 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Changing Positions
Admin
Here is what I am thinking of doing:
- Each player gets "position training points" at each position.
- If he spends the week training at a given position, he gets 5 training points at that position.
- If he starts or plays at a given position, he also gets points; say 2 points for starting and 1 point for every 5 minutes played at that position.
- During the offseason, whichever position had the most training points becomes his new position. If a second position had at least half as many points, that becomes his secondary position. If not, and he changed positions, his old primary position becomes his secondary position.
- If the player changes positions, he gets a permanent Execution hit based on how "logical" the change was, although if he is young he can of course build up his Execution again.
- During the offseason, all training points are wiped out, so players can't build up points or skills at multiple positions, or easily rock back and forth between two positions.
- If a player has a secondary position that has a higher salary than his new main position, his new salary potential is the average of the two positions (although he is still subject to the maximum salary drop in a single season so it may take a few seasons for his salary to fully adjust).
- A secondary position has a skill level, either 75% or 50%. If he doesn't have the training points for a new secondary position or to maintain the existing one, his skill goes from 75 to 50; after that, it presumes to drop to 25%, which is the default. So a player with a secondary skill at 75% will only take a 25% Execution penalty rather than a 75% Execution penalty playing in that position.
I think this is relatively simple to implement and understand. The question is, does it seem logical, and is it ripe for abuse?
Chris
Changing Positions
March 23, 2014 at 06:59PM View BBCode
I had originally bumped an old discussion for this, but I am starting over.Here is what I am thinking of doing:
- Each player gets "position training points" at each position.
- If he spends the week training at a given position, he gets 5 training points at that position.
- If he starts or plays at a given position, he also gets points; say 2 points for starting and 1 point for every 5 minutes played at that position.
- During the offseason, whichever position had the most training points becomes his new position. If a second position had at least half as many points, that becomes his secondary position. If not, and he changed positions, his old primary position becomes his secondary position.
- If the player changes positions, he gets a permanent Execution hit based on how "logical" the change was, although if he is young he can of course build up his Execution again.
- During the offseason, all training points are wiped out, so players can't build up points or skills at multiple positions, or easily rock back and forth between two positions.
- If a player has a secondary position that has a higher salary than his new main position, his new salary potential is the average of the two positions (although he is still subject to the maximum salary drop in a single season so it may take a few seasons for his salary to fully adjust).
- A secondary position has a skill level, either 75% or 50%. If he doesn't have the training points for a new secondary position or to maintain the existing one, his skill goes from 75 to 50; after that, it presumes to drop to 25%, which is the default. So a player with a secondary skill at 75% will only take a 25% Execution penalty rather than a 75% Execution penalty playing in that position.
I think this is relatively simple to implement and understand. The question is, does it seem logical, and is it ripe for abuse?
Chris
Fulla
Is it ripe for abuse? I would like to try.
March 23, 2014 at 07:25PM View BBCode
In the past, training a new position was nearly impossible. So I am looking forward to seeing this play out.Is it ripe for abuse? I would like to try.
Admin
Chris
March 24, 2014 at 03:33PM View BBCode
Partially the point is to help avoid abuse that is already happening. If, for example, you are starting a less expensive Safety at CB, the next season he will become a CB and his salary will adjust appropriately.Chris
Admin
Also, the game log is only available for the current season; during the offseason, all of the position data is combined into a single record for the year.
Chris
March 25, 2014 at 03:44PM View BBCode
In preparation for this I have started tracking how many minutes each player plays at each position. his information is now visible on the "Positions" tab on the player card. Note that since the purpose of this information is to handle position changes and position changes only happen in the offseason, this information will not be tracked for single season leagues.Also, the game log is only available for the current season; during the offseason, all of the position data is combined into a single record for the year.
Chris
Admin
Chris
March 25, 2014 at 03:46PM View BBCode
Incidentally, I have also restructured the way the player card is built; this was one of the bottlenecks preventing me from adding defensive stats. Since the underlying structure has changed, weirdness could appear anywhere on the card, especially in ages (especially when looking at players in a different league), retirement/death ages, years and dates, etc.Chris
shbo2
March 26, 2014 at 02:01PM View BBCode
Chris, is there any way to link a guy to his "born" position to avoid say drafting a safety with A strength then playing him at LB his rookie season, then when he's fully trained at LB playing him as a DE and by year 3 you have a safety who can line up as a DT?
