MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
                        
 
 The Trade Window is currently open...
Very Long Ball
All Topics
Paul (Bristol) - Thursday 02-01-07 20:03
In a slightly sad way, a conversation that I was having last night about the effects of immortality led me to wondering about whether there was some interest in having an Olmec amendment such that different tactics suited experience over youth.

If we take age to favour tactical acumen, and youth to favour pace and dynamism, then I wonder if there's some way of incorporating this as an extra dimension that wouldn't have too much of a complexity overhead?

Whilst it's possible to say that maybe P, L and E would favour younger players, changing the core nature of the basic tactics probably isn't a great idea, as they're pretty finely balanced through experience.

Alternatively (and I think it's been discussed before - forgive me), is it possible for older players to lose EL quicker than younger players?

I think that what I'm getting at here, in a not particularly well thought out way, is the idea of a team's or player's age having an effect within a match, rather than just in terms of rate of SL degradation.

Just randomly thinking really. I've also always been a fan of Olmec having a Full Back / Attaching Defender position, but that's for another random thread.
Phil (Missouri) - Saturday 02-03-07 4:03
I'd like to hear more about the full back/attaching defender idea. I've always considered the full back position as "DF" and attaching defender as "marking." I may be using a different set of terms than Paul, so I'm interested in what he might be getting at. :-)
Willy (Montevideo) - Saturday 02-03-07 11:22
I like the idea of making age be more a factor towards EL and lessen the SL degradation... this (I leave the details to the Olmec geniuses... ;) would mean that you can keep old players that hold their SL at a better level but you can use them on a more limited way.

Now "thinking-out-loud": what if the EL loss during a match for an older player (it should be a factor of the age and I would say starting at age 5 or even 6) is such that it is a risk to make the player play the whole game. Then also make it a huge risk to play them aggressively.

GK's should be excluded... They should degrade just like they do now and they should be able to play full games with no EL concerns...

Willy (Montevideo) - Saturday 02-03-07 11:49
Now since we've opened the "think tank" here is some more "food for thought":

Always keeping in mind that we want to keep the game simple, but the one thing that (imho) always comes to my mind is that the players individuality is too simple, just an age/SL equation... SO, what if we had individual player attributes, for example:

-> Tough: a tough player has their chance to get injured reduced by a small percentage. We can add that the down side is an increased chance to commit a foul or be carded.

-> Good PK shooter: 1 SL added to players shooting when taking a PK. (GK's could also be good against PK's).

-> Good Header: increased (small percentage) chance to score when heading the ball (is that just text in the game output or can the scoring chances be qualified as heading/long range shot/breakaway/etc.?)

-> Intelligent: increases the team chances to create a scoring opportunity.

-> Fragile: this is a negative one where the player has the chances for injury increased.

-> Cool under pressure: the player is not affected by playing away, so his SL is increased when playing away (to counteract the reduction to the visiting teams).

-> "Homer": gets his SL increased a little bit more at home but decreased more than normal when playing away...

Again: these should be very slight deviations from the way the engine works now and they would add a lot to "personalize" and add another dimension to the players management/market/valuation.

Also: these special attributes would not have to be there for every player, some players are just like they are now...

Phil (Missouri) - Saturday 02-03-07 14:22
I like the ideas discussed here, but if the individual valuations are going to be slight, would they be too slight to have an impact of the play of the game? And if so, then is it worth the effort to make the change? Just thinking out loud...and the "fragile" player needs to include any player named after me.
Paul (Bristol) - Sunday 02-04-07 12:48
I like Willy's stuff very much. Maybe it's possible to take a 'toe in the water' approach and introduce a couple of the attributes to see how it goes. I'd say that the Homer and Cool amendments to home / away individual SL would be fairly straightforward, and immediately visible - say add 10% to Effective SL for Homers playing at home, and subtract 10% for Homers playing away, doing the opposite for the Cool players.

