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 / Team Chemistry Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 6 7 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2012-04-06 08:32:25 (ID: 34621) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
(2) Imagine if everyone wanted to lose deliberately, what would happen ?? ...... the transfermarket would go bananas; Good players would be worthless - who wants a good player when everyone wants to lose. However, good news for teams with crap players, their transfer market would rocket as everyone fought for the crappest players .... after all, in the new world of 'bad-is-the-new-good' who wants to win ? winning is for losers. You can easy lose with good players 
In this case this guy was going to spend 50 Mill last night on buy a player and seems also he wanted to go to the limit since he asked more details on "financial trouble warning" - its just a guess The next best thing and since no one mentioned before i will do now: Say hello to most of the loss by intentional teams who get relegate with good draft picks then 2 seasons later in the CoC - its a nice and high possibility cashback for the losing low money current because of lower attendance Nogard its nothing personnal since the know me around me pointing into such things My point still is Admin and other try to find ways for more "realism" but neglect existing facts And yes im pretty sure the NFL has power to penalize teams when it comes public that order for intentional loss was made. And back to topic: Admin and other "complain" about teams spend money and overprized Transfermarket and so on instead build players from youth With now discussion to penalize bench players: Please how on earth shall i or other build players from YA into the main team? Several in my main team are from YA and 2 more will follow - with more and more teams be human and less bot games i can not start them right from day one anyway since they need 1-3 more seasons training in the main team But with additional loss of morale penalty i could not even put them on dc to play against weaker teams because of risk due to low morale they perform even worse, so how shall i ever get them ready to play "the guys from YA"? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Tarjan
|
posted: 2012-04-06 08:47:35 (ID: 34624) Report Abuse |
|
If anyone wants to lose i don´t care, I don´t care if i have to build my Team through YA or through Transfermarket or the Draft.
As i see it i realy don´t care about TC, i try to stay with 55 Players on my Rosters perhaps sometimes i got 56 or 57 but at the norm i got 55, so all my players are on my Dephchart. I buy a player or i promote a YA Player so what? Like in RL i put them right in the mix, i have never heard that eg in the NFL they put a first rounder on the practice Squad cause his TC is not high enought, so what we are Talking about? Some little math? I got promoted this Season from Division 2 and i don´t think my Team is doing that bad despite the fact that all my new players start right away. I just think some guys here give to much to the Numbers behind the Komma over a Playbook that works, i lost to Teams that were less competetive not because they had 0,0000006 more TC/Moral I lost cause the opposing Manager beat my Gameplan and that works both ways. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
scottishbronco
|
posted: 2012-04-06 08:53:49 (ID: 34625) Report Abuse |
|
I think this is where micro management comes into our game. In the real world, every team must face this problem and decide how to introduce their future prospects into the team at the cost of dropping established players. Its all part of being a GM/HC.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-04-06 09:14:13 (ID: 34626) Report Abuse |
|
This thread is going off-topic with the "deliberately losing" discussion.
I'm going to re-direct it back to TC/Morale. There have been some interesting points by peteF,Monkey,NYDogs,Turtle,Admin etc etc, and I think it's now time to try and correlate the points into something that can be Voted upon, so here goes :- (1) I've got an issue with the current method of maintaining the DC, but I don't want to muddy the waters here, so I'll start a Thread in the Suggestions forum, please read it and feel free to contribute (2) I propose something similar to the following :- YA players to remain as currently i.e. TC is not an issue in the YA. Once a player enters the senior roster (from the TM or the YA), he starts to gain TC slowly i.e at 1.5% per training session. There will be an "upper limit" on this of 75% i.e. a player can only get to a max of 75% TC by sitting on the bench. Morale - there would be a morale hit for players who are in the senior roster but not playing. However, there would be a "floor" for this morale of, say, 40% i.e. a player will lose morale for not playing , but could only ever fall as low as 40% for not playing. A player who is not playing would still get a morale loss/boost for team losses/wins, but the loss/boost would be smaller than for active players (as the inactive player is considered to be a less "connected" part of the team). Let me know if you think this (see above) is along the right lines ..... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-04-06 09:25:04 (ID: 34627) Report Abuse |
|
Turtlemania wrote:
Say hello to most of the loss by intentional teams who get relegate with good draft picks then 2 seasons later in the CoC - its a nice and high possibility cashback for the losing low money current because of lower attendance If that is the case, then it worries me. Start a new thread with your ideas regarding what is currently happening and your suggestions for how it could be improved. Turtlemania wrote:
My point still is Admin and other try to find ways for more "realism" but neglect existing facts I can't agree with you there. Pete always seems to listen to opinions/suggestions and appears ready to act where appropriate Turtlemania wrote:
