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 / Lottery? Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 5 >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-06-06 04:13:19 (ID: 43679) Report Abuse |
|
In regards to the origin topic on conversation... I do remember SH's first suggestion and the reasons for going against it were valid. But what is equally valid is his overall concern for the trend.
We can all debate the pros/cons of financial incentives for staying up in the top leagues... or even something as light as raising the amount of money gained from wins. I say we brand em with a Scarlet Letter But there is something we ALL care about and is free. Our team's history. If it became a permenant marker on a team's homepage that they were relegated or whatever their league history is.. I think that would give some team owners added pause on whether tanking is worth it. It doesnt have to be this.. I'm just giving a quick example but just something that is a permanent indictation on how that team is actually performing. An observant manager would be able to look at the teams overall strength and see their league history and deduce their overall competitive nature. I'm like SFniner in that I dont really have much respect for any manager who purposely loses but at some point I'm going to forget which managers did that as their teams become super competitive and they decided to play the game for real. If there was something on their resume that indicated that this manager "exhibited a certain type of behavior" then we would also have that scarlet Letter hanging over their heads. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2012-06-06 07:26:03 (ID: 43699) Report Abuse |
|
You could have a season by season or all time league record on the team's Overview page.
So if you see something like Season 2: 2-14 Season 3: 1-15 Season 4: 3-13 Season 5: 2-14 Season 6: 15-1 Promotion Then you know that the team tanked on purpose for 4 seasons. That being said I don't think Steve's concern has been addressed at all which seems odd to me as I see it as a legitimate concern. I'm talking about the uneven schedule and the fact that some teams get more walkover wins than others due to managers tanking. I unfortunately don't have a genius suggestion to prevent this from happening in the future but I do think that it should be addressed. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2012-06-06 15:03:07 (ID: 43755) Report Abuse |
|
well it is a concern but an unbalanced schedule is just going to happen regardless of whatever fail-safes.
Even though we all differ on how we feel about teams that tank.. I think we can agree that there are measures we can take that would create a much bigger dilemma for those teams that cause these unjust scales. Problems are 1. We dont want to create a rich get richer policy 2. We dont want to unfairly impede teams legitimately trying to build in the lower ranks 3. How do you prove it (you dont have to go 0-15 to tank.. you can do it just as well at 6-6) I thought the severe hit in morale argument was a really good idea. i'm still to this day not exactly sure the impact morale plays into a team but I think we all agree leadership starts from the top... I'm going to splinter this to a thread in the suggestions forum. I think I came up with a pretty neat idea on how to better initiate morale AND reputation into team performance. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
spartans11
|
posted: 2012-06-06 18:58:51 (ID: 43791) Report Abuse |
|
I have a suggestion from my experiecne playing Madden Football in Franchise mode (I would let the computer sim the games). If you team is performing well then all the players develope a little faster than if the team is doing poorly. This also played out in real life aka the Detroit Lions from 2000-2010 (in Detroit we call this the Matt Millon years or the lost decade). Look at how many early draft pics were wasted or never develped, Charles Rogers, Joey Harrington, Roy Williams (1 good season), Mike Williams, and the list goes on.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Dinoweb
|
posted: 2012-06-07 00:33:53 (ID: 43846) Report Abuse |
|
I do not see a problem with players throwing games.
The only advantage I can see is a possibility of a better draft pick. Given the quality of most of the players in the draft, differing opinions on what does make a good player, and different positional needs, if you list your players intelligently, chances are you are going to get a reasonable pick anyway. If you are in the 2.x leagues, and you get promoted, you might get a low pick this season, but chances are you are going to be fairly high up the order next season. As for making different divisions lopsided, well that is going to happen regardless. Some divisions will have more strong teams than others, some teams will go bot, and some managers just really do not have a clue about what they are doing. As the game grows, and more leagues come on line, the top leagues will become more and more competitive anyway. In my experience, people who deliberately throw matches do so because they are not good enough at the game to win consistently and are looking for easy ways to get an advantage. Long term they never consistenly perform well. Let them do it I say. I'll take the easy win thank you very much. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2012-06-08 15:49:00 (ID: 44029) Report Abuse |
|
Dinoweb wrote:In my experience, people who deliberately throw matches do so because they are not good enough at the game to win consistently and are looking for easy ways to get an advantage. Long term they never consistenly perform well.
I tend to agree here. In other games, managers with this behavior don't normally learn the tactical side of the game, so when the tactical component of a game determines success, those managers don't do very well even when they build a solid/superior team. My team is testimony to how important the tactical side is in RZA ... I've built a solid team (52+% when I play my 1st team) but still manage to lose fairly often to teams within 3% points of that. So I know there is something wrong with my Playbook and/or Depth Chart (i.e, TACTICS!!!), but I haven't sorted it out yet. This game won't reward managers who don't learn the tactical side. Last edited on 2012-06-08 15:49:53 by Lee1950 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 5 >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Lottery? | |
