 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Changing positions
Admin
Since what position you can effectively play is limited by your native abilities, I'm thinking of making this very simple: Whichever non-special teams position you play the most minutes at in a season (over a certain threshold so a bench player coming in for a moment doesn't switch) becomes your native position in the offseason and the salary recalculated appropriately.
A position change only has two effects: 1- Your salary is appropriate to that position, and 2- your Execution is applied in full at that position.
Thoughts?
--Chris
Changing positions
September 10, 2011 at 05:28PM View BBCode
I think I am going to have to put a mechanism in for changing positions at some point.Since what position you can effectively play is limited by your native abilities, I'm thinking of making this very simple: Whichever non-special teams position you play the most minutes at in a season (over a certain threshold so a bench player coming in for a moment doesn't switch) becomes your native position in the offseason and the salary recalculated appropriately.
A position change only has two effects: 1- Your salary is appropriate to that position, and 2- your Execution is applied in full at that position.
Thoughts?
--Chris
KLKRTR
September 10, 2011 at 07:29PM View BBCode
I ma partially in favor of this--meaning it would need to be done early in a player's career, and I think it would have to take a certain amount of time to achieve the position switch.
Admin
Personally, I don't think of it as a positive thing. It's mostly meant to keep people from putting players from cheap positions into expensive positions (like LB to DE) without them having to pay appropriate salary so I don't plan on putting a lot of restrictions on the switch that can be exploited by someone intent on gaming the system.
--Chris
September 10, 2011 at 08:15PM View BBCode
Well, it's going to take a whole season, alhough only one season.Personally, I don't think of it as a positive thing. It's mostly meant to keep people from putting players from cheap positions into expensive positions (like LB to DE) without them having to pay appropriate salary so I don't plan on putting a lot of restrictions on the switch that can be exploited by someone intent on gaming the system.
--Chris
Admin
I'm thinking that maybe players can have up to two "secondary positions": one being their original position and the other being the last position before the most recent change.
To make this have any effect I'd have to increase the out-of-position pentalties a bit, maybe a 10% penalty on skill positions (catching, carrying, throwing, etc. but not raw physical skills like Speed and Health). So when playing your primary position, you'd be at full ratings. At a secondary position, you'd be at full ratings plus an execution penalty equal to half of the current penalty, and completely out of position would hit you with both the execution penalty and the 10% skill penalty.
--Chris
September 10, 2011 at 08:32PM View BBCode
Thinking on this further...I'm thinking that maybe players can have up to two "secondary positions": one being their original position and the other being the last position before the most recent change.
To make this have any effect I'd have to increase the out-of-position pentalties a bit, maybe a 10% penalty on skill positions (catching, carrying, throwing, etc. but not raw physical skills like Speed and Health). So when playing your primary position, you'd be at full ratings. At a secondary position, you'd be at full ratings plus an execution penalty equal to half of the current penalty, and completely out of position would hit you with both the execution penalty and the 10% skill penalty.
--Chris
casperthegm
I don't have a problem with the idea in general, as it does happen and it's cool to be able to have the strategic ability to make these decisions as coaches but it's also a slippery slope, like you said, making sure we don't end up gaming the system with loopholes. I guess this is why we have a beta league- implement the change and we'll try it out.
September 10, 2011 at 08:45PM View BBCode
I definitely agree that a transition should take some time, so I'm glad to see the season long requirement. Am I correct in assuming we're talking about changing positions that make sense, like CB to Safety? I also assume the players attributes won't change (other than areas that normally are trained for during the season), so when they change positions, it's really just a position change, along with the appropriate change in salary, yes?I don't have a problem with the idea in general, as it does happen and it's cool to be able to have the strategic ability to make these decisions as coaches but it's also a slippery slope, like you said, making sure we don't end up gaming the system with loopholes. I guess this is why we have a beta league- implement the change and we'll try it out.
Admin
But, if a Safety happened to have enough throwing skills, you could turn that Safety into a Quarterback. That would probably require a few seasons of QB training just to get him onto the QB depth chart, then starting nine games at QB, and when you're all done you'll have turned a good Safety into an awful Quarterback.
No player attributes would change, but after the change the salary would be based on the new position and the player would no longer get out of position penalties for playing that position.
