Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trifecta

Size difference? (Some suggestions)

Recommended Posts

Not quite sure why we want some of our player's to be smaller, but it just doesn't really seem to be that much fun. What I mean by this I will be stating below.

 

Zone CB - 6'1 (tallest height)

Man to Man - 6'0 (tallest height)

 

Why the difference between the two? Can't we just make man to man the same height?

 

Change it from saying "dual threat" to scrambling quarterback. I mean last I checked a dual threat QB was a QB who can pass and run the ball. I have never heard anyone call a QB that can play out wide a "dual threat".

 

Deep Threat WR - 6'0 (tallest height) Can we just go ahead and bump that up to 6'1?

Posession WR - 6'2 (tallest height) You got Larry Fitzgerald posted but he ain't 6'2. Can we up that to 6'3?

 

Eliminate the possession TE archetype. Just make the archetypes either receiving or blocking imo. I mean receiving will have speed and be limited by hands and you can keep blocking the way it is. Also make the receiving 6'6 max.

 

Maybe we can change the run support CB to be 6'3 as they will be hindered by hands and speed so it could help some.

 

Maybe we could look to expand the archetypes to add some of these suggested here to broaden the horizon for people to choose with their players.

 

Also now maybe we could open up D-Line positions as it seems the new influx of members coming in would help fill these teams. We could allow D-Line to be added in like the DE or DT position and the DE could help coincide with the addition of the tweener position.

 

 

Also, let's make people not afraid to want to transfer. I mean to have to lose the training camp and the scholarship money is kinda harsh really. It should be we can still attend training camp but not be able to spend the scholarship money. I just see no real benefit from anyone who wants to transfer and is completely alright with losing both of these.

Edited by KGR
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KGR said:

Not quite sure why we want some of our player's to be smaller, but it just doesn't really seem to be that much fun. What I mean by this I will be stating below.

 

Zone CB - 6'1 (tallest height)

Man to Man - 6'0 (tallest height)

 

Why the difference between the two? Can't we just make man to man the same height?

 

Change it from saying "dual threat" to scrambling quarterback. I mean last I checked a dual threat QB was a QB who can pass and run the ball. I have never heard anyone call a QB that can play out wide a "dual threat".

 

Deep Threat WR - 6'0 (tallest height) Can we just go ahead and bump that up to 6'1?

Posession WR - 6'2 (tallest height) You got Larry Fitzgerald posted but he ain't 6'2. Can we up that to 6'3?

 

Eliminate the possession TE archetype. Just make the archetypes either receiving or blocking imo. I mean receiving will have speed and be limited by hands and you can keep blocking the way it is. Also make the receiving 6'6 max.

 

Maybe we can change the run support CB to be 6'3 as they will be hindered by hands and speed so it could help some.

 

Maybe we could look to expand the archetypes to add some of these suggested here to broaden the horizon for people to choose with their players.

 

Also now maybe we could open up D-Line positions as it seems the new influx of members coming in would help fill these teams. We could allow D-Line to be added in like the DE or DT position and the DE could help coincide with the addition of the tweener position.

 

 

Also, let's make people not afraid to want to transfer. I mean to have to lose the training camp and the scholarship money is kinda harsh really. It should be we can still attend training camp but not be able to spend the scholarship money. I just see no real benefit from anyone who wants to transfer and is completely alright with losing both of these.

I agree with most of this. The only problem with opening up D-line positions is that it creates a numbers imbalance between offensive (realistically need 8 max per team) and defensive players (now up to 11 or 12). 

Edited by TacticalHammer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KGR said:

Not quite sure why we want some of our player's to be smaller, but it just doesn't really seem to be that much fun. What I mean by this I will be stating below.

 

Zone CB - 6'1 (tallest height)

Man to Man - 6'0 (tallest height)

 

Why the difference between the two? Can't we just make man to man the same height?

 

Change it from saying "dual threat" to scrambling quarterback. I mean last I checked a dual threat QB was a QB who can pass and run the ball. I have never heard anyone call a QB that can play out wide a "dual threat".

 

Deep Threat WR - 6'0 (tallest height) Can we just go ahead and bump that up to 6'1?

Posession WR - 6'2 (tallest height) You got Larry Fitzgerald posted but he ain't 6'2. Can we up that to 6'3?

