OK, with the new archtypes, how about revisiting the XP formula, especially at low levels.
Currently teams are formed to get max XP. Utilize fewer players, set tactics to get max plays for fewer players. Don't care about competitiveness. Also, since # of plays depend on play calling, it's hard for teams to predict how many plays are going to be run by the offense, defense and special teams.
If the XP formula were changed from being dependent on total plays for a player, to more reflect performance of the team, roster size, depth chart, etc., it would reduce the need for "junk" teams which feed the system of non-competitiveness.
Players should not be punished if the team doesn't have them on the depth chart, or doesn't utilize players in some fashion. Use stamina/energy to quickly reduce effectiveness of players if depth chart and energy sub rates are not allowing players at same position to get fairly equal snaps.
XP is earned more by being on a team, with a slight differential for competitive play. The delta should be no more than 10%, and all players on the team are affected the same % based on fielding a "competitive" team....doesn't mean they have to win, just can't be "trying to lose" by fielding a partial team....this obviously needs work, but a 10% delta from min to max per game allows a lot of flexibility with teams not having to worry about getting 100 plays for all the non-cpu players to get max XP.
Think of the results:
1) All PeeWee teams could be more competitive as you can get full rosters without worrying about poor XP results.
2) Cap 4/14/18/etc teams would be more about being competitive than about getting max XP. (fix the cash advantages and fewer teams would be sitting around doing nothing).
3) Agents would not be complaining about not getting enough plays just because in a specific game, the opponent play calls or special teams play meant that the offense or defense only got 10 plays.
XP is already being force for blow-outs. Make it less variable across the board..."good teams" will get near max XP, "bad teams" will get a 5-10% less XP or just let the blow-out XP be the norm, and good teams get a small bonus....
XP and cash/stadium advantages are two reasons for non-competitive teams still being in existence...there are others, but get rid of these two, and it will be just the "bad owners" left forming non-competitive teams....
Currently teams are formed to get max XP. Utilize fewer players, set tactics to get max plays for fewer players. Don't care about competitiveness. Also, since # of plays depend on play calling, it's hard for teams to predict how many plays are going to be run by the offense, defense and special teams.
If the XP formula were changed from being dependent on total plays for a player, to more reflect performance of the team, roster size, depth chart, etc., it would reduce the need for "junk" teams which feed the system of non-competitiveness.
Players should not be punished if the team doesn't have them on the depth chart, or doesn't utilize players in some fashion. Use stamina/energy to quickly reduce effectiveness of players if depth chart and energy sub rates are not allowing players at same position to get fairly equal snaps.
XP is earned more by being on a team, with a slight differential for competitive play. The delta should be no more than 10%, and all players on the team are affected the same % based on fielding a "competitive" team....doesn't mean they have to win, just can't be "trying to lose" by fielding a partial team....this obviously needs work, but a 10% delta from min to max per game allows a lot of flexibility with teams not having to worry about getting 100 plays for all the non-cpu players to get max XP.
Think of the results:
1) All PeeWee teams could be more competitive as you can get full rosters without worrying about poor XP results.
2) Cap 4/14/18/etc teams would be more about being competitive than about getting max XP. (fix the cash advantages and fewer teams would be sitting around doing nothing).
3) Agents would not be complaining about not getting enough plays just because in a specific game, the opponent play calls or special teams play meant that the offense or defense only got 10 plays.
XP is already being force for blow-outs. Make it less variable across the board..."good teams" will get near max XP, "bad teams" will get a 5-10% less XP or just let the blow-out XP be the norm, and good teams get a small bonus....
XP and cash/stadium advantages are two reasons for non-competitive teams still being in existence...there are others, but get rid of these two, and it will be just the "bad owners" left forming non-competitive teams....