Admin
Chris
March 26, 2014 at 04:00PM View BBCode
Every time he changes his position, his Execution will drop... I really don't expect people to be trying to shift positions constantly or want to give them multiple positions so they can create "utility players". That is common on the baseball side but in football I think position changes are rarer and only tend to happen once.Chris
dirtdevil
I wouldn't be so sure. right now EXE doesn't seem to be important enough that a hit there would be any kind of major deterrent. I would be more surprised to not see a two position shift like shbo is referencing than I would be to see some.
also, speaking as someone who using a ton of guys out of position, it doesn't have anything to do with the salary. for me it's all about the skillset. I tend to play guys at positions where I feel their skills are best suited. I have tons of FS playing CB, CB playing FS, SS playing LB, LB playing DE and all kinds of OL playing in different spots on the line.
as an aside, I think the idea of the exe penalty doesn't make a lot of sense to me. in real life players get moved into positions where they're better suited so they'll be more effective. how many college OT end up at G, 4-3 DE at 3-4 OLB, or CB at FS? I don't see the rationale for an EXE penalty.
March 26, 2014 at 04:13PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Every time he changes his position, his Execution will drop... I really don't expect people to be trying to shift positions constantly or want to give them multiple positions so they can create "utility players". That is common on the baseball side but in football I think position changes are rarer and only tend to happen once.
Chris
I wouldn't be so sure. right now EXE doesn't seem to be important enough that a hit there would be any kind of major deterrent. I would be more surprised to not see a two position shift like shbo is referencing than I would be to see some.
also, speaking as someone who using a ton of guys out of position, it doesn't have anything to do with the salary. for me it's all about the skillset. I tend to play guys at positions where I feel their skills are best suited. I have tons of FS playing CB, CB playing FS, SS playing LB, LB playing DE and all kinds of OL playing in different spots on the line.
as an aside, I think the idea of the exe penalty doesn't make a lot of sense to me. in real life players get moved into positions where they're better suited so they'll be more effective. how many college OT end up at G, 4-3 DE at 3-4 OLB, or CB at FS? I don't see the rationale for an EXE penalty.
Admin
Do you mean the in-game EXE penalty, or the idea of taking an EXE hit when a position is changed?
The idea behind taking an EXE hit when a position is changed is that EXE represents much of your "position knowledge", and now that you have changed positions, you aren't quite as comfortable in that position so you take a 5-10 point hit. Remember also that a player training out of position does not get EXE improves (unless he is also on Discipline drills), so once the change is made he will start to get EXE improves.
Now, there is a mechanism where I could give a player a "temporary" hit that wears off after a few weeks; it was meant for temporary reductions due to injury but I haven't used it yet. I am not married to the idea of EXE changes for a position change.
As far as Execution in the game, one hing I should probably do is put some sort of indicator in the play-by-play when Execution made a difference, the way that the baseball sim indicates plus and minus plays. Execution is woven into almost every interaction on the field, although at a reduced level compared to the main skill. If I was to vastly simplify things as an example, a ratio of 75% "main skill" to 25% "Execution" is about right. So a high-Execution player out of position could be seen as playing at only about 80% of his potential skill level. The hit is of course worse for kickers in wind, the OL on blitzes, QB's under pressure, etc.
Chris
March 26, 2014 at 04:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by Admin
I wouldn't be so sure. right now EXE doesn't seem to be important enough that a hit there would be any kind of major deterrent. I would be more surprised to not see a two position shift like shbo is referencing than I would be to see some.
as an aside, I think the idea of the exe penalty doesn't make a ot of sense to me. in real life players get moved into positions where they're better suited so they'll be more effective. how many college OT end up at G, 4-3 DE at 3-4 OLB, or CB at FS? I don't see the rationale for an EXE penalty.
Do you mean the in-game EXE penalty, or the idea of taking an EXE hit when a position is changed?
The idea behind taking an EXE hit when a position is changed is that EXE represents much of your "position knowledge", and now that you have changed positions, you aren't quite as comfortable in that position so you take a 5-10 point hit. Remember also that a player training out of position does not get EXE improves (unless he is also on Discipline drills), so once the change is made he will start to get EXE improves.
Now, there is a mechanism where I could give a player a "temporary" hit that wears off after a few weeks; it was meant for temporary reductions due to injury but I haven't used it yet. I am not married to the idea of EXE changes for a position change.