I expect most actual changes will be on the defense, in the OL, or between kickers and punters.
--Chris
September 10, 2011 at 09:12PM View BBCode
Technically, there would be no restriction on the changes, but practically there is: You'd need to start someone at a particular position for a number of games, which means their skills at the out-of-position position have to be good enough to appear on the depth chart. That cuts a huge number of transitions out. How many non-Kickers or Punters appear on your Kicker depth chart? Probably none. Your depth chart at C will have mostly other OL members, with maybe an occasional TE or DE thrown in.But, if a Safety happened to have enough throwing skills, you could turn that Safety into a Quarterback. That would probably require a few seasons of QB training just to get him onto the QB depth chart, then starting nine games at QB, and when you're all done you'll have turned a good Safety into an awful Quarterback.
No player attributes would change, but after the change the salary would be based on the new position and the player would no longer get out of position penalties for playing that position.
I expect most actual changes will be on the defense, in the OL, or between kickers and punters.
--Chris
lancereisen
This is a positive fix [the 1st one, undecided about 2, let's not over think it]
This addresses both the problems, position and more importantly, salary. It is elegant and simple and it allows for the old style, multi-talented, versitile players.
Many may think that I'm yelling for the petty reason that my team was the biggest offender, and this is partly true; but my main concern is the game itself and options. I'm fighting to keep it from getting dumbed down to the point of losing it's intrigue.
I gotta go spend a couple of daze drinking w/ brothers, so expect an extended explination/plea sometime Monday.
Oh, yeah, you know I want it to go back. The suggestion on this thread should have been the 1st move. I'ts positive. The bomb was negative. And my team is doing just fine, but I don't like looking at it any more. It just makes me mad.
September 10, 2011 at 09:28PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Got your earmuffs on, Chris? I'm fixing to pick at the scab and there may be pus involved, all perceived.:D
This is a positive fix [the 1st one, undecided about 2, let's not over think it]
This addresses both the problems, position and more importantly, salary. It is elegant and simple and it allows for the old style, multi-talented, versitile players.
Many may think that I'm yelling for the petty reason that my team was the biggest offender, and this is partly true; but my main concern is the game itself and options. I'm fighting to keep it from getting dumbed down to the point of losing it's intrigue.
I gotta go spend a couple of daze drinking w/ brothers, so expect an extended explination/plea sometime Monday.
Oh, yeah, you know I want it to go back. The suggestion on this thread should have been the 1st move. I'ts positive. The bomb was negative. And my team is doing just fine, but I don't like looking at it any more. It just makes me mad.
Admin
This is a feature change.. the other was a bugfix, certain players were just not being created and rated correctly.
--Chris
September 10, 2011 at 09:48PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lancereisen
Got your earmuffs on, Chris? I'm fixing to pick at the scab and there may be pus involved, all perceived.:D
This is a positive fix [the 1st one, undecided about 2, let's not over think it]
This addresses both the problems, position and more importantly, salary. It is elegant and simple and it allows for the old style, multi-talented, versitile players.
Many may think that I'm yelling for the petty reason that my team was the biggest offender, and this is partly true; but my main concern is the game itself and options. I'm fighting to keep it from getting dumbed down to the point of losing it's intrigue.
I gotta go spend a couple of daze drinking w/ brothers, so expect an extended explination/plea sometime Monday.
Oh, yeah, you know I want it to go back. The suggestion on this thread should have been the 1st move. I'ts positive. The bomb was negative. And my team is doing just fine, but I don't like looking at it any more. It just makes me mad.
This is a feature change.. the other was a bugfix, certain players were just not being created and rated correctly.
--Chris
Goldambre
If this is the whole logic behind the jiggling of ratings is salary, then wouldn't it make more sense to just raise the salary level? Charge the highest rate for any of the positions a player might play. For example, [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=127724]Willie Tonnemaker[/url] is a LB who starts at DE for me. His salary is 785 which is about right for a 73 ILB/71 OLB. Tonnemaker is also a 72 DE and a 68 DT. The salary for a 72 DE looks to be 1485 and a 68 DT is 310. If you change Tonnemaker's salary to match the DE rate then your cap problem is addressed.
If you are concerned that salaries are not working then fix salaries, don't change the players.
