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 4 5 7 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-04-08 06:59:39 (ID: 34815) Report Abuse |
|
boy he certain came in with a fuhrer ::looks around at bad joke:: heh.. nobody? ok
Newgate I'm not sure anybody on this thread with an argument did so without a thoroughly sound opinion.. in that case the term "crying" is an overstatement. SF8888 began the discussion with a realistic concern about a possible future in which managers potentially sabotaged their own teams in order to conceivably make gains in the long run.. I think we can all agree that those who work hardest in this game should have greater advantages but (through other threads on this topic) I'm not so sure that those people tanking their seasons gain any advantage as their monetary losses and whatever else negatives would outweigh the few advanced slots in draft order. btw.. no one here is going to make fun of you for whatever tech problems you may have in English... as a Mono-lingual individual i've got no room to talk so speak your mind. You'll find their are no grammar na.... umm i mean police here. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
malkarma
|
posted: 2012-04-08 23:22:24 (ID: 34895) Report Abuse |
|
Sorry if thid have being wrote in this post, but about TC... any of you have tried to built and activate the "players lounge" facility? Because that facility gives and extra 10% TC to yours players... so player with TC 10 will get TC 11, one with TC 20 will get 22, one with TC 30 will get 33.... and so one
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2012-04-08 23:33:17 (ID: 34897) Report Abuse |
|
I quite like the suggestion to adapt the morale loss/gain to the relative strength of the opposition as I think this would add realism to the game.
TC increasing up to 70% or 75% for players on the roster but not on the depth chart also sounds good to me. A morale loss for players who don't play is also a good idea in my opinion but a player's age should be taken into consideration. A rookie is more likely to accept being benched or playing very little than a seasoned veteran so the penalty should be smaller for younger players. A floor of 50% as suggested seems reasonable too. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2012-04-09 00:12:44 (ID: 34899) Report Abuse |
|
I forgot to give my 2 cents about teams losing on purpose so here it goes.
To me it comes down to a fairly simple question, do we want to allow teams losing on purpose to gain an advantage over the long run or not? If we accept "losing now to win later" as a viable strategy then nothing needs to be changed. If we do not accept it then the penalty for losing should be increased. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-04-09 08:10:57 (ID: 34912) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
I forgot to give my 2 cents about teams losing on purpose so here it goes. To me it comes down to a fairly simple question, do we want to allow teams losing on purpose to gain an advantage over the long run or not? If we accept "losing now to win later" as a viable strategy then nothing needs to be changed. If we do not accept it then the penalty for losing should be increased. I think 2 things about "teams losing on purpose" :- (1) This thread is about Team Chemistry/Morale - and the 'fine tuning' to TC/Morale that can be done to make it 'better' or 'more realistic'. Therefore if someone wants to open a thread about teams losing on purpose it would stop this thread going off the rails. (2) "teams losing on purpose" is difficult to prove, imho. If we do as you suggest and increase the penalty for losing then there is a real danger of penalising teams that are giving it 100% but are just not quite getting the results .... there are plenty of teams like this in the lower part of most 1.1 leagues. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-04-09 09:05:28 (ID: 34925) Report Abuse | |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
"losing now to win later" is a valid strategy IMO, I wouldn't like to punish teams for doing this. If a manager is planning long term, let him do this. But sh8888 is right, if we would like to discuss this, we should open another discussion... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2012-04-09 18:31:23 (ID: 34962) Report Abuse |
|
Sorry about derailing the thread guys, I just wanted to give my opinion on what was being discussed and I thought it made more sense to respond here than to start a new thread.
That being said I agree with Pete that "losing now to win later" can be a viable strategy so I've no problem with things staying as they are. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2012-04-10 07:31:16 (ID: 34988) Report Abuse |
|
Some days not online so much and now I try to follow this two discussions.
I only want to reply to the TC-topic. I like the idea of adding a TC hit for players who doesn't play or are benched the total game. The hit should be very small, so that a player loose ~30%, if he play no game during the whole season and loose nothing if he start only in friendly games. We can discuss about a "floor", but with a low TC-hit it is not really necessary. What do you think about a difficult contract negotiation with a low-TC-player? Maybe a player with >30% TC want more money and a player with >10% want to leave the team? This would be only the case, if there is no "TC-floor" |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
malkarma
|
posted: 2012-04-10 10:16:17 (ID: 35004) Report Abuse |
|
Continuing with the TC issue, i´m against give players free TC just for the fact of being in the team, because that is what the "Players Lounge" facility does.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-04-10 15:09:39 (ID: 35033) Report Abuse |
|
Buffalo wrote:
What do you think about a difficult contract negotiation with a low-TC-player? Maybe a player with >30% TC want more money and a player with >10% want to leave the team? This would be only the case, if there is no "TC-floor" I like it... but I also think those numbers are too low.. I'd say a conservative 50%/30% because I'm all hellfire and brimestone when it comes to players having their way and wanting to leave a team. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 5 7 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Team Chemistry | |