 

Eliminate the possession TE archetype. Just make the archetypes either receiving or blocking imo. I mean receiving will have speed and be limited by hands and you can keep blocking the way it is. Also make the receiving 6'6 max.

 

Maybe we can change the run support CB to be 6'3 as they will be hindered by hands and speed so it could help some.

 

Maybe we could look to expand the archetypes to add some of these suggested here to broaden the horizon for people to choose with their players.

 

Also now maybe we could open up D-Line positions as it seems the new influx of members coming in would help fill these teams. We could allow D-Line to be added in like the DE or DT position and the DE could help coincide with the addition of the tweener position.

 

 

Also, let's make people not afraid to want to transfer. I mean to have to lose the training camp and the scholarship money is kinda harsh really. It should be we can still attend training camp but not be able to spend the scholarship money. I just see no real benefit from anyone who wants to transfer and is completely alright with losing both of these.

 

Yup. These are all great suggestions and things that I've advocated before. The one that I diverge on a bit is D-Line. It just has too much potential for disruption at this point and we're still too fledgling to cross that bridge right now I think.

 

Archetype heights and caps should definitely be subject to review now that we're a year in, and some of the shitty ones should get eliminated in favor of some new ones. Good list though, will definitely reference this for upcoming mini projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know at least in the new archetypes I spitballed I used height and weight as sort of a compensation for getting stuck with a lower speed cap, since speed tends to be the best stat most of the time. I think the original intent behind different sizes was also to help create some variety in players (though with a text based sim it's really not overly relevant).

 

6 minutes ago, TacticalHammer said:

I agree with most of this. The only problem with opening up D-line positions is that it creates a numbers in-balance between offensive (realistically need 8 max per team) and defensive players (now up to 11 or 12). 

 

This is one of the bigger obstacles to opening up D-line, and we'd probably need some solid testing to figure out how feasible it is. LBs already seem to be getting out of hand with sacks as is and adding super D-line would probably exasperate that. O-lines would likely need some buffing, which diminishes the fun factor for D-line.

 

One idea that could assist the positional unbalance is to allow users to create 2 defensive players instead of 1 offense and 1 defense (perhaps with the caveat that it's a limit of 1 each of DB, LB, or DL).

 

Transfer penalties are in place to curb turnover at the college level and try to reduce the impact of leaving a team in a bad situation. If we were to lighten anything I would think keep a portion of the scholarship money (say half gets lost to relocation fees) and keep the loss of training camp (spending more time learning a new playbook than refining personal skills).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, omgitshim said:

I know at least in the new archetypes I spitballed I used height and weight as sort of a compensation for getting stuck with a lower speed cap, since speed tends to be the best stat most of the time. I think the original intent behind different sizes was also to help create some variety in players (though with a text based sim it's really not overly relevant).

 

 

This is one of the bigger obstacles to opening up D-line, and we'd probably need some solid testing to figure out how feasible it is. LBs already seem to be getting out of hand with sacks as is and adding super D-line would probably exasperate that. O-lines would likely need some buffing, which diminishes the fun factor for D-line.

 

One idea that could assist the positional unbalance is to allow users to create 2 defensive players instead of 1 offense and 1 defense (perhaps with the caveat that it's a limit of 1 each of DB, LB, or DL).

 

Transfer penalties are in place to curb turnover at the college level and try to reduce the impact of leaving a team in a bad situation. If we were to lighten anything I would think keep a portion of the scholarship money (say half gets lost to relocation fees) and keep the loss of training camp (spending more time learning a new playbook than refining personal skills).

 

Or instead of your 1 off, 2 def maybe we can allow members to either go 1 off, 1 def or 2 def players. I mean that would also help out with getting some more solid defenders. Instead of trying to get members to worry about 3 players (even though some go with a capped player in college), why not just let them choose if they want an offensive or just two defensive guys. This could really benefit if someone just don't want to make offensive players.

 

I agree with most of this. The only problem with opening up D-line positions is that it creates a numbers imbalance between offensive (realistically need 8 max per team) and defensive players (now up to 11 or 12). 

 

Which isn't that bad if the above part were implemented.

Edited by KGR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KGR said:

 

Or instead of your 1 off, 2 def maybe we can allow members to either go 1 off, 1 def or 2 def players. I mean that would also help out with getting some more solid defenders. Instead of trying to get members to worry about 3 players (even though some go with a capped player in college), why not just let them choose if they want an offensive or just two defensive guys. 

