Would love to hear your view on this Waspy debate to be continued also would love to play your team to see how much difference it makes playing more players out of position than in position can come and find me at Juggernauts Goldy's
Players out of position
22/04/16 01:45
22/04/16 02:37
killerkiwis :
in the real world a first 5 could never be a prop. no matter how well you train him .. nor would you ever see a half back playing hooker...you might see a no 8 on the wing but there are down falls to big guys playing wing..
game has a kind of color code to players . why not just code in you can only put players with same color in same spots eg no 8 plays blind and open side flanker... but watching a team of big heavey no 8s get around a team with ppl in right spots is stupid.. and nothing like real life .. played enough years of rugby to understand not everyone was created equal and they cant all be the first 5 ...
also disagree with comment you cant have team in right spots .... thats just bad tactics that you spent more coins chasing no8s and 15s with high training and energy %, as it seems to me they both seem to be above the other players for both training and health %
"Waspy Tiger" :
Well I'm at L16, and really it's not.
However, as in the real world, if you play a player out of position, you have to train him up appropriately first or he won't be any good. So really this isn't an issue at all - and I know some people say you can't take a back and make him a front row, but they're wrong - it happens in real life, so it should be able to happen in the game. Tom Youngs started his professional career as a centre, now he's a hooker, as just one example. Rugby is, after all, a late specialisation game. Can't see why this version should be any different, but the point is they have to be trained for it - the original position means pretty much nothing, what someone is trained for is what counts.
Well I'm at L16, and really it's not.
However, as in the real world, if you play a player out of position, you have to train him up appropriately first or he won't be any good. So really this isn't an issue at all - and I know some people say you can't take a back and make him a front row, but they're wrong - it happens in real life, so it should be able to happen in the game. Tom Youngs started his professional career as a centre, now he's a hooker, as just one example. Rugby is, after all, a late specialisation game. Can't see why this version should be any different, but the point is they have to be trained for it - the original position means pretty much nothing, what someone is trained for is what counts.
in the real world a first 5 could never be a prop. no matter how well you train him .. nor would you ever see a half back playing hooker...you might see a no 8 on the wing but there are down falls to big guys playing wing..
game has a kind of color code to players . why not just code in you can only put players with same color in same spots eg no 8 plays blind and open side flanker... but watching a team of big heavey no 8s get around a team with ppl in right spots is stupid.. and nothing like real life .. played enough years of rugby to understand not everyone was created equal and they cant all be the first 5 ...
also disagree with comment you cant have team in right spots .... thats just bad tactics that you spent more coins chasing no8s and 15s with high training and energy %, as it seems to me they both seem to be above the other players for both training and health %
Steady on killer. Don't be using words like 'stupid' or your mate Waspy Tiger might ban you...
Waspy Tiger, what's your team and guild name? I'm just curious to check out these tactics of yours with players out of position. Cheers bro.
22/04/16 16:34
There are various comments in this thread about "real life" but please show me any player in real life who has maximum ability in all 24 skill areas.
If you have trained (or paid to train) your players such that they have maxed out all appropriate skill areas then they should be good enough to play those positions and the designated position on their score card is an arbitrary number and colour which bears no relevance to their skill levels.
I strongly disagree that there should be a separate penalty applied because the penalty is already in place based on reasonable skill allocations.
If you choose to specialise your players into certain positions then the penalty for playing out of position is greatly increased.
As an example:
My hooker has both scrum force and scrum co-ordination at a skill level of 40.
My backs all have the same skills at a level of between 4 and 6
Can I play a centre in the hooker position? Of course I can.
Do I suffer a penalty for doing that? Obviously I suffer a massive penalty for doing that. The trained hooker is 10 times better in the scrum.
The labels of players with a number and letter is only relevant to the auto-assignment of training points.
If I get an 18-year old player at level 1 who is designated as a red 1-3 and he has a high training percentage then I could very easily manually assign all the points to make him a fly half, a centre or a full-back and allocate no points at all to any of the traits required for a guy in the front row.
I think that the appropriate idea therefore would be to allow players to change the designated positions of their players so that I can reassign the number 14 that I trained as a scrum half to actually have a yellow nine stamped on his card
If I then accidentally press the auto-assign button (soooo annoying!) then points will not be allocated to areas where I do not want them placed.