September 11, 2011 at 05:14AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Personally, I don't think of it as a positive thing. It's mostly meant to keep people from putting players from cheap positions into expensive positions (like LB to DE) without them having to pay appropriate salary so I don't plan on putting a lot of restrictions on the switch that can be exploited by someone intent on gaming the system.
--Chris
If this is the whole logic behind the jiggling of ratings is salary, then wouldn't it make more sense to just raise the salary level? Charge the highest rate for any of the positions a player might play. For example, [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=127724]Willie Tonnemaker[/url] is a LB who starts at DE for me. His salary is 785 which is about right for a 73 ILB/71 OLB. Tonnemaker is also a 72 DE and a 68 DT. The salary for a 72 DE looks to be 1485 and a 68 DT is 310. If you change Tonnemaker's salary to match the DE rate then your cap problem is addressed.
If you are concerned that salaries are not working then fix salaries, don't change the players.
Admin
The fact that the overpowered linebackers were being used like cheap swiss army knives highlighted the potential for gaming the salary system; fixing the bugs in ratings and player creation doesn't change the salary situation.
So it's really two separate issues here.
--Chris
September 11, 2011 at 05:20AM View BBCode
No, the jiggling of ratings is that there were bugs in the way linebackers were being created and advanced; this was due to changes that were made in the game early on that were not properly reflected in all places. Other ratings adjustments were made to more properly reflect the usage of ratings and to properly match players to their templates.The fact that the overpowered linebackers were being used like cheap swiss army knives highlighted the potential for gaming the salary system; fixing the bugs in ratings and player creation doesn't change the salary situation.
So it's really two separate issues here.
--Chris
RichNYC1
On offense, when do you ever see a RB playing OL? A TE could play OL and WR and a WR could play TE, again rarely. A FB could be a TE. I think a WR or RB can play QB, but to me, thats about it.
September 11, 2011 at 02:50PM View BBCode
I think the key to this is being realistic. LBīs can make good DEīs, but really, no other position can play DT other than the occasional DE. Same with CB, really only a S would be able to make that move and its rare. But there are plenty of LBīs that can play SS and maybe a few that could play FS.On offense, when do you ever see a RB playing OL? A TE could play OL and WR and a WR could play TE, again rarely. A FB could be a TE. I think a WR or RB can play QB, but to me, thats about it.
redcped
But you don't have to go too far back to find RB who only weighed 20-30 lbs. less than OL.
The way I think about the FB I have playing RT is that in college he was a FB/TE type who was already really big. He beefs up another 30 pounds and goes from a 270-lb FB/TE to a 300-lb RT. It's not off the charts at all.
September 11, 2011 at 04:41PM View BBCode
Rich, I do think you are right in today's game, mostly because there are virtually no OL or DT under 300 lbs.But you don't have to go too far back to find RB who only weighed 20-30 lbs. less than OL.
The way I think about the FB I have playing RT is that in college he was a FB/TE type who was already really big. He beefs up another 30 pounds and goes from a 270-lb FB/TE to a 300-lb RT. It's not off the charts at all.
Admin
The chart default is way low, I would expect that as leagues mature that many leagues will raise the chart floor.
--Chris
September 11, 2011 at 07:08PM View BBCode
On my T chart I have only one RB that can qualify for the chart, so I think that's enough cross-over.The chart default is way low, I would expect that as leagues mature that many leagues will raise the chart floor.
--Chris
cowboymatt43
January 24, 2012 at 01:11PM View BBCode
Is this mechanism in place? I have a kicker in BPFL that I've been using at a punter. I'm curious if he'll actually become a punter at some point or will he always suffer the execution penalties?
lancereisen
The system to make a ratings score determining whether or not a player will be displayed on a depth chart needs modification. For example, FBs are no longer available on OL DCs because they suck at FB?. On kickoffs, which is really a defensive play [we kick the ball away], one must use 2 OLs who have no speed, no tackling and oftenly little agility. I want speedy, agile tacklers there but they aren't listed.
Qualifications for a depth chart need to be based on a select set of skills related to the situation/position/play. Not based on some arbitrary native position assigned by FABE at birth.
