
NYDOGS
|
posted: 2012-03-15 02:44:59 (ID: 32630) Report Abuse |
|
Swordpriest1 wrote:
Ranagol wrote:
It's interesting how this only came up so late (if season 3 can be called late ).
On your YA thread I've already said my oppinion about talent, something like I'm setting the bar for my YA players as low as 2 stars. A few people thought that's too low, I should aim higher, but I also considered the numbers you wrote in your first post. So yeah, except a few 4-5* talents who can become my superstars with a 3-4 year contract (so relatively cheap), the other players don't need that many stars behind their names... Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here on strategy. I'm open with it as I'm positive I'm not the only one pulling this move.. Basically I'm stockpiling cash. I havent done a single spread about it but my goal is to keep my three draft picks per season (gotta be savy in the draft room) and by season 5 have 15 draft players on my team with atleast 7 of them superstar status. I have about 5 guys on my YA that I think can be quality starters with time. If I keep my TM activity to a minimum and not buy a player one dollar of my value for them.. is it possible by year 7 or so I can field a starting unit of pretty much all draft players and high quality YA developed? I get that I'll be loosing money most like each season but the cushion I'll have going in this endevour and the fact I can always sell a draft player once I get a certain number of them I think gives me a little room for this to workout.. am I wasting my time on this? and dont lie about either.... The strategy is pretty good IMO... I try to do quite the same thing (but I buy some promising player on TM without splashy transfers...) However, you'll be less competitive than many teams for many years and it could be quite frustrating... Moreover, we don't know yet the best strategy as no team is developed sufficiently... But it seems good in the Blueprint... Personnaly, I try to have competitive starters with some good backups and then a hole with future good players and keep this turnover to save some cash in the future and don't have 60 high paid players... Don't know the value of it but we have to experiment, being part of the bunch of first managers of RZA... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
NYDOGS
|
posted: 2012-03-15 02:49:23 (ID: 32631) Report Abuse |
|
Ranagol wrote:
It's interesting how this only came up so late (if season 3 can be called late ).
On your YA thread I've already said my oppinion about talent, something like I'm setting the bar for my YA players as low as 2 stars. A few people thought that's too low, I should aim higher, but I also considered the numbers you wrote in your first post. So yeah, except a few 4-5* talents who can become my superstars with a 3-4 year contract (so relatively cheap), the other players don't need that many stars behind their names... I don't value talent on my YA or in the TM... Simply because the draftees are pretty much all high talented (and I value it there) and so the number of star players is already sufficient to hit the "salary cap" of RZA... Just my point of view on it... But for sure, I prefer having high talented players but I won't go in bid war for that... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Does talent really matter to make a good team? | |