With now discussion to penalize bench players: Please how on earth shall i or other build players from YA into the main team? Several in my main team are from YA and 2 more will follow - with more and more teams be human and less bot games i can not start them right from day one anyway since they need 1-3 more seasons training in the main team But with additional loss of morale penalty i could not even put them on dc to play against weaker teams because of risk due to low morale they perform even worse, so how shall i ever get them ready to play "the guys from YA"? The idead is for TC for doing nothing to reach a "ceiling" , but also morale hit for not playing to hit a "floor" ........ this would prevent TC & Morale from reaching unrealistic heights/depths. Keep the feedback/opinions coming though Turtle, this is a worthwhile topic and I think we (i.e. the community) could improve the TC/Morale situation by constructive discussion leading to eventual change. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
petef
|
posted: 2012-04-06 11:50:58 (ID: 34632) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
This thread is going off-topic with the "deliberately losing" discussion. I'm going to re-direct it back to TC/Morale. There have been some interesting points by peteF,Monkey,NYDogs,Turtle,Admin etc etc, and I think it's now time to try and correlate the points into something that can be Voted upon, so here goes :- (1) I've got an issue with the current method of maintaining the DC, but I don't want to muddy the waters here, so I'll start a Thread in the Suggestions forum, please read it and feel free to contribute (2) I propose something similar to the following :- YA players to remain as currently i.e. TC is not an issue in the YA. Once a player enters the senior roster (from the TM or the YA), he starts to gain TC slowly i.e at 1.5% per training session. There will be an "upper limit" on this of 75% i.e. a player can only get to a max of 75% TC by sitting on the bench. Morale - there would be a morale hit for players who are in the senior roster but not playing. However, there would be a "floor" for this morale of, say, 40% i.e. a player will lose morale for not playing , but could only ever fall as low as 40% for not playing. A player who is not playing would still get a morale loss/boost for team losses/wins, but the loss/boost would be smaller than for active players (as the inactive player is considered to be a less "connected" part of the team). Let me know if you think this (see above) is along the right lines ..... I like most of this but I think the moral "floor" is too low...50-60% |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2012-04-06 15:07:01 (ID: 34643) Report Abuse |
|
petef wrote:
sh8888 wrote:
(2) I propose something similar to the following :- YA players to remain as currently i.e. TC is not an issue in the YA. Once a player enters the senior roster (from the TM or the YA), he starts to gain TC slowly i.e at 1.5% per training session. There will be an "upper limit" on this of 75% i.e. a player can only get to a max of 75% TC by sitting on the bench. Morale - there would be a morale hit for players who are in the senior roster but not playing. However, there would be a "floor" for this morale of, say, 40% i.e. a player will lose morale for not playing , but could only ever fall as low as 40% for not playing. A player who is not playing would still get a morale loss/boost for team losses/wins, but the loss/boost would be smaller than for active players (as the inactive player is considered to be a less "connected" part of the team). Let me know if you think this (see above) is along the right lines ..... I like most of this but I think the moral "floor" is too low...50-60% Good proposal, imo. Morale floor of 50% for not playing seems good. I agree it should still go down after losses, though. TC ceiling of 75% could be a bit lower, maybe 70%, but that's just a minor feeling. Overall I'd accept it exactly as sh8888 proposed it (or with minor changes such as petef or I added). Appreciate the work!! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2012-04-06 15:07:02 (ID: 34644) Report Abuse |
|
dbl-posted 
Last edited on 2012-04-06 21:16:20 by Lee1950 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Ranagol
|
posted: 2012-04-06 15:27:55 (ID: 34646) Report Abuse |
|
I prefer morale floor 50% and TC top 70% as well.
But what is the ammount of morale loss for sitting constantly on the bench? Plus you mentioned something like morale boost for winning games should be smaller for non-active players. Any thoughts on that? Currently this boost/loss is 10% for league and 12% for cup games. So if overall a team maintains a good win-loss ratio, his benched players could still get a small ammount of morale boost, or just stay close to 100%. Not playing means a loss of, say 5%, then winning the game means at least 10% (or lowered to 7-8% or something), then this player still gets a little boost, or stays at 100%, not much change there. TC gain should be 1% instead of 1,5. Friday friendlies add 2,5% TC, and that's a game where the players play and the TC gain is still so low compared to other game types. So being a part of the seniors shouldn't go that close to this 2,5% gain, hence the lower 1%. I also agree with switching the league/cup TC gain (as someone mentioned earlier). Overall league games are a lot more competitive, since you can enter the playoffs with a worse record than 14-1. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-04-06 15:42:58 (ID: 34647) Report Abuse |
|
Ranagol wrote:
I also agree with switching the league/cup TC gain (as someone mentioned earlier). Overall league games are a lot more competitive, since you can enter the playoffs with a worse record than 14-1. Admin didn't seem to like the switch league/cup TC gain idea, and I'm worried that this proposal has so many different parts to it that it will get confusing/too complicated (that's why I've put my grumble about maintaining the depth chart into a separate suggestion). I think it would be a good idea to vote on the different parts of this proposal separately, e.g. one of the votes could be How would you like the TC split for games to be in future ? (a) no change - i.e league 5%, cup 7.5% (b) swap it - i.e. league 7.5,cup 5 (c) equalise it - i.e. league 6.5,cup 6.5 (d) not bothered/don't care if people think that's simpler/less confusing then there could be seperate votes on :- the levels of TC for non-playing,the levels of morale hit for non-playing, the ceilings/floors to use etc etc. Not sure what the best way to proceed is, if you guys give enough feedback we can decide how to proceed. Appreciate the interest from everybody  ...... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 6 7 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Team Chemistry | |