As far as Execution in the game, one hing I should probably do is put some sort of indicator in the play-by-play when Execution made a difference, the way that the baseball sim indicates plus and minus plays. Execution is woven into almost every interaction on the field, although at a reduced level compared to the main skill. If I was to vastly simplify things as an example, a ratio of 75% "main skill" to 25% "Execution" is about right. So a high-Execution player out of position could be seen as playing at only about 80% of his potential skill level. The hit is of course worse for kickers in wind, the OL on blitzes, QB's under pressure, etc.
Chris
Admin
Also, it is worth noting that players can and do change positions in college (with no penalty) at the beginning of their senior year.
Chris
March 26, 2014 at 04:50PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
how many college OT end up at G, 4-3 DE at 3-4 OLB, or CB at FS?
Also, it is worth noting that players can and do change positions in college (with no penalty) at the beginning of their senior year.
Chris
dirtdevil
the hit when changing positions. I can understand the rationale for an in-game hit when someone is out of position as a way of representing the learning curve to move from, say, CB to FS.
I don't see why that is a realistic idea. this is an extreme example, but how much did Ronnie lot's play suffer when he moved from CB to S? once the position switch has been made that should be their position of highest knowledge/skill. there shouldn't be any further reason for an exe hit at that point and in my experience EXE isn't going to improve a whole lot. believe me, I've tried.
that could work. maybe EXE takes a hit of x number of games after a position switch. if you could tie it to ATT and/or EXE, that would be really great. then the high ATT/EXE players would 'fully convert' faster than the low ATT/EXE players. it would be a way to give some more value to some attributes that don't have a huge impact right now.
that would be great. more info is always good.
March 26, 2014 at 04:53PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Do you mean the in-game EXE penalty, or the idea of taking an EXE hit when a position is changed?
the hit when changing positions. I can understand the rationale for an in-game hit when someone is out of position as a way of representing the learning curve to move from, say, CB to FS.
the idea behind taking an EXE hit when a position is changed is that EXE represents much of your "position knowledge", and now that you have changed positions, you aren't quite as comfortable in that position so you take a 5-10 point hit. Remember also that a player training out of position does not get EXE improves (unless he is also on Discipline drills), so once the change is made he will start to get EXE improves.
I don't see why that is a realistic idea. this is an extreme example, but how much did Ronnie lot's play suffer when he moved from CB to S? once the position switch has been made that should be their position of highest knowledge/skill. there shouldn't be any further reason for an exe hit at that point and in my experience EXE isn't going to improve a whole lot. believe me, I've tried.
Now, there is a mechanism where I could give a player a "temporary" hit that wears off after a few weeks; it was meant for temporary reductions due to injury but I haven't used it yet. I am not married to the idea of EXE changes for a position change.
that could work. maybe EXE takes a hit of x number of games after a position switch. if you could tie it to ATT and/or EXE, that would be really great. then the high ATT/EXE players would 'fully convert' faster than the low ATT/EXE players. it would be a way to give some more value to some attributes that don't have a huge impact right now.
As far as Execution in the game, one hing I should probably do is put some sort of indicator in the play-by-play when Execution made a difference, the way that the baseball sim indicates plus and minus plays. Execution is woven into almost every interaction on the field, although at a reduced level compared to the main skill. If I was to vastly simplify things as an example, a ratio of 75% "main skill" to 25% "Execution" is about right. So a high-Execution player out of position could be seen as playing at only about 80% of his potential skill level. The hit is of course worse for kickers in wind, the OL on blitzes, QB's under pressure, etc.
Chris
that would be great. more info is always good.
dirtdevil
sure. but for me it leaves a lot of guys as 'tweeners' who can play effectively at a couple of positions, or just outright misses on guys who I would prefer to play elsewhere. it may be that I just have a different way of looking at players, but I find I use a lot of guys out of position on most of my teams.
this is my [url=http://football.simdynasty.com/roster.jsp?teamid=14350]MAFL team[/url] for instance. it currently features a HB at WR, a G at C, two T at G in I/Pro, two G at T in shotgun, a LB at DE, two SS at LB, a SS at FS, and in nickel I've got a FS at SS, a CB at FS, a FS at CB and two SS at LB. that team went 16-0.
maybe some people will look at that and say that those guys shouldn't play well at those positions, but to me if that's where their skill set says they'll succeed then they should be able to play well there. if that's the case then I don't see why there should be a long-term penalty for doing so.