If you have trained (or paid to train) your players such that they have maxed out all appropriate skill areas then they should be good enough to play those positions and the designated position on their score card is an arbitrary number and colour which bears no relevance to their skill levels.
I strongly disagree that there should be a separate penalty applied because the penalty is already in place based on reasonable skill allocations.
If you choose to specialise your players into certain positions then the penalty for playing out of position is greatly increased.
As an example:
My hooker has both scrum force and scrum co-ordination at a skill level of 40.
My backs all have the same skills at a level of between 4 and 6
Can I play a centre in the hooker position? Of course I can.
Do I suffer a penalty for doing that? Obviously I suffer a massive penalty for doing that. The trained hooker is 10 times better in the scrum.
The labels of players with a number and letter is only relevant to the auto-assignment of training points.
If I get an 18-year old player at level 1 who is designated as a red 1-3 and he has a high training percentage then I could very easily manually assign all the points to make him a fly half, a centre or a full-back and allocate no points at all to any of the traits required for a guy in the front row.
I think that the appropriate idea therefore would be to allow players to change the designated positions of their players so that I can reassign the number 14 that I trained as a scrum half to actually have a yellow nine stamped on his card
If I then accidentally press the auto-assign button (soooo annoying!) then points will not be allocated to areas where I do not want them placed.
23/04/16 09:31
Jynx :
There are various comments in this thread about "real life" but please show me any player in real life who has maximum ability in all 24 skill areas.
If you have trained (or paid to train) your players such that they have maxed out all appropriate skill areas then they should be good enough to play those positions and the designated position on their score card is an arbitrary number and colour which bears no relevance to their skill levels.
I strongly disagree that there should be a separate penalty applied because the penalty is already in place based on reasonable skill allocations.
If you choose to specialise your players into certain positions then the penalty for playing out of position is greatly increased.
As an example:
My hooker has both scrum force and scrum co-ordination at a skill level of 40.
My backs all have the same skills at a level of between 4 and 6
Can I play a centre in the hooker position? Of course I can.
Do I suffer a penalty for doing that? Obviously I suffer a massive penalty for doing that. The trained hooker is 10 times better in the scrum.
The labels of players with a number and letter is only relevant to the auto-assignment of training points.
If I get an 18-year old player at level 1 who is designated as a red 1-3 and he has a high training percentage then I could very easily manually assign all the points to make him a fly half, a centre or a full-back and allocate no points at all to any of the traits required for a guy in the front row.
I think that the appropriate idea therefore would be to allow players to change the designated positions of their players so that I can reassign the number 14 that I trained as a scrum half to actually have a yellow nine stamped on his card
If I then accidentally press the auto-assign button (soooo annoying!) then points will not be allocated to areas where I do not want them placed.
There are various comments in this thread about "real life" but please show me any player in real life who has maximum ability in all 24 skill areas.
If you have trained (or paid to train) your players such that they have maxed out all appropriate skill areas then they should be good enough to play those positions and the designated position on their score card is an arbitrary number and colour which bears no relevance to their skill levels.
I strongly disagree that there should be a separate penalty applied because the penalty is already in place based on reasonable skill allocations.
If you choose to specialise your players into certain positions then the penalty for playing out of position is greatly increased.
As an example:
My hooker has both scrum force and scrum co-ordination at a skill level of 40.
My backs all have the same skills at a level of between 4 and 6
Can I play a centre in the hooker position? Of course I can.
Do I suffer a penalty for doing that? Obviously I suffer a massive penalty for doing that. The trained hooker is 10 times better in the scrum.
The labels of players with a number and letter is only relevant to the auto-assignment of training points.
If I get an 18-year old player at level 1 who is designated as a red 1-3 and he has a high training percentage then I could very easily manually assign all the points to make him a fly half, a centre or a full-back and allocate no points at all to any of the traits required for a guy in the front row.
I think that the appropriate idea therefore would be to allow players to change the designated positions of their players so that I can reassign the number 14 that I trained as a scrum half to actually have a yellow nine stamped on his card
If I then accidentally press the auto-assign button (soooo annoying!) then points will not be allocated to areas where I do not want them placed.
all good points but why didnt you just buy the right guys for the right spots ? .. real life a prop weighs 125kg and first 5 about 80 to 95 kg.. if i train the prop to run fast it does not matter how much i train him he was never going to be fast cause he was never created to be fast . hes a 125 kg prop.. if this games to reflect real life then not all men were created equal .
