Is the chem hit really bad this far into season? I got 4 inactive players on my team, would I be better off replacing or waiting awhile? Their 8 days inactive today.
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Game Help > Inactive players, whats worse?
Thunderoo
offline
offline
Well it'll hurt now but it will help next season if you keep those players around. If you think they'll become active again then keep them otherwise replace them now.
Originally posted by Thunderoo
If you think they'll become active again then keep them otherwise replace them now.
It's hard to know if someone will become active again unless they specifically say "I am quitting now and never coming back."
If you think they'll become active again then keep them otherwise replace them now.
It's hard to know if someone will become active again unless they specifically say "I am quitting now and never coming back."
pottsman
offline
offline
Originally posted by briansimoneau
It's hard to know if someone will become active again unless they specifically say "I am quitting now and never coming back."
Though if you know the person in real life or on another website, you can nudge them to sign back in.
If someone's been inactive for a while though, in rookie ball it's easy to replace them. I'd take the chem hit and cut the player, assuming the owner isn't someone I know somehow.
It's hard to know if someone will become active again unless they specifically say "I am quitting now and never coming back."
Though if you know the person in real life or on another website, you can nudge them to sign back in.
If someone's been inactive for a while though, in rookie ball it's easy to replace them. I'd take the chem hit and cut the player, assuming the owner isn't someone I know somehow.
Keiro
offline
offline
In my opinion, what's worse than having inactives in a team, is starting out with no team, one player, and nobody being willing to recruit him.
Of course, it's bad to have a handicap when playing, but it's worse to be unable to play, in my opinion.
Of course, it's bad to have a handicap when playing, but it's worse to be unable to play, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Keiro
In my opinion, what's worse than having inactives in a team, is starting out with no team, one player, and nobody being willing to recruit him.
Of course, it's bad to have a handicap when playing, but it's worse to be unable to play, in my opinion.
HB was a bad choice. Everyone wants to build them.
You may have better luck next season. You should maybe retire him and build a position that is in demand, at least for this season.
doobas™
In my opinion, what's worse than having inactives in a team, is starting out with no team, one player, and nobody being willing to recruit him.
Of course, it's bad to have a handicap when playing, but it's worse to be unable to play, in my opinion.
HB was a bad choice. Everyone wants to build them.
You may have better luck next season. You should maybe retire him and build a position that is in demand, at least for this season.
doobas™
pottsman
offline
offline
Originally posted by doobas
HB was a bad choice. Everyone wants to build them.
You may have better luck next season. You should maybe retire him and build a position that is in demand, at least for this season.
doobas™
This. If you retire him, you'll get your money back. Use it to make something more in demand, like a linebacker or a wide receiver. Get to know the game, then make a halfback in the offseason (when teams need players at all spots).
HB was a bad choice. Everyone wants to build them.
You may have better luck next season. You should maybe retire him and build a position that is in demand, at least for this season.
doobas™
This. If you retire him, you'll get your money back. Use it to make something more in demand, like a linebacker or a wide receiver. Get to know the game, then make a halfback in the offseason (when teams need players at all spots).
Keiro
offline
offline
Ah, got it. Thanks for the information, I had no clue HB was in so much demand, although it does make sense.
I've always thought HB's were awesome, so I suppose many people thought the same thing
Anyways, making a wide receiver, then. Thanks for the help.
I've always thought HB's were awesome, so I suppose many people thought the same thing
Anyways, making a wide receiver, then. Thanks for the help.pottsman
offline
offline
Yeah, they need to fix the way they calculate "demand". QB is ALWAYS hard to get jobs for (it's basically pointless to create a QB unless you know what team wants him BEFORE you make him), HB is tough to find work at midseason, but reasonable in the offseasons. K/P are similar. Anything on defense or OL, though, and there are always tons of spots on CPU teams (so you can always at least play), and usually a good player can find his way onto a human run team after a few days, if you try.
Keiro
offline
offline
Indeed, it seems very tough to start out with HB or QB. I started out a WR just now, and got like 7 offers as soon as I made him.
They should try to make every position playable, with enough effort. QB and HB are popular, alright, but that shouldn't make it downright impossible to make one mid-season. Should have a way to make it "not as easy" as making a WR, but not downright impossible.
Took 5 days to realize my issue was making an overused position, >.<
They should try to make every position playable, with enough effort. QB and HB are popular, alright, but that shouldn't make it downright impossible to make one mid-season. Should have a way to make it "not as easy" as making a WR, but not downright impossible.
Took 5 days to realize my issue was making an overused position, >.<
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