March 26, 2014 at 05:35PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Originally posted by dirtdevil
how many college OT end up at G, 4-3 DE at 3-4 OLB, or CB at FS?
Also, it is worth noting that players can and do change positions in college (with no penalty) at the beginning of their senior year.
Chris
sure. but for me it leaves a lot of guys as 'tweeners' who can play effectively at a couple of positions, or just outright misses on guys who I would prefer to play elsewhere. it may be that I just have a different way of looking at players, but I find I use a lot of guys out of position on most of my teams.
this is my [url=http://football.simdynasty.com/roster.jsp?teamid=14350]MAFL team[/url] for instance. it currently features a HB at WR, a G at C, two T at G in I/Pro, two G at T in shotgun, a LB at DE, two SS at LB, a SS at FS, and in nickel I've got a FS at SS, a CB at FS, a FS at CB and two SS at LB. that team went 16-0.
maybe some people will look at that and say that those guys shouldn't play well at those positions, but to me if that's where their skill set says they'll succeed then they should be able to play well there. if that's the case then I don't see why there should be a long-term penalty for doing so.
Admin
Execution is used for "position knowledge", i.e. all those things that I don't have specific ratings for. It is in that respect analogous to Range in the baseball sim, and it is the same reason that players playing other positions get a penalty in Range but not in hitting skills. It is Execution that keeps an experienced defensive lineman from jumping across the line when they see a muscle twitch on the opposing lineman, allows a placekicker to compensate for that 20 MPH crosswind in the rain, or allows a QB to have one eye on the incoming blitz and the other looking for an RB to dump off a screen pass.
Still not married to the idea of an EXE hit, I am just trying to balance things out to where position changes are possible but not so simple that people just ignore the positions entirely (like I think they do in baseball).
Chris
March 26, 2014 at 07:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
maybe some people will look at that and say that those guys shouldn't play well at those positions, but to me if that's where their skill set says they'll succeed then they should be able to play well there. if that's the case then I don't see why there should be a long-term penalty for doing so.
Execution is used for "position knowledge", i.e. all those things that I don't have specific ratings for. It is in that respect analogous to Range in the baseball sim, and it is the same reason that players playing other positions get a penalty in Range but not in hitting skills. It is Execution that keeps an experienced defensive lineman from jumping across the line when they see a muscle twitch on the opposing lineman, allows a placekicker to compensate for that 20 MPH crosswind in the rain, or allows a QB to have one eye on the incoming blitz and the other looking for an RB to dump off a screen pass.
Still not married to the idea of an EXE hit, I am just trying to balance things out to where position changes are possible but not so simple that people just ignore the positions entirely (like I think they do in baseball).
Chris
shbo2
I will end up doing to position switch a lot. I have very similar views on playing guys "out of position" as DD and feel like it can become way too easy to make unrealistic position switches without some sort of fail safe to prevent it.
March 26, 2014 at 08:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Every time he changes his position, his Execution will drop... I really don't expect people to be trying to shift positions constantly or want to give them multiple positions so they can create "utility players". That is common on the baseball side but in football I think position changes are rarer and only tend to happen once.
Chris
I will end up doing to position switch a lot. I have very similar views on playing guys "out of position" as DD and feel like it can become way too easy to make unrealistic position switches without some sort of fail safe to prevent it.
dirtdevil
fair enough, but the realistic position switches don't have that great a difference in most of those areas. a DT moved to DE isn't going to experience a huge difference in reacting to the cadence, for instance and people move from LB to DE or vie versa all the time. CB to FS is a pretty common move. most of those things are done in training camp in real life, with most players fully adjusting to their new role sometime in their first season. an in-season EXE hit to reflect that makes sense to me. a hit over the course of an 8-year career just doesn't. if we want to put it in baseball parlance, at some point cal ripken was a very good 3B. it didn't take the remainder of his career to become competent there.
now, if someone is trying to play a S at DT (which I've actually done a couple of times because that's what their best pos was), that should have a huge EXE hit, because that switch doesn't make sense. even if a guy goes from SS to LB to DE to DT it doesn't make sense. if we can eliminate that, we should. whether that's done by 'remembering' the original position to DQ certain other positions (ie DB to DL, FB to OL, OL to WR) or by only permitting x number of position switches per player, I don't know.
