Added:
I'd like to see a buff to add more separation between running backs. The improved rushing sliders were a good step towards improving the running back position as they're able to put up better and more realistic stats. But I think there's still a big issue with the position as there's still not much statsistical separation by talent level. Right now Owen Taylor is averaging 4.1 yards per carry with 971 TPE, Darren Smallwood is doing the same with 766 TPE, and Erlich Burnsman is doing the same with 210 TPE. Damien Kroetch is at 4.2 yards per carry with 429 TPE. Running backs with very different amounts of TPE are getting pretty much the same production, Taylor and Burnsman have the same YPC despite a 761 TPE gap between them. I feel like this creates multiple issues. One is that teams aren't going to want to carry high TPE running backs. If they can make a significant drop in cap space without seeing much drop off in production, teams are going to prioritize cheaper running backs. Also, it reduces the reward of being a high TPE running back when you see your player get outperformed by someone with significantly less TPE and makes the position less enjoyable. Both of these were reasons why I changed away from running back as I felt like my TPE wasn't being put to much use when lower TPE guys were outperforming me and there weren't really any contenders who wanted to trade for a 1000 TPE running back when they were already getting similar production from a cheaper player. My proposed solution would be to look into doing something similar to the buffs to conerbacks and kickers, which were both positions where TPE was not making much difference in production so experience was used to let the higher TPE players shine more. I haven't tested this at all so I don't know if it would work the same for running backs or how it would work from a balance perspective, but I think the posibility of using experience to create more separation between running backs based on TPE would cause teams to value good running backs more and would make running back a more rewarding position to play. It also could add some more parity because if top running backs were able to really dominate, it might actually be viable to build a run heavy offense around an elite running back so that teams without quarterbacks could still have a chance to be competitive.
Removed:
I'd like to see the lengthy offseasons removed. I'm not sure how possible this is as I don't know what needs to happen behind the scenes over the offseason, but I think this is an important thing to strive for. The offseason is a key point when users won't be as interested and could go inactive, so ideally, we want it to be as short as possible because that will improve user retention. In the SBA and the EFL, the offseasons are condensed to just one week, which would be great if we could have something similar here. This is the schedule from the last offseason:
Sunday 25th March @ 11:59 PM EST - FA opens
Friday 30th March - NSFL & DSFL Pro Bowl & NSFL & DSFL Awards voting closes.
Tuesday- 3rd April - NSFL Draft. (depends on gm vote)
Day Before DSFL draft - NSFL send downs deadline closes.
Thursday-Friday 5th/6th April - DSFL Draft. (depends on gm vote)
Sunday 8th April- Official S7 NSFL start (can buy equipment)
Wednesday 11th April - Preseason finished (all 4 weeks)
Monday 16th April - S7 WEEK 1 BEGINS
This was a three week break between meaningful games and technically four weeks for non-playoff teams. There is a lot of dead space as there are 9 days between free agency and the draft with no major events other than voting and the pro bowl and a full week for preseason which only takes one day. Here is a possible condensed schedule:
Sunday 25th March @ 11:59 PM EST - FA opens
Tuesday- 27th March - NSFL Draft. (depends on gm vote)
Day Before DSFL draft - NSFL send downs deadline closes.
Thursday-March 29th - DSFL Draft. (depends on gm vote)
Friday 30th March - NSFL & DSFL Pro Bowl & NSFL & DSFL Awards voting closes.
Sunday 1st April- Official S7 NSFL start (can buy equipment)
Monday 2nd April - Preseason finished (all 4 weeks)
Wednesday 4th April - S7 WEEK 1 and WEEK 2
Friday 6th April - S7 WEEK 3 and WEEK 4
This would condense the offseason down to just 1 week and turning Week 1 and Week 2 into a doubleheader would allow them to take place in the same week as the pro bowl. Now I don't know about everything that happens behind the scenes during the offseason so its possible this schedule would be too rushed and not plausible, but even if its not cut down this much, I think every day we can take off the offseason is a good thing as people will get to see games more often which will keep people active and engaged and improve user retention.