23/04/16 09:37
Waspy Waspy :
in the real world a first 5 could never be a prop. no matter how well you train him .. nor would you ever see a half back playing hooker...you might see a no 8 on the wing but there are down falls to big guys playing wing..
game has a kind of color code to players . why not just code in you can only put players with same color in same spots eg no 8 plays blind and open side flanker... but watching a team of big heavey no 8s get around a team with ppl in right spots is stupid.. and nothing like real life .. played enough years of rugby to understand not everyone was created equal and they cant all be the first 5 ...
also disagree with comment you cant have team in right spots .... thats just bad tactics that you spent more coins chasing no8s and 15s with high training and energy %, as it seems to me they both seem to be above the other players for both training and health %
"""killerkiwis""" :
[quote=""Waspy Tiger""]
Well I'm at L16, and really it's not.
However, as in the real world, if you play a player out of position, you have to train him up appropriately first or he won't be any good. So really this isn't an issue at all - and I know some people say you can't take a back and make him a front row, but they're wrong - it happens in real life, so it should be able to happen in the game. Tom Youngs started his professional career as a centre, now he's a hooker, as just one example. Rugby is, after all, a late specialisation game. Can't see why this version should be any different, but the point is they have to be trained for it - the original position means pretty much nothing, what someone is trained for is what counts.
[quote=""Waspy Tiger""]
Well I'm at L16, and really it's not.
However, as in the real world, if you play a player out of position, you have to train him up appropriately first or he won't be any good. So really this isn't an issue at all - and I know some people say you can't take a back and make him a front row, but they're wrong - it happens in real life, so it should be able to happen in the game. Tom Youngs started his professional career as a centre, now he's a hooker, as just one example. Rugby is, after all, a late specialisation game. Can't see why this version should be any different, but the point is they have to be trained for it - the original position means pretty much nothing, what someone is trained for is what counts.
in the real world a first 5 could never be a prop. no matter how well you train him .. nor would you ever see a half back playing hooker...you might see a no 8 on the wing but there are down falls to big guys playing wing..
game has a kind of color code to players . why not just code in you can only put players with same color in same spots eg no 8 plays blind and open side flanker... but watching a team of big heavey no 8s get around a team with ppl in right spots is stupid.. and nothing like real life .. played enough years of rugby to understand not everyone was created equal and they cant all be the first 5 ...
also disagree with comment you cant have team in right spots .... thats just bad tactics that you spent more coins chasing no8s and 15s with high training and energy %, as it seems to me they both seem to be above the other players for both training and health %
Steady on killer. Don't be using words like 'stupid' or your mate Waspy Tiger might ban you...
Waspy Tiger, what's your team and guild name? I'm just curious to check out these tactics of yours with players out of position. Cheers bro.[/quote]
lol waspwaspy ill try my best but even all blacks get sent off lol and i never called waspy stupid , i would never do that . just stupid watching 120 kg no8s run around like 80 kg wingers
23/04/16 23:53
killerkiwis :
all good points but why didnt you just buy the right guys for the right spots ? .. real life a prop weighs 125kg and first 5 about 80 to 95 kg.. if i train the prop to run fast it does not matter how much i train him he was never going to be fast cause he was never created to be fast . hes a 125 kg prop.. if this games to reflect real life then not all men were created equal .
all good points but why didnt you just buy the right guys for the right spots ? .. real life a prop weighs 125kg and first 5 about 80 to 95 kg.. if i train the prop to run fast it does not matter how much i train him he was never going to be fast cause he was never created to be fast . hes a 125 kg prop.. if this games to reflect real life then not all men were created equal .
I am in Level 1 and did not have an auction house... you get a training ground straight away.
I did not say that I had cross-trained anyone... only that I could and the only thing that would be weird about it would be the coloured number stamped on his card.
Also, I can think of at least one 120kg winger that was pretty fast...
I still don't see any objection to playing out of position other than your aesthetic preference.
Has someone beaten you with a team composed entirely of No. 8s or something?