Fabe, like GOD, creates freaks or mutations, some good, some bad, some neurtal; but we shouldn't be discriminating based on race, creed or national origin. Holders fall into this category. If the skills [hands, exe, throw accuracy, some agility and some catch] are there, he's a holder; that's all. The presence of those skills should automatically boost his holder rating. The fact that he's a lousy C [was probably the C waterboy] shouldn't keep him from being a great holder. Your team is probably sacrificing a roster spot for just a holder. That's a penality of sorts.
[Edited on 1-25-2012 by lancereisen]
January 25, 2012 at 05:18PM View BBCode
To expqnd on reds scenario; I imagine an OL who goes to a college with a lot of OL talent but no FBs. The OL with the best agility and carry skills is asked by coach to 'take one for the team' and play FB. He sez 'sure, coach' and graduates a mediocre RB but is still quite a talented OL. This is what Best Position is about,, isn't it, the skills, not the role name. We just need the native position to be modified by play at the best position so a player will be listed amongst his peers on the roster and taxed accordingly.The system to make a ratings score determining whether or not a player will be displayed on a depth chart needs modification. For example, FBs are no longer available on OL DCs because they suck at FB?. On kickoffs, which is really a defensive play [we kick the ball away], one must use 2 OLs who have no speed, no tackling and oftenly little agility. I want speedy, agile tacklers there but they aren't listed.
Qualifications for a depth chart need to be based on a select set of skills related to the situation/position/play. Not based on some arbitrary native position assigned by FABE at birth.
Fabe, like GOD, creates freaks or mutations, some good, some bad, some neurtal; but we shouldn't be discriminating based on race, creed or national origin. Holders fall into this category. If the skills [hands, exe, throw accuracy, some agility and some catch] are there, he's a holder; that's all. The presence of those skills should automatically boost his holder rating. The fact that he's a lousy C [was probably the C waterboy] shouldn't keep him from being a great holder. Your team is probably sacrificing a roster spot for just a holder. That's a penality of sorts.
[Edited on 1-25-2012 by lancereisen]
lancereisen
January 25, 2012 at 06:47PM View BBCode
Upon further review, let's let the draft system stand, but after being drafted, on the roster, have best role listed first and the players name listed under that category. If best role differs from draft position, the draft position would become the players secondary role [unless they are a KR, which has no roster designation].
cowboymatt43
I think we really need a mechanism to make logical position changes. (By that I mean logical in reality, not based on best overall position!)
February 04, 2012 at 11:00PM View BBCode
Bump.I think we really need a mechanism to make logical position changes. (By that I mean logical in reality, not based on best overall position!)
cowboymatt43
February 29, 2012 at 05:55AM View BBCode
Here's another reason why this mechanism needs to be put in place -- [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=322096]Jerry Lecount[/url]. He's a RB that casper is using at QB. That's all well and good...but there are two problems: 1) His position SHOULD have changed by now. He is clearly no longer a RB. 2) He has the second best passer rating this season! Clearly he's not experiencing any real issues with the out-of-position penalty that I thought was supposed to be in effect.
Admin
He should be worse under pressure and more susceptible to blitzes. But this is a good time to bump this as I'm thinking about putting this in. now.
--Chris
February 29, 2012 at 03:57PM View BBCode
Originally posted by cowboymatt43
Here's another reason why this mechanism needs to be put in place -- [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=322096]Jerry Lecount[/url]. He's a RB that casper is using at QB. That's all well and good...but there are two problems: 1) His position SHOULD have changed by now. He is clearly no longer a RB. 2) He has the second best passer rating this season! Clearly he's not experiencing any real issues with the out-of-position penalty that I thought was supposed to be in effect.
He should be worse under pressure and more susceptible to blitzes. But this is a good time to bump this as I'm thinking about putting this in. now.
--Chris
EdSales87
I also wouldn't mind moving a CB to FS!
March 01, 2012 at 01:42AM View BBCode
This will also help where we are having problems finding good players in certain positions, aka, FB, C, TE, K, and P.I also wouldn't mind moving a CB to FS!
CCondardo
It seems like baseball has a good system why not just duplicate that here? A guy should be able to have a position and a secondary. I think you reduce the % skill at a position based on minutes with a certain threshold deciding the execution hit. So if you're a 80% CB you'd execute at 80% of your regular execution.