Like:
I'm going to go against the grain a bit on this one and defend a feature that a lot of people have mentioned as their item for removal. I'm personally a fan of position switches and don't think they should be removed or restricted. The potential to change positions can be a great thing for player enjoyment. If you don't enjoy your position, you either have to stick it out with a player that you are not having fun with or retire and feel like you're screwing over your team. But with a position switch you have the ability to go to a position that you will enjoy and have fun with while still getting to keep your TPE and stay with your team. I think it's a good thing to give people freedom over their players because ultimately the goal of this league is for everybody to have fun so giving people the chance to switch to a position that will improve their enjoyment is a good thing and I worry that if we take away this possibility or restrict the types of changes, it could result in people not enjoying their player and going inactive, causing us to lose a productive user when they could have switched to a position they would enjoy more and stay active. There are also situations like with Austin Roenick where a player had to choose between waiting a few years before they would get playing time or switching to a position where they could make an immediate impact, and being able to switch positions gives players the freedom to choose what they want to do and take their preferred path rather than being forced to take one of the paths.
I know the main argument against position switches is that they aren't realistic. But I would argue that with this being a sim league, it doesn't have to be perfectly realistic so we have the luxury of being able to add options to enhance the player experience. For example, if we wanted to be truly realistic, we'd have injuries. But injuries would greatly reduce player enjoyment, so we took them out of the game even though it isn't completely realistic to never have injuries. I would argue a similar logic here that it's ok to have position changes that are not completely realistic because they can enhance a user's experience here and reduce the risk of losing a user to inactivity whereas I don't really think that removing or restricting position changes will provide much of a benefit to the league. Another argument against position switches is that it makes it too easy for teams to fill holes, but I'd also argue that this can be a good thing. I think the ideal situation for the league would be to have all teams capable of competing each year as its a lot more exciting to be on a contending team and will help keep more users active. So I think its a good thing that a team can position switch a player when a hole opens up rather than having to rely on a young rookie and become a bottom feeder unable to contend until that player has developed for a few seasons. I experienced this on the Yeti when we lost Noble and weren't able to compete with anybody because of the large gap in quarterback talent. On the other hand, when the Liberty lost their quarterback, they did a position switch instead and were able to keep contending. I think giving teams the option to stay competitive rather than rebuilding keeps the league more exciting by increasing the level of competition and can help with user retention by reducing the chance of a team becoming too weak and being unable to contend for multiple years.
Overall, as somebody who has taken advantage of position switch opportunities in both the NSFL and the SBA and has enjoyed my player more after the switch, I've personally seen the benefits of having the option to switch positions and thing it is good that the league provides this option and hope they will continue to do so.
I'd like to see a buff to add more separation between running backs. The improved rushing sliders were a good step towards improving the running back position as they're able to put up better and more realistic stats. But I think there's still a big issue with the position as there's still not much statsistical separation by talent level. Right now Owen Taylor is averaging 4.1 yards per carry with 971 TPE, Darren Smallwood is doing the same with 766 TPE, and Erlich Burnsman is doing the same with 210 TPE. Damien Kroetch is at 4.2 yards per carry with 429 TPE. Running backs with very different amounts of TPE are getting pretty much the same production, Taylor and Burnsman have the same YPC despite a 761 TPE gap between them. I feel like this creates multiple issues. One is that teams aren't going to want to carry high TPE running backs. If they can make a significant drop in cap space without seeing much drop off in production, teams are going to prioritize cheaper running backs. Also, it reduces the reward of being a high TPE running back when you see your player get outperformed by someone with significantly less TPE and makes the position less enjoyable. Both of these were reasons why I changed away from running back as I felt like my TPE wasn't being put to much use when lower TPE guys were outperforming me and there weren't really any contenders who wanted to trade for a 1000 TPE running back when they were already getting similar production from a cheaper player. My proposed solution would be to look into doing something similar to the buffs to conerbacks and kickers, which were both positions where TPE was not making much difference in production so experience was used to let the higher TPE players shine more. I haven't tested this at all so I don't know if it would work the same for running backs or how it would work from a balance perspective, but I think the posibility of using experience to create more separation between running backs based on TPE would cause teams to value good running backs more and would make running back a more rewarding position to play. It also could add some more parity because if top running backs were able to really dominate, it might actually be viable to build a run heavy offense around an elite running back so that teams without quarterbacks could still have a chance to be competitive.
Quote:421 Words
Removed:
I'd like to see the lengthy offseasons removed. I'm not sure how possible this is as I don't know what needs to happen behind the scenes over the offseason, but I think this is an important thing to strive for. The offseason is a key point when users won't be as interested and could go inactive, so ideally, we want it to be as short as possible because that will improve user retention. In the SBA and the EFL, the offseasons are condensed to just one week, which would be great if we could have something similar here. This is the schedule from the last offseason:
Sunday 25th March @ 11:59 PM EST - FA opens
Friday 30th March - NSFL & DSFL Pro Bowl & NSFL & DSFL Awards voting closes.