March 26, 2014 at 08:23PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Originally posted by dirtdevil
maybe some people will look at that and say that those guys shouldn't play well at those positions, but to me if that's where their skill set says they'll succeed then they should be able to play well there. if that's the case then I don't see why there should be a long-term penalty for doing so.
Execution is used for "position knowledge", i.e. all those things that I don't have specific ratings for. It is in that respect analogous to Range in the baseball sim, and it is the same reason that players playing other positions get a penalty in Range but not in hitting skills. It is Execution that keeps an experienced defensive lineman from jumping across the line when they see a muscle twitch on the opposing lineman, allows a placekicker to compensate for that 20 MPH crosswind in the rain, or allows a QB to have one eye on the incoming blitz and the other looking for an RB to dump off a screen pass.
fair enough, but the realistic position switches don't have that great a difference in most of those areas. a DT moved to DE isn't going to experience a huge difference in reacting to the cadence, for instance and people move from LB to DE or vie versa all the time. CB to FS is a pretty common move. most of those things are done in training camp in real life, with most players fully adjusting to their new role sometime in their first season. an in-season EXE hit to reflect that makes sense to me. a hit over the course of an 8-year career just doesn't. if we want to put it in baseball parlance, at some point cal ripken was a very good 3B. it didn't take the remainder of his career to become competent there.
now, if someone is trying to play a S at DT (which I've actually done a couple of times because that's what their best pos was), that should have a huge EXE hit, because that switch doesn't make sense. even if a guy goes from SS to LB to DE to DT it doesn't make sense. if we can eliminate that, we should. whether that's done by 'remembering' the original position to DQ certain other positions (ie DB to DL, FB to OL, OL to WR) or by only permitting x number of position switches per player, I don't know.
dirtdevil
maybe some kind of position eligibility 'chart'? something like SS can move to LB or FS but not DE or DL. HB can move to QB or WR but not TE. TE can move to FB or WR but not C. LB can move to DE or SS but not CB. CB can move to FS or SS but not LB or DL. that kind of thing. but then we'd need some kind of failsafe so that I couldn't take my SS, move him to LB, the DE, DT.
March 26, 2014 at 08:26PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
Still not married to the idea of an EXE hit, I am just trying to balance things out to where position changes are possible but not so simple that people just ignore the positions entirely (like I think they do in baseball).
maybe some kind of position eligibility 'chart'? something like SS can move to LB or FS but not DE or DL. HB can move to QB or WR but not TE. TE can move to FB or WR but not C. LB can move to DE or SS but not CB. CB can move to FS or SS but not LB or DL. that kind of thing. but then we'd need some kind of failsafe so that I couldn't take my SS, move him to LB, the DE, DT.
RichNYC1
March 27, 2014 at 02:39AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by Admin
Every time he changes his position, his Execution will drop... I really don't expect people to be trying to shift positions constantly or want to give them multiple positions so they can create "utility players". That is common on the baseball side but in football I think position changes are rarer and only tend to happen once.
Chris
I wouldn't be so sure. right now EXE doesn't seem to be important enough that a hit there would be any kind of major deterrent. I would be more surprised to not see a two position shift like shbo is referencing than I would be to see some.
I agree
as an aside, I think the idea of the exe penalty doesn't make a lot of sense to me. in real life players get moved into positions where they're better suited so they'll be more effective. how many college OT end up at G, 4-3 DE at 3-4 OLB, or CB at FS? I don't see the rationale for an EXE penalty.
I agree with this too
Admin
Now, actually changing a position is easy. "You, big meaty guy, I don't care that your college coach had you running the ball, you're a tackle now." Bam, position changed.
But will he succeed in that position? Aye, there is the rub. We talk about "Is that change realistic?", to which Dirtdevil rightly points out that this should be a situation where "if it can quack like a duck and can walk like a duck and can swim like a duck, it should succeed as a duck". This is indeed how the game was designed to be, and it is why "split" positions like RB and S don't have specific positions for FB/RB/SS/FS.
I am starting to look at this in terms of "What is it we are trying to prevent by disallowing or discouraging position changes?" The biggest problem with out-of-position players is using them to skirt the salary cap. If you have an RB with poor running skills bug good passing skills, you have a decent QB on the cheap. Disallowing that position change perpetuates the problem. Solution? If you are playing that player at QB all year, he switches to QB and now you pay for him as a QB.
