While it may add to the realism, making different positions regress at different times would make some positions less popular and others more popular, leading to an even more unbalanced player distribution.
[OPTION]Johnny Snuggles || CB || Yellowknife Wraiths || Hall of Fame [OPTION]Height/Weight: 6'1", 205 [OPTION]Number: 21 [OPTION] Draft History: S13 #1 Overall [OPTION]=========================================== [OPTION]Trophy Case/Achievements:[OPTION] Ultimini Champs: S12 [OPTION] Defensive Rookie of the Year: S13 [OPTION] Pro Bowl: S14, S15, S16
(01-23-2018, 04:46 PM)manicmav36 Wrote:While it may add to the realism, making different positions regress at different times would make some positions less popular and others more popular, leading to an even more unbalanced player distribution.
I said this in discord but I'll say it here too for convo's sake...
I do agree that regression should be different but my worry is that then the barrier to entry for people wanting to be a QB or K/P or certain other positions would be even higher
Unbalanced player distribution throughout positions isn't entirely a bad thing. For those who choose to be a RB (example of a shorter career) will be able to retire and recreate sooner. Other positions may last longer, but it seems as though creators tend to get bored with their players before regression really sets in anyway. Just a thought I have as to why regression rates for different positions could be beneficial and add to the realism.
(01-23-2018, 04:46 PM)manicmav36 Wrote:While it may add to the realism, making different positions regress at different times would make some positions less popular and others more popular, leading to an even more unbalanced player distribution.
This could be true, but look at the other side too: change kicker regression to be more realistic and you help solve the extreme shortage of active kickers (which I think is just me, Turk, and Blewitt).
Either way, I personally don’t think it’d affect numbers too much, as people are still gonna want to play runningbacks and what not
(01-23-2018, 04:54 PM)Battleborn Wrote:Unbalanced player distribution throughout positions isn't entirely a bad thing. For those who choose to be a RB (example of a shorter career) will be able to retire and recreate sooner. Other positions may last longer, but it seems as though creators tend to get bored with their players before regression really sets in anyway. Just a thought I have as to why regression rates for different positions could be beneficial and add to the realism.
The position of running back would actually be a great example of why not too. The position is already highly ineffective, and many teams are all but abandoning the run. Teams like Orange County and Arizona have a pass to run ratio of 3:1. It's very possible we may not have a single RB with over 1000 yards rushing this season. So taking an ineffective position, and regressing it earlier than most would just exacerbate the issue.
[OPTION]Johnny Snuggles || CB || Yellowknife Wraiths || Hall of Fame [OPTION]Height/Weight: 6'1", 205 [OPTION]Number: 21 [OPTION] Draft History: S13 #1 Overall [OPTION]=========================================== [OPTION]Trophy Case/Achievements:[OPTION] Ultimini Champs: S12 [OPTION] Defensive Rookie of the Year: S13 [OPTION] Pro Bowl: S14, S15, S16
(01-23-2018, 10:03 PM)sapp2013 Wrote:All I can say is, think of the updaters and regression team that has to do this work.
Would be V similar to the SHL's way of doing it. All player amounts and what they regress to as well as what % would be posted and GM's will be required to do inactives and active players will do their own.