MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
                        
 
 The Trade Window is currently open...
Simulator/Gameplay Changes for Season 16
All Topics
Allan (Memphis) - Tuesday 08-01-06 16:52
Hi guys,

I will be getting back to soccer soon now that the baseball season is in full swing.

What ideas/concepts would you like to see added to the simulator for next season?

---insert usual caveat here that Al will not use everyone's ideas but will pick and choose and likely use about 5% of the ideas generated---

Thanks!
Al
Graham (Barcelona) - Tuesday 08-01-06 18:40
In no particular order and with no particular conviction for any one.... pure brain dump:
  • The ability to buy multi-pos players (at a premium obviously)
  • The ability to buy older/more skillful players perhaps? 0/10 or 1/10, etc (preferably limited per season per team).
  • Multi-pos players contributing fractions to their positions (eg DM playing at MF has 80% Midfield, 20% Defender, reversed if he plays at DF, UT on the other hand just contributes entirely to the place he plays) Havent really thought this one through obviously - remember pure brain dump going on here
  • A trade removing someone from the trade list.
  • Trade embargoes being based on games elapsed and not games played
  • NMR line-ups being slightly weaker.
  • Blowout penalties being based on minimum percentage of T11/T17 being in use rather than blanket auto-penalty
  • Ability to graph league positions over the season to plot rise/drop through the ranks :)
  • "Internationals" Its quite common for players to be drafted for international games, meaning the owning team cannot play them. If this was used, I'd suggest marking the day for internationals in the calendar in advance so people know its coming up - also could make more use of the nationality facility (ie top 3 or 4 rated players of any nationality with more than 10 players in the league)
  • Aggression multiplier being based on Energy levels (2 percent per EL?) Passive could be similar but in reverse, ie lower EL larger drop (EL 10 offering a 2% drop?) - Both being re-evaluated at start of each half?.
  • Perhaps modifying last idea to EL Levels affecting Skill levels in general? eg Range of 70-110% of nominal figure with 4% per EL. Every time your EL drops a whole point your overall SL contribution drops.....

    GMcD.

  • Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 08-01-06 20:55

    Just put in those tactical formula changes agreed on last season, and I'll be happy. Promise. :-)

    Cheerleaders would be nice.

    Speaking as a small "international" nation, clubs frequently refuse to release their "international" players when we have an international. No friggin' way I'm lettin' mine off, either! ;-)

    Steve (Asteria) - Wednesday 08-02-06 11:34
    Taking Graham's in order
  • I don't think we want too many multi-position players
  • A 0/10 would have to be something like 700k more than a 0/5 IMHO
  • I like this one - I bet Jay wouldn't :-)
  • With what's happening on SESL (have you seen the Trade List?) this is a must, but is really a Task List item
  • Agreed on trade embargo but not too fussed
  • Disagree as noted elsewhere. I think NMR lineups should be stronger, not for the NMRing team's benefit but for another team that needs the NMR team to win, as it would expect to.
  • Agreed on blow-outs
  • meh - though a current form would be nice
  • All my players are now English
  • and
  • the last two would stop a lot of teams playing to low EL levels, I think
  • Andy (Barnsley) - Thursday 08-03-06 13:39
    I can see both sides of the nationality suggestion. It would be nice to see the nationality be more than just a commentary feature, but if particular players are likely to be unavailable then you will quickly see nearly all players have the same nationality.

    One feature I would like to see introduced would be the unavailability of the ten top-rated players due to play against Barnsley. That could be reduced to, say, five if the team involved is in the lower half of Division Two, of course. The rest is just detail.

    Having played a season in SESL with the new tactical arrangements, I can't say I thought it was an improvement, but then I always seem to have weak teams so it makes little difference to me. Even so, playing N all the time is a bit boring, especially as so many others do as well, so it all comes down to who has the most SL. Other tactics may give marginal improvements, but not enough to offset the loss of OFF caused by switching from N.

    Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 10-08-06 21:39
    About the possibility of having some 0/10's floating about: I'd be concerned about eventually creating "superplayers" with SL 30-40 again. This was something that the league had to address several years ago, as it really became an impediment to the game. I don't mean to be an obstacle, but we should be careful about creating a situation that we just had to correct.
    Tim (Zaragoza) - Monday 10-09-06 17:47

    Agree with that completely. Always keep in mind that the calculations were originally based on teams only having 4 or so players as high as 25SL. Shooting tables are a prime example. Not necessarily a problem if the calculations become relative rather than fixed.

    Phil (Missouri) - Wednesday 10-11-06 22:09
    Sheesh. That's twice in two days across two leagues where T.G. and I agreed with each other.

    I'm sending Clyde out to buy some lottery tickets!

    Note the new nickname...
    All Topics