![[DEV] ISFL Forums](http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/images/emerald/logo.png "[DEV] ISFL Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+---- Forum: Suggestion Box (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+----- Forum: Archived Suggestions (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=349)
+----- Thread: Do Something About Offensive Line (/showthread.php?tid=5346)
Do Something About Offensive Line - kckolbe - 10-19-2017
(10-18-2017, 08:49 PM)ErMurazor Wrote:I think having a system where the GM is responsible for updating the OL is a bad one. Then the teams that already get screwed by having bad GMs are going to get screwed in another way.
I also don't think we should take money from contracts that would go to real people to build fake bots.
Not a fan of the weekly updates, but I do think that since we CURRENTLY pay O line, paying for bot "tiers" would be a negligible impact and allow teams to prioritize their positions. This is huge because the proposals I am seeing would result in very powerful O lines.
Do Something About Offensive Line - bovovovo - 10-19-2017
(10-19-2017, 05:42 AM)JuOSu Wrote:I am against eliminating OL. I think it will lead to the league overpopulating in other positions. We already have too many people in the DSFL. It is unnecessary at this point.
There is always the option of expansion, but this is a good point.
I personally think OL should be removed
Do Something About Offensive Line - Molarpistols - 10-19-2017
(10-19-2017, 05:42 AM)JuOSu Wrote:I am against eliminating OL. I think it will lead to the league overpopulating in other positions. We already have too many people in the DSFL. It is unnecessary at this point.
I see what you're saying, but I think it could actually be healthier for the league in the long run. OL isn't a fancy or fun position, most of the people that tend to make one go inactive pretty quickly.
Player retention will probably increase if they get to choose a position they want over picking a position they'll get playing time at. I can't say retention will increase significantly, but it stands to reason that it would increase somewhat.
Aside from OL there are 18 players that would get playing time (11 on D, 6 on O and a kicker (and punter would make 19, but we'll leave it at 18 for maths). We have 14 teams between NSFL and DSFL for a total of 252 active positions available aside from OL. We're at 500+ members right now, but how many are active?
Let's say around 50% on the higher end (probably closer to 30-40%), giving us ~250 active players and they're spread out amongst (23x14) 322 positions currently. Once we run out of positions for actives to have, expansion is always possible, we've done it twice already (counting DSFL as an expansion).
The Otters currently start 7-9 inactive/marginally active players if you count the different formations. 3 of those inactives are on the offensive line, with 2 actives on the OL as well. Replacing OL with better bots and allowing position changes for current OL would effectively cut the number of inactive starters on the Otters to 2-4. I cannot see how that could be a bad thing for teams or the league.
Do Something About Offensive Line - Zoone16 - 10-19-2017
Heck... if HO responds and look favourably upon my suggestion, I offer myself to randomly generate OL players and name them. (and by naming I mean real names... NOT OL BOT 1, OL BOT 2, etc...)
Do Something About Offensive Line - iamslm22 - 10-19-2017
(10-19-2017, 09:17 AM)Molarpistols Wrote:I see what you're saying, but I think it could actually be healthier for the league in the long run. OL isn't a fancy or fun position, most of the people that tend to make one go inactive pretty quickly.
Player retention will probably increase if they get to choose a position they want over picking a position they'll get playing time at. I can't say retention will increase significantly, but it stands to reason that it would increase somewhat.
Aside from OL there are 18 players that would get playing time (11 on D, 6 on O and a kicker (and punter would make 19, but we'll leave it at 18 for maths). We have 14 teams between NSFL and DSFL for a total of 252 active positions available aside from OL. We're at 500+ members right now, but how many are active?
Let's say around 50% on the higher end (probably closer to 30-40%), giving us ~250 active players and they're spread out amongst (23x14) 322 positions currently. Once we run out of positions for actives to have, expansion is always possible, we've done it twice already (counting DSFL as an expansion).