Tuesday- 3rd April - NSFL Draft. (depends on gm vote)
Day Before DSFL draft - NSFL send downs deadline closes.
Thursday-Friday 5th/6th April - DSFL Draft. (depends on gm vote)
Sunday 8th April- Official S7 NSFL start (can buy equipment)
Wednesday 11th April - Preseason finished (all 4 weeks)
Monday 16th April - S7 WEEK 1 BEGINS
This was a three week break between meaningful games and technically four weeks for non-playoff teams. There is a lot of dead space as there are 9 days between free agency and the draft with no major events other than voting and the pro bowl and a full week for preseason which only takes one day. Here is a possible condensed schedule:
Sunday 25th March @ 11:59 PM EST - FA opens
Tuesday- 27th March - NSFL Draft. (depends on gm vote)
Day Before DSFL draft - NSFL send downs deadline closes.
Thursday-March 29th - DSFL Draft. (depends on gm vote)
Friday 30th March - NSFL & DSFL Pro Bowl & NSFL & DSFL Awards voting closes.
Sunday 1st April- Official S7 NSFL start (can buy equipment)
Monday 2nd April - Preseason finished (all 4 weeks)
Wednesday 4th April - S7 WEEK 1 and WEEK 2
Friday 6th April - S7 WEEK 3 and WEEK 4
This would condense the offseason down to just 1 week and turning Week 1 and Week 2 into a doubleheader would allow them to take place in the same week as the pro bowl. Now I don't know about everything that happens behind the scenes during the offseason so its possible this schedule would be too rushed and not plausible, but even if its not cut down this much, I think every day we can take off the offseason is a good thing as people will get to see games more often which will keep people active and engaged and improve user retention.
Quote:448 Words
Like:
I'm going to go against the grain a bit on this one and defend a feature that a lot of people have mentioned as their item for removal. I'm personally a fan of position switches and don't think they should be removed or restricted. The potential to change positions can be a great thing for player enjoyment. If you don't enjoy your position, you either have to stick it out with a player that you are not having fun with or retire and feel like you're screwing over your team. But with a position switch you have the ability to go to a position that you will enjoy and have fun with while still getting to keep your TPE and stay with your team. I think it's a good thing to give people freedom over their players because ultimately the goal of this league is for everybody to have fun so giving people the chance to switch to a position that will improve their enjoyment is a good thing and I worry that if we take away this possibility or restrict the types of changes, it could result in people not enjoying their player and going inactive, causing us to lose a productive user when they could have switched to a position they would enjoy more and stay active. There are also situations like with Austin Roenick where a player had to choose between waiting a few years before they would get playing time or switching to a position where they could make an immediate impact, and being able to switch positions gives players the freedom to choose what they want to do and take their preferred path rather than being forced to take one of the paths.
I know the main argument against position switches is that they aren't realistic. But I would argue that with this being a sim league, it doesn't have to be perfectly realistic so we have the luxury of being able to add options to enhance the player experience. For example, if we wanted to be truly realistic, we'd have injuries. But injuries would greatly reduce player enjoyment, so we took them out of the game even though it isn't completely realistic to never have injuries. I would argue a similar logic here that it's ok to have position changes that are not completely realistic because they can enhance a user's experience here and reduce the risk of losing a user to inactivity whereas I don't really think that removing or restricting position changes will provide much of a benefit to the league. Another argument against position switches is that it makes it too easy for teams to fill holes, but I'd also argue that this can be a good thing. I think the ideal situation for the league would be to have all teams capable of competing each year as its a lot more exciting to be on a contending team and will help keep more users active. So I think its a good thing that a team can position switch a player when a hole opens up rather than having to rely on a young rookie and become a bottom feeder unable to contend until that player has developed for a few seasons. I experienced this on the Yeti when we lost Noble and weren't able to compete with anybody because of the large gap in quarterback talent. On the other hand, when the Liberty lost their quarterback, they did a position switch instead and were able to keep contending. I think giving teams the option to stay competitive rather than rebuilding keeps the league more exciting by increasing the level of competition and can help with user retention by reducing the chance of a team becoming too weak and being unable to contend for multiple years.
Overall, as somebody who has taken advantage of position switch opportunities in both the NSFL and the SBA and has enjoyed my player more after the switch, I've personally seen the benefits of having the option to switch positions and thing it is good that the league provides this option and hope they will continue to do so.
Quote:693 Words