|Tim (Zaragoza) - Sunday 09-18-05 17:29|
While we're airing ideas, how about this one? I think I mentioned it as a concept in the dim distant past during one of those arguments over player SLs.
Basic idea is that coaching is purely dependant on bank balance. Each increase of 1 SL would cost 1.5k * resulting SL, eg. 23 -> 24SL = 1.5k * 24 = 36k. Still 1 PU per game, 10 PU per season. OTF = 10k * resulting OTF.
At first glance that might seem a little cheap, especially for the lower SLs, but remember that we get 34TP free, and CP cost 50k regardless of the SL of the player they are used on. This would allow those who would like a team of sub 20SL players to coach nearly their entire roster, while those going for stars would be limited in the number of players they could coach.
6 star players of the current format (0,0,1,2,3,4) would cost ~2025k, including losses to aging. An extra 2 older stars would cost ~900k, while 2 more age 0 would cost ~300k.
|Kevin (Kirksville) - Monday 09-26-05 10:26|
|I think this would create a larger imbalance between the richer established teams and the new guys. For example, to coach a player from SL 19 up to SL 29 would cost a manager 370K. That's less than 50K per SL that we currently pay, and you get a star player in the bargain! As things currently stand, when purchasing CP in the largest amounts (45 or 50 CP) the final two jumps come out to costing 100K per CP, not just 50K. This means that the richest teams CAN afford more CP than the poor guys, yet it does so with the added bonus of whittling the bank balances down at a faster rate. Instead, what we now have is that 1000K that used to be able to get the top teams one extra SL 29 player (10 more CP that the little teams couldn't get due to lower bank balances when starting the season) will now buy that power team nearly THREE more star-quality players' worth of CP. Very bad for league balance unless your proposal has some other counter that I'm missing here...|
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 09-27-05 17:58|
|Your arguing about the multiplier, not the concept. Multiplier can be set to anything you want. The concept is to make multiple smaller players cheaper than single big players (25-35SL), and to remove a (unnecessary?) layer in the coaching. Do you reckon it would work doing those things? And would removing TP/CP be beneficial or not? After all trading cash doesn't work like trading CP.|
|Kevin (Kirksville) - Wednesday 09-28-05 16:45|
|In order to be effective the multiple would have to be exponential, not a straight multiplier for each SL reached. Otherwise it doesn't address the power/money gap effectively. As the SL goes up, so does the multiplier for the final cost tally. If the formula were worked on enough and tweaked just right it could be possible to come up with an effective system.|
One thing you would definitely lose would be the TP/CP dynamic. TP are valued higher because there is a smaller amount of them available every year. Also, getting points sunk into potential stars in the first two years is absolutely critical because they aren't losing SL at each mid- and post-season mark. If you put a blanket cash quotient on each SL then the league loses that dynamic. A team could simply invest in a swarm of age 0 and 1 guys through trading away established players. Since these players also cost less to build in SL, a team could have a top 11 of all 0 and 1 players in the 16-19 range and have plenty of money left over for next season. In two seasons' time you would be facing a team with an entire roster in the mid- to high-20's SL level, and all at ages 1 & 2!
The only counter to that would be to implement a maximum points used for a team in a given season or else an SL cap. SL caps in other leagues have not gone over well, and establishing a maximum points used cap is basically the same as giving every team the same number of CP/TP each season and not allowing trades.
I guess I just see a few too many ways to exploit this system without seeing an effective counter apart from a very steep geometrical progression of SL costs.
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Friday 09-30-05 16:59|
|Yeah, the big minus to me is not having a tradable separate resource. That's alright - another random idea can be consigned to the bin. :-)|