The Otters currently start 7-9 inactive/marginally active players if you count the different formations. 3 of those inactives are on the offensive line, with 2 actives on the OL as well. Replacing OL with better bots and allowing position changes for current OL would effectively cut the number of inactive starters on the Otters to 2-4. I cannot see how that could be a bad thing for teams or the league.
I 100% agree. And if we run out of spots for actives, guess what? We can expand again. I don't think we would run into that problem, but having "too many actives" is literally a non issue. Eliminating the O Line will help the league.
Do Something About Offensive Line - Bzerkap - 10-19-2017
(10-19-2017, 04:42 AM)JuOSu Wrote:I am against eliminating OL. I think it will lead to the league overpopulating in other positions. We already have too many people in the DSFL. It is unnecessary at this point.Are you drunk? We have like three active users on each DSFL team, max
Do Something About Offensive Line - JuOSu - 10-19-2017
(10-19-2017, 06:17 AM)Molarpistols Wrote:I see what you're saying, but I think it could actually be healthier for the league in the long run. OL isn't a fancy or fun position, most of the people that tend to make one go inactive pretty quickly.
Player retention will probably increase if they get to choose a position they want over picking a position they'll get playing time at. I can't say retention will increase significantly, but it stands to reason that it would increase somewhat.
Aside from OL there are 18 players that would get playing time (11 on D, 6 on O and a kicker (and punter would make 19, but we'll leave it at 18 for maths). We have 14 teams between NSFL and DSFL for a total of 252 active positions available aside from OL. We're at 500+ members right now, but how many are active?
Let's say around 50% on the higher end (probably closer to 30-40%), giving us ~250 active players and they're spread out amongst (23x14) 322 positions currently. Once we run out of positions for actives to have, expansion is always possible, we've done it twice already (counting DSFL as an expansion).
The Otters currently start 7-9 inactive/marginally active players if you count the different formations. 3 of those inactives are on the offensive line, with 2 actives on the OL as well. Replacing OL with better bots and allowing position changes for current OL would effectively cut the number of inactive starters on the Otters to 2-4. I cannot see how that could be a bad thing for teams or the league.
Then why are we making new players go through a year of DSFL? My brother almost went inactive because it just isn't the same to be there than in the actual league. If we need so many players extra, why have so many DSFL teams? I'd rather eliminate that for a few more seasons than eliminate a perfectly fine position.
Do Something About Offensive Line - JuOSu - 10-19-2017
(10-19-2017, 06:23 AM)Bzerkap Wrote:Are you drunk? We have like three active users on each DSFL team, max
But then why even HAVE the DSFL
Do Something About Offensive Line - Molarpistols - 10-19-2017
(10-19-2017, 09:25 AM)JuOSu Wrote:But then why even HAVE the DSFL
I don't disagree with your points about the DSFL currently. When we had to send people down to the DSFL, I felt like it was basically a death sentence, knowing they'd go inactive. The current influx of players for S5 should help with it quite a bit though.
For the future of the NSFL, DSFL is good. It allows the new guys to develop a bit while not getting pounded by guys that have 500+ more TPE than they do. That said, I think it was a bit premature to start it and could have gone smoother.
I think eliminating it now would only make it worse, as it will be needed in the long run eventually. S6 and S7 we should start seeing players with 1000 TPE, facing off against 100 TPE players would only be fun.
Getting back on track to the current discussion, I guess my question is: How is OL a fine position when there's 70 positions at OL available but approximately 10 players actively doing it?
Do Something About Offensive Line - Bzerkap - 10-19-2017
(10-19-2017, 08:25 AM)JuOSu Wrote:But then why even HAVE the DSFLWhat? It’s an entry level league that everyone is required to stay in for one year and will more than likely stay in for longer. In fact getting rid of OL only helps the DSFL. This is also the first ever year of the DSFL so teams were only required to send down one active. There’s never good recruiting during seasons either so the waiver was bare. You have to give it some time