--Corey
March 01, 2012 at 03:36PM View BBCode
Can't we just use a system similar to baseball? List what positions are hard/med/easy (RB->CB/TE->WR/RB->FB) to change to, remove some all together (you can't switch from a DT to a RB), allow us to put assign position change drills, make minutes played slowly change the position (like the % system in baseball).It seems like baseball has a good system why not just duplicate that here? A guy should be able to have a position and a secondary. I think you reduce the % skill at a position based on minutes with a certain threshold deciding the execution hit. So if you're a 80% CB you'd execute at 80% of your regular execution.
--Corey
Admin
Why starts? Because changing positions isn't always for your benefit, it avoids salary abuse. An owner could start an LB at CB but train him at LB and keep the lower LB salary. By counting starts higher than training, he will be re-valued as a CB in the offseason.
Because salary is involved, and salary is only evaluated in the off-season, position changes will only happen in the offseason.
My instinct is to allow players to have up to two secondary positions; this is how baseball started out, though, and it eventually had to be expanded. But a football player position is different from in baseball; it's more like the difference between batters and pitchers, which you can't change at all.
Note that a player's salary will take all his positions into account, so if his primary pos is LB and his backup is CB, his salary may be at the higher CB rate.
Chris
March 01, 2012 at 05:18PM View BBCode
Minutes is problematic because backups may play little or not at all. It will be based on position training and starts.Why starts? Because changing positions isn't always for your benefit, it avoids salary abuse. An owner could start an LB at CB but train him at LB and keep the lower LB salary. By counting starts higher than training, he will be re-valued as a CB in the offseason.
Because salary is involved, and salary is only evaluated in the off-season, position changes will only happen in the offseason.
My instinct is to allow players to have up to two secondary positions; this is how baseball started out, though, and it eventually had to be expanded. But a football player position is different from in baseball; it's more like the difference between batters and pitchers, which you can't change at all.
Note that a player's salary will take all his positions into account, so if his primary pos is LB and his backup is CB, his salary may be at the higher CB rate.
Chris
Goldambre
On the other hand,
I do like the idea that salary takes all positions in to account. Good call on this!
March 01, 2012 at 06:46PM View BBCode
One of the ongoing challenges in this discussion is the Exe hit for playing out of position. If we are moving to introducing secondary positions is there going to be a reduced/removed Exe hit for players in their secondary position? I would argue that once a player has skill in the secondary position then the Exe hit should be removed. This is especially true for close positions (DT=DE=LB or LB=CB=S or OG=OT). There are lots of examples of players lining up as a DE in the 4-3, but OLB in the 3-4 (Tamba Hali comes immediately to mind). Likewise, there are lots of examples of TE/FB cross-over. Close positions should not suffer a penalty.On the other hand,
CCondardo says. . .remove some [position changes] all together (you can't switch from a DT to a RB)history shows this supposition to be false. William "The Fridge" Perry has more Super Bowl rushing touchdowns than Walter Payton (one of the worst Ditka crimes). Mike Vrabel (OLB) has 11 career interceptions and 10 career receiving TDs. Just because it is not a "normal" change, it does not mean that it is impossible.
I do like the idea that salary takes all positions in to account. Good call on this!
redcped
Perry never would be switched to a full-time FB. He just had a skill set (primarily, mass) that allowed him to be effective in that role in very specific circumstances. Vrabel is much the same example.
At some point, we should be able to craft plays, and a heavy formation or a three-TE set on the goal line would naturally be the sort of thing we might build and use capable personnel wherever they might be found.
But none of that has anything to do with switching positions.
March 01, 2012 at 06:54PM View BBCode
I see a distinct difference between a sure-handed LB like Vrabel being used as a TE or a monster like Perry used as a FB in goal-line plays, as compared to actual switches.Perry never would be switched to a full-time FB. He just had a skill set (primarily, mass) that allowed him to be effective in that role in very specific circumstances. Vrabel is much the same example.
At some point, we should be able to craft plays, and a heavy formation or a three-TE set on the goal line would naturally be the sort of thing we might build and use capable personnel wherever they might be found.
But none of that has anything to do with switching positions.
Pages: 1 2