MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
 The Trade Window is currently open...
Uncapped OTF
All Topics
Tim (Zaragoza) - Saturday 03-04-06 1:46

Is there any reason why OTF has to be capped? After all, it costs 2CP/point, ages by 30%, and only contributes to DEF & OFF area stats. So is there any reason why it needs to stop at 10? Would it get unbalanced to allow more CP to be spent? Maybe someone should work out some numbers? Maybe the someone should be me? Volunteers? Would this mean we'd have to look at L again?!

Andy (Barnsley) - Thursday 03-09-06 14:30
Well, if you want help, I'd be happy to pitch in. Not sure how I could help, as I'm still getting to grips with the game mechanics, but a willing volunteer is better than more pressed men than we could get here.
Tim (Zaragoza) - Thursday 03-09-06 16:32

The only negative I can think of is a manager using all their CP to pump up the area stats, which would make them hard to score against, but because they weren't building any decent players, they'd also be unlikely to score. So lots of draws, which some people feel is a bad thing. On the other hand, some other people would kill for a few draws! ;-)

Robin (Ayers Rock) - Friday 03-10-06 22:37
As someone who dislikes Longball >I can not go along with uncapped OTF.

This would throw the advantage back to Normal/Ball in favour of Long/early.

Al has got a fairly even balance as I se it , just some of us do not get it.

I am retiring at the end of this season, but I hope to put some time into looking at the Stats/Figs and come up with some alternative solutions.

For now I believe that Al has got the balance right, but if we want to take the game to a higher level then we need to look at other factors.

Tim (Zaragoza) - Saturday 03-11-06 20:44

I think you're overlooking the fact that each team only has so many resources to spend, Robin. At 2 for 1, I can't see how OTF can overtake L/EC. I have to choose either OTF or player. I can't build a N team that is hugely strong in both. At the moment.

However, if we're going to include TP/CP in auctions, that may possibly change things.

Mark (Scotland) - Tuesday 03-14-06 6:36
Unlimited OTF seems a fair idea, but we would need to see the math first.
I tend to ignore OTF and would always rather add SL to my players, but unlimited OTF may encourage more teams to make use of this feature.

What is this I read above about Robin retiring?
You are FAR too young for that Robin, surely!

Kevin (Kirksville) - Friday 03-17-06 12:11
From a resources standpoint, here's what it takes to maintain OTF at max levels higher than 10. This assumes we're starting from the beginning of a season when the max OTF for a team is at 7. OTF loss is calculated by a team losing 30% of their OTF at the end of each season, per league rules. Maintenance cost is what it would take each season to keep a team at the Max OTF listed after reaching it for the first time.

Max___CP needed__OTF Loss___Maintenance Cost
10.......6................3 (to 7).....6 CP
11.......8................3 (to 8).....6 CP
12.......10..............4 (to 8).....8 CP
13.......12..............4 (to 9).....8 CP
14.......14..............4 (to 10)...8 CP
15.......16..............4 (to 11)...8 CP
16.......18..............5 (to 11)...10 CP
17.......20..............5 (to 12)...10 CP
18.......22..............5 (to 13)...10 CP
19.......24..............6 (to 13)...12 CP
20.......26..............6 (to 14)...12 CP

As can be seen, jumping all the way up to 20 in one season is nearly impossible in MSWL. However, a team could do it over the span of 3 to 4 seasons with some nifty trading and a serious commitment to investing in it. In leagues with more prevalent resources who are now using the same software (SESL for example), it could be done in 2.
While sinking 12 CP each season to keep the OTF at 20 seems a little ridiculous to most of us, think what a team like GS could do with their Press/Stall tactics... They'd get an extra 20 OFF when pressing, and then an extra 20 DEF when stalling, while only needing to sacrifice one player off their roster in terms of coaching investments. That's a tradeoff I would seriously consider as a manager.

Further, look at the more reasonable OTF level of 15. It would only take 8 CP each season to have your OTF 5 higher than it currently is. That's only 2 more CP than most teams spend now, and they get an extra 5 points to DEF and OFF every match, or up to 10 on OFF or DEF depending on strategies chosen. Since OTF never needs to rest, they get that EVERY match, like having an extra SL 10 midfielder at all times for only 2 CP per season. That's another worthwhile investment.