Same with training. Occasionally, Centers have decent passing skills because a long snap is effectively a short backward pass. So you decide to train him as a QB all year to get his passing skills up and get a cheap QB. Well, at the end of the season, the system sees you training him at QB more than half a year and switches him to QB.
The root of the problem is perhaps that I give players secondary skills that are at times too good. RB's don't need red-letter passing skills to throw an occasional option pass. So I need to tweak down the level of non-essential skills so there are fewer potential "swiss army knife" players.
On the flip side, I am also starting to move away from the idea of storing a secondary position. When you switch, you simply switch, and if you play your old position you take the same Execution hit everyone else does. That would certainly minimize the potential for abuse.
Chris
March 27, 2014 at 06:24PM View BBCode
There are two separate issues regarding realism: The realism of being able to make the change vs. the realism of players being able to succeed after the change.Now, actually changing a position is easy. "You, big meaty guy, I don't care that your college coach had you running the ball, you're a tackle now." Bam, position changed.
But will he succeed in that position? Aye, there is the rub. We talk about "Is that change realistic?", to which Dirtdevil rightly points out that this should be a situation where "if it can quack like a duck and can walk like a duck and can swim like a duck, it should succeed as a duck". This is indeed how the game was designed to be, and it is why "split" positions like RB and S don't have specific positions for FB/RB/SS/FS.
I am starting to look at this in terms of "What is it we are trying to prevent by disallowing or discouraging position changes?" The biggest problem with out-of-position players is using them to skirt the salary cap. If you have an RB with poor running skills bug good passing skills, you have a decent QB on the cheap. Disallowing that position change perpetuates the problem. Solution? If you are playing that player at QB all year, he switches to QB and now you pay for him as a QB.
Same with training. Occasionally, Centers have decent passing skills because a long snap is effectively a short backward pass. So you decide to train him as a QB all year to get his passing skills up and get a cheap QB. Well, at the end of the season, the system sees you training him at QB more than half a year and switches him to QB.
The root of the problem is perhaps that I give players secondary skills that are at times too good. RB's don't need red-letter passing skills to throw an occasional option pass. So I need to tweak down the level of non-essential skills so there are fewer potential "swiss army knife" players.
On the flip side, I am also starting to move away from the idea of storing a secondary position. When you switch, you simply switch, and if you play your old position you take the same Execution hit everyone else does. That would certainly minimize the potential for abuse.
Chris
dirtdevil
speaking as someone who uses guys out of position pretty much all the time, I can honestly say that I have never done it even once for salary cap reasons. it's performance pure and simple. sometimes, it has cap benefits, for sure. but that has never been a motivating factor for me. I would be surprised to find that it had been a significant consideration in any great amount for anyone else.
I think that would be fine, especially if it's easier to code. the only thing is that if we end up making a position switchee take an extended EXE hit in his new position because he 'knows' the old one better, it probably wouldn't be fair to make him take an EXE hit at the old position at the same time. if we eliminate the EXE penalty for a completed switch then I think this idea is perfectly reasonable. it's certainly simpler, and simple is usually better.
March 27, 2014 at 06:49PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
I am starting to look at this in terms of "What is it we are trying to prevent by disallowing or discouraging position changes?" The biggest problem with out-of-position players is using them to skirt the salary cap. If you have an RB with poor running skills bug good passing skills, you have a decent QB on the cheap. Disallowing that position change perpetuates the problem. Solution? If you are playing that player at QB all year, he switches to QB and now you pay for him as a QB.
speaking as someone who uses guys out of position pretty much all the time, I can honestly say that I have never done it even once for salary cap reasons. it's performance pure and simple. sometimes, it has cap benefits, for sure. but that has never been a motivating factor for me. I would be surprised to find that it had been a significant consideration in any great amount for anyone else.
On the flip side, I am also starting to move away from the idea of storing a secondary position. When you switch, you simply switch, and if you play your old position you take the same Execution hit everyone else does. That would certainly minimize the potential for abuse.
I think that would be fine, especially if it's easier to code. the only thing is that if we end up making a position switchee take an extended EXE hit in his new position because he 'knows' the old one better, it probably wouldn't be fair to make him take an EXE hit at the old position at the same time. if we eliminate the EXE penalty for a completed switch then I think this idea is perfectly reasonable. it's certainly simpler, and simple is usually better.