The players in this game are not created equal but they are trained by people to be equal - just look at the top guilds and see teams of players who have all stats equally at 115 or whatever. That bears absolutely no resemblance to real life
24/04/16 23:32
Jynx that is exactly the point what we are making that tendancy of playing 10 players that is so called 115 players out of position just because now they are maxed out on ratings the fact is you pay less for a 8 than you would pay for a 10 when I last checked this was an idea page and as per the conversations here there is grounds to look into the idea I have a level 20 training ground and allot of my players are 150%+ players ( all in position) and yes in my view playing a game against a team with 8s and 15s hardly seems fair just because they are easy to get. I even like the idea of changing the number slots for players if you then want to play a player out of position the developers can make it a deduction on gold balls to do that but if you then choose not to go that root pay the price on deduction is skill level and just one Question how many Lomu's was there on the field I counted one not 15
25/04/16 00:25
waspy tigers.. what is in pipe line for this .. is there a change coming or are we to put up with teams that are made up of no8s and 15s
or admin if you like to answer
or admin if you like to answer
25/04/16 16:15
Michael Goldschagg :
Jynx that is exactly the point what we are making that tendancy of playing 10 players that is so called 115 players out of position just because now they are maxed out on ratings the fact is you pay less for a 8 than you would pay for a 10 when I last checked this was an idea page and as per the conversations here there is grounds to look into the idea I have a level 20 training ground and allot of my players are 150%+ players ( all in position) and yes in my view playing a game against a team with 8s and 15s hardly seems fair just because they are easy to get. I even like the idea of changing the number slots for players if you then want to play a player out of position the developers can make it a deduction on gold balls to do that but if you then choose not to go that root pay the price on deduction is skill level and just one
Jynx that is exactly the point what we are making that tendancy of playing 10 players that is so called 115 players out of position just because now they are maxed out on ratings the fact is you pay less for a 8 than you would pay for a 10 when I last checked this was an idea page and as per the conversations here there is grounds to look into the idea I have a level 20 training ground and allot of my players are 150%+ players ( all in position) and yes in my view playing a game against a team with 8s and 15s hardly seems fair just because they are easy to get. I even like the idea of changing the number slots for players if you then want to play a player out of position the developers can make it a deduction on gold balls to do that but if you then choose not to go that root pay the price on deduction is skill level and just one
Any player with all stats at max for their league should certainly be able to play in any position.
If you have the training facility and the time (or the money) to train them to play in any position then why shouldn't they?
If there are three players called "Gilles",all with the same energy and training percentage and all have all 24 stats listed as 120 then what makes one Red, one Yellow and one Green or Blue? Only the nominal stamp on their player card - with such trained players those are pointless.
The reason that some positions are cheaper is that people either do not realise that it doesn't matter where you play them or they have some hang-up that they must match the numbers. Neither is valid but it does mean that the prices do not balance correctly across the different players.
How about if the players in the auction house had no allocated positions and you simply hired people based on their skills?
For example, you need a new winger so you look for someone with speed/penetration/ruck force/a really cool moustache* and hire them as your #14. The fact that they played #7, #12 or whatever in their previous team is irrelevant to you.
This is indeed an ideas page and my idea is that you are asking for the wrong thing.
Instead of some unrealistic penalty of gold balls or star rating for not matching a number, why not just change the number to match their trained skills?
For a very short time, people would buy an 8, change the number to 9 and resell for a large profit... but how long would that last once people realise that everyone could do it? You would probably need the ability to filter players by skill (as per another idea thread) to find the players with the skills you needed but it would be much more realistic.
(* delete as appropriate)
Michael Goldschagg :
Question how many Lomu's was there on the field I counted one not 15
Question how many Lomu's was there on the field I counted one not 15
I think the point is that people are, one way or another, training their players to effectively clone 40+ players better than Lomu
They can then sub a clone in every five minutes. If that is the real objection then a limit on the number of substitutions (as per the actual game) would be more appropriate.
26/04/16 08:34
You have valid points, reason why i suggested gold balls for changing numbers is simply the fact that this is a game and also ultimately the developers need to get there slice of cheese however this debate was about players playing out of position not changing the colour card on the back and at the end trying to improve the game to be as realistic as possible to simply train more number 8 to full capacity and play them in every position is possible but is it realistic no so suggesting swiping player cards will not stop the bleeding. It then beg the question why label the player at all then?