The biggest fear I would have if an uncapped OTF were implemented (over even a raised cap to 15 or 20) is that it would drive a deeper wedge between the "have's" and "have not's." I know, I know... it's the usual argument against any changes being made. That doesn't make it wrong, however. Teams with OTFs already at 10 and having plenty of resources would be able to invest early and then maintain at reasonable levels, while the other teams would have to sacrifice player development just to reach the higher levels, and then use a larger percentage of available CP to maintain top levels (as the lesser clubs get less revenue which equals fewer CP bought in trades/pre-season).

With the Longball multipliers dropped (the best strategy that doesn't need OTF), it will not only be less effective, but also twice as vulnerable to a high OTF team because the Ball Control multiplier is based on both midfielder and OTF differential.

I'm foreseeing that if the cap were removed, only a few teams would take advantage of that because only a few teams could afford to. Those teams would then have an advantage in DEF and OFF area production that could further unbalance the division splits. Again, MSWL would be less impacted than other leagues like SESL where CP regularly appear in every auction as well as pre-season purchases. However, any software changes would impact those other leagues as well using the current OLMEC version, and resource-heavy leagues will see a quick and drastic shift to further domination by the high resource clubs already in power.

Shutting up, now. Probably already said too much and it didn't make sense...

Steve (Asteria) - Saturday 03-18-06 4:33
Assuming you want to maintain an OTF of 20 you need 12 CP every season - this 12 CP adds 12 to OFF and DEF combined for most tactics. This would be at the expense of coaching two or three players, probably midfield but possibly also defenders and wingers. I can't see anyone not coaching their star forwards.

Ignoring GP (for DF) 12 CP mostly adds 15 to OFF and DEF combined but these players can only play two thirds of the time, which averages out to 10. A slight advantage to OTF except that the manager who coached his players instead can decide when they play - and if they get a shot on goal then they have more chance of scoring (but also take away chances from your FW).

OTF of 20 loses 6 to aging. Not using the CP on players, keeping their SL below 20 saves you 2 CP per player.

There's not a great deal of difference between the two but I think it will drive out Longball and Early Cross. A three midfield advantage with an OTF of 20 is worth 18.75 to OFF and DEF. That's as much as an extra SL 30 player.

I foresee teams with big MF, average DF (SL below 20), poor FW (why waste the CP) and max OTF. Whaddya mean we have that already?

Tim (Zaragoza) - Saturday 03-18-06 5:30

Sounds like some pretty good comments, there, lads. Would it assist teams that wanted to primarily play teen players, eg. MPH? That's kind of who I had in mind, making the spread coaching approach a bit more useful. It sounds like the feeling is it would only assist the big dogs, although that's hard to avoid regardless of tactic.

Kevin (Kirksville) - Tuesday 03-21-06 16:10
The "Big Dogs" have the best player choice and most resources to spread around no matter what we propose. They'll always have the advantage in any short-term scenario. It wouldn't be until a few seasons' time when the impact really shows on who is able to maintain both OTF and multiple star-level SL players.

What is more interesting to me is that once a team hits an OTF of 15, they can maintain that level for a mere 2 CP (~100k) more than they are currently paying to maintain an OTF of 10. I can imagine several teams taking advantage of this, while others will not think that it's worth their resources (as is currently the case). What will have a greater impact will be tactical choices. The differences will be more magnified in many cases, as will the B vs. L or E multiplier. Teams pressing will be 10 OFF point harder to stop, while teams stalling will be 10 DEF points harder to score on. While this could help some teams pull out a draw from what should be a defeat against a slightly better side, it seems more likely that the already-powerful teams will just be more able to "thump-sub-stall" as some are already doing entirely too well.

Greater area stats mean that individual players will have less personal impact as well, right? So one or even two star forwards won't be able to carry a team as well without some very solid midfield and defensive backup to help contribute offense. Again, the deeper teams (more resources to start with) will have the advantage due to having that 3rd shooter or having one more SL 19-25 MF substitute than the other guys. That leaves us in square one again: the rich keep getting richer...

Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 03-21-06 22:28

I say retire them after they've won a few crowns! ;-)

Phil (Missouri) - Thursday 03-23-06 21:43
Will OTF be a part of future MSWL seasons?
All Topics