Admin
My thinking is that you get a point for each week you train at a position and a point for each game you play at that position for 10 minutes or more (maybe less for punters and kickers). Collect 11 or more points at any one position and you change to that position.
I need to collect more data in Beta to see if those numbers are reasonable. There are 21 training weeks in a season (training doesn't happen in the postseason), so training more than half of the weeks at a particular position or starting half a season at a particular position would be enough to flip you. It might be too low of a threshold, but what I want to do is avoid someone trying to game the system by playing them at an alternate position to avoid the cap but training therm constantly in their native position to keep them from flipping.
Chris
March 27, 2014 at 07:14PM View BBCode
It is simpler to the point I could implement it today, at least in Beta. The only question left becomes "At what threshold does a player change?"My thinking is that you get a point for each week you train at a position and a point for each game you play at that position for 10 minutes or more (maybe less for punters and kickers). Collect 11 or more points at any one position and you change to that position.
I need to collect more data in Beta to see if those numbers are reasonable. There are 21 training weeks in a season (training doesn't happen in the postseason), so training more than half of the weeks at a particular position or starting half a season at a particular position would be enough to flip you. It might be too low of a threshold, but what I want to do is avoid someone trying to game the system by playing them at an alternate position to avoid the cap but training therm constantly in their native position to keep them from flipping.
Chris
dirtdevil
I think that threshold is fair. the one thing I would say we need to make certain of is that any salary change takes place in the OS rather than during the year. if a 2500 LB switches into a 9500 DE in the middle of week 9, chaos is going to ensue, especially if that owner happens to be away.
March 27, 2014 at 07:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
It is simpler to the point I could implement it today, at least in Beta. The only question left becomes "At what threshold does a player change?"
My thinking is that you get a point for each week you train at a position and a point for each game you play at that position for 10 minutes or more (maybe less for punters and kickers). Collect 11 or more points at any one position and you change to that position.
I need to collect more data in Beta to see if those numbers are reasonable. There are 21 training weeks in a season (training doesn't happen in the postseason), so training more than half of the weeks at a particular position or starting half a season at a particular position would be enough to flip you. It might be too low of a threshold, but what I want to do is avoid someone trying to game the system by playing them at an alternate position to avoid the cap but training therm constantly in their native position to keep them from flipping.
Chris
I think that threshold is fair. the one thing I would say we need to make certain of is that any salary change takes place in the OS rather than during the year. if a 2500 LB switches into a 9500 DE in the middle of week 9, chaos is going to ensue, especially if that owner happens to be away.
RichNYC1
March 28, 2014 at 02:12AM View BBCode
Salary should never change during the season, the guy has a contract.
Admin
The position change and salary change both happen in the offseason, even if the threshold is met earlier.
Chris
March 28, 2014 at 06:05AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
I think that threshold is fair. the one thing I would say we need to make certain of is that any salary change takes place in the OS rather than during the year. if a 2500 LB switches into a 9500 DE in the middle of week 9, chaos is going to ensue, especially if that owner happens to be away.
The position change and salary change both happen in the offseason, even if the threshold is met earlier.
Chris
Admin
Chris
April 02, 2014 at 04:24PM View BBCode
One worry I have: Is allowing position changes going to kill the market for trades?Chris
casperthegm
Might seem off topic, related to this, but if you consider ramping up the salaries a bit and make it tougher to fit under the cap, that could lead to more trades. I know everyone manages their teams differently but my teams are always tens of thousands below the cap- it never even crosses my mind. In real life, my local team, Carolina Panthers, are struggling to get any free agents because they are up against the cap. Obviously you don't want to make is such a burden that players here are put off by it but I think salary increase may something to consider tweaking- could lead to trade by necessity.
April 02, 2014 at 05:57PM View BBCode
That's a tough one to predict. I would guess it won't kill it. I mean, if a team is rebuilding they are still going to trade away pieces in exchange for younger players and/or picks, so that will still be there. Other trades might be less likely- that's is the tough one to predict.Might seem off topic, related to this, but if you consider ramping up the salaries a bit and make it tougher to fit under the cap, that could lead to more trades. I know everyone manages their teams differently but my teams are always tens of thousands below the cap- it never even crosses my mind. In real life, my local team, Carolina Panthers, are struggling to get any free agents because they are up against the cap. Obviously you don't want to make is such a burden that players here are put off by it but I think salary increase may something to consider tweaking- could lead to trade by necessity.
Pages: 1 2