 

That's what I said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, omgitshim said:

 

That's what I said!

 

LOL shhh, I just woke up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the sizing shizzz, but not the transferring. That’s the realism I like. Make them find a ride to class as well.

  • Like 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore this

Edited by LattimoreIsland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Wally said:

I agree with the sizing shizzz, but not the transferring. That’s the realism I like. Make them find a ride to class as well.

 

There is no realism invovled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KGR said:

 

There is no realism invovled.

 

Super teams here we come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KGR said:

 

There is no realism invovled.

 

1 hour ago, Wally said:

 

Super teams here we come.

 

Realistically, even if the restrictions on players were lifted, the required scholarship values for the teams would be locked in. We would probably also have to implement a limit on the number of transfers any school could receive in a season as well.

 

Transfers are meant for a player to get out of a bad situation, but we also need to protect the teams from just being run over as schools that are just there to build freshmen stats before they go to a more successful program later.

Edited by omgitshim
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, omgitshim said:

 

 

Realistically, even if the restrictions on players were lifted, the required scholarship values for the teams would be locked in. We would probably also have to implement a limit on the number of transfers any school could receive in a season as well.

 

Transfers are meant for a player to get out of a bad situation, but we also need to protect the teams from just being run over as schools that are just there to build freshmen stats before they go to a more successful program later.

 

Fillers should be held to different standards though. I mean let us keep the training camp but lose out on the scholarship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KGR said:

 

Fillers should be held to different standards though. I mean let us keep the training camp but lose out on the scholarship.

Why tho... you will easily hit the 50 tpe cap every season.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KGR said:

 

Fillers should be held to different standards though. I mean let us keep the training camp but lose out on the scholarship.

 

I would think fillers would prefer the cash given how easy it is to hit the 50 cap lol.

 

But with how many players turn fillers into recreates, having separate rules doesn't really work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wally said:

Why tho... you will easily hit the 50 tpe cap every season.

 

I just don't see the point in being penalized. I mean a filler shouldn't have to be restricted like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KGR said:

 

I just don't see the point in being penalized. I mean a filler shouldn't have to be restricted like that.

 

It's less a penalty and more a deterrent. Transferring is a last resort type of move and the team you're leaving is being punished as well by losing a player they thought was in it for the long haul for nothing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, omgitshim said:

 

It's less a penalty and more a deterrent. Transferring is a last resort type of move and the team you're leaving is being punished as well by losing a player they thought was in it for the long haul for nothing.

 

But when you are on a team where you are the 5th option, what does it matter? You are already being punished by losing scholarship money, why should you be screwed twice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KGR said:

 

But when you are on a team where you are the 5th option, what does it matter? You are already being punished by losing scholarship money, why should you be screwed twice?

 

Think how this works in real life. You sit for an entire season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KGR said:

 

But when you are on a team where you are the 5th option, what does it matter? You are already being punished by losing scholarship money, why should you be screwed twice?

 

Why would you sign with a team initially if you were going to be a 5th option your whole career?

 

It definitely sucks for players in those situations, but we need to penalties in order to stop the 1st stringers from running around all Willy nilly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wally said:

 

Think how this works in real life. You sit for an entire season.

 

Well this just will ensure that I won't be making another filler ever again and these might be my last two players ever in the league. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, omgitshim said:

 

Why would you sign with a team initially if you were going to be a 5th option your whole career?

 

It definitely sucks for players in those situations, but we need to penalties in order to stop the 1st stringers from running around all Willy nilly.

 

Put in TPE restrictions as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KGR said:

 

Put in TPE restrictions as well.

 

That's the idea behind the scholarship requirements at the team level. I could see an argument to allow low TPE (say 50ish) getting off the hook.

 

Fillers though are intended to be just that: filling in empty spots in the league. The focus should be on new players and full on recreates, so if you are filling in at a popular position, you should expect to sit for a while.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KGR said:

 

Well this just will ensure that I won't be making another filler ever again and these might be my last two players ever in the league. 

Over 20 TPE for a filler?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KGR said:

 

Put in TPE restrictions as well.

 

Like you fucking with me right? Without scholarship money you will hit 199 by the end of your sophomore season and still get a jump on going to the draft your Junior season.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...