Re Full Backs - I never really thought of them as being non-marking DFs, but now Phil mentions it, it makes some sense. However I guess what I was getting at the the Full Back position is more a player whose GP / DEF / OFF contributions are somewhere between a DF and a MF. Like WGs, a team could have at most 2 FBs, and it's possible to embellish the idea a little bit such that some tactics suit use of FBs more than others, and also to have some weighting of FB influence on the attack depending on the number of MF+WGs in the team (as there's less room for them to overlap if the midfield is full.
Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 02-04-07 14:33
Okay, Paul, now you're making my head spin! ;-)
Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 02-06-07 20:28

Hey, a discussion I haven't commented on!

Briefly, most attempts to make Olmec more complex have been dismal failures. Part of its success is that it is pretty simple to pick up the basics, but then there is a lot of room for refining playing and coaching once you've got the general hang of it. The more complexity you include, almost inevitably the more control the computer has over the game, and the less the human does. There are a number of more complex PBEM soccer leagues available, but none of them have the same appeal to me. That's just my bucket of cold water. ;-)

Robin (Ayers Rock) - Tuesday 02-06-07 21:44
I think that these issues will be noted by El Presidente , and that possibly he has them in mind for his next project the Olmec Jaguar. IF this project comes off it will be the ultimate in Footie/soccer games as MR.S is looking at many different aspects of games on the net. It should be the complete management package, but we will have to wait for this to come to the table. In the mean time some of us need to get to grips with the game that we have , why is it that the "A" team AL & Alon have been so successful over the past few seasons. It is not just about numbers , this game has more skill than that, I should know , I have achieved very little.

I think we can all learn a bit from Al and Mark this season as they have both been very astute managers this season , do not copy them but learn from them , and hopefully you will get more out of the game , rather than just think of it as numbers and stats.
Robin (Ayers Rock) - Tuesday 02-06-07 21:47
I think that these issues will be noted by El Presidente , and that possibly he has them in mind for his next project the Olmec Jaguar. IF this project comes off it will be the ultimate in Footie/soccer games as MR.S is looking at many different aspects of games on the net. It should be the complete management package, but we will have to wait for this to come to the table. In the mean time some of us need to get to grips with the game that we have , why is it that the "A" team AL & Alon have been so successful over the past few seasons. It is not just about numbers , this game has more skill than that, I should know , I have achieved very little.

I think we can all learn a bit from Al and Mark this season as they have both been very astute managers this season , do not copy them but learn from them , and hopefully you will get more out of the game , rather than just think of it as numbers and stats.
Phil (Missouri) - Wednesday 02-07-07 23:27
I'm seeing double. Or there's an echo in here.
Paul (Bristol) - Friday 02-09-07 19:05
I'm seeing double. Or there's an echo in here.
Paul (Bristol) - Sunday 02-18-07 14:46
Not sure whether to add this on to Willy's 'cold water' thread ;-) or post a new one.

Re the business of making the game too complicated, letting the machine take over etc. I think the beauty of Willy's suggestions is that they don't really change the conceptual basis of Olmec - just add a few readily understood variations to it.

On that basis, I was also wondering about adding a new multi-position that combines WG with MF. Right now, WG is a slightly odd position, in that for all other outfield positions there's a multi-position that can float between the two. Between SW and DF we have SD, DF and MF the DM, and MF and FW the MA. But WG's are out on a limb. There doesn't seem any good reason for this other than inertia - that WG is the newest position on the block.

Additionally, there's probably a better real world analogy for a multi-position WG / MF than for most of the other multi-positions, as teams routinely ask their wingers to tuck in as a regular MF / stay back / mark the full back, vs play attacking.

So, my proposal is for a hopefully minimal impact enhancement to add a new multi-position player of WM (wide midfielder), who would shoot as a WG but is able to play both MF and WG with no OOP loss.
Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 02-18-07 23:01
I think that we may have visited this topic many, many seasons ago. If I recall, I think that with the strong WG multiplier under E, greater than that found elsewhere, it was decided that these creatures were best left unmutated... :-)
Paul (Bristol) - Friday 02-23-07 6:18
Hmmm - I'm starting to wonder if that package of evening classes in egg-sucking that I've bought granny for her birthday was such a good idea after all.
All Topics