|Allan (Memphis) - Saturday 08-04-07 14:41|
|On the recent survey results and in the past, there has been discussion on "stars seem to have more of an impact than they should". Teams end up not being very balances with High SL players next to VERY low SL players. With that in mind and including a revamped rating system, the proposal is:|
Track player rating totals. For every 100 rating points a player earns AND if their PU is less than 10:
- 1 SL is added to their total
- 1 PU is added to their total.
Potentially (note the word "potentially"), this may cause:
- More balanced rosters in terms of SL
- Some initiative to coach people other than the 5-7 all-stars on your team
Now, while this meshes some ideas, for some, it could feel like a Spinal Tap moment:
"We've changed our amplifiers to go to a new volume...11".
"Why not just keep 10 and make it louder".
"(pause)...These amps go to 11".
Comments? Does it just bring more SL into the league for the sake of "more SL". Or does it offer some ways to get more players SL a bit higher, making them more useful and rosters more balanced?
|Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 08-05-07 17:02|
|I think you would have to increase ageing to avoid getting too much SL in the league. Or perhaps more injuries, which sort of takes SL out every now and then. Then if you have an unbalanced side you run the risk of losing a star player weakening your team more than a balanced side would.|
I think this idea would lead to balanced sides but not as much as a maximum 8 PU. Some managers wouldn't want to wait until match 32 for their 10th PU and would coach quickly anyway.
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Sunday 08-05-07 20:44|
The problem of High SL players having more impact "than they should" is inherent in the nature of the program, and without coming up with a complete new system for running matches it seems pointless to me to complain about it. The game is a resource management game, it isn't a realistic reflection of real life coaching. The simplest way to avoid the impact is simply to swamp the software with SL, which in my opinion is what most leagues go for. The more SL that is removed, the more apparent it is how the software works. So from that point of view, this is a good idea. On the other hand, it doesn't require any effort or planning from the manager, which I think is bad. Lets not make the playing field so "even" that manager talent and understanding of the game (Olmec; not soccer/football) no longer counts.
It also seems to me that this will aid the stronger teams more than the weaker ones, as the weak teams will have their ratings increase slower. Except maybe their GKs.
|Clive (Essex) - Wednesday 08-15-07 7:55|
|I don't see a need for any changes given the other fixes in the pipeline|
|Carl (Hollywood) - Saturday 08-18-07 15:41|
|Been on the note book for an hour and me heads hurting. Are these suggestions all becoming one, have I lost the plot or is Spinal Tap, which I never really got, just haunting me. |
Don't thing I have anything to say on this one but will return in a day or two.
Or am I suggesting let's not change too much at once in our beloved game.
|Kevin (Kirksville) - Monday 08-20-07 15:01|
|Don't like it because the winning teams will already be getting more money (i.e. resources) and now they'll also be getting more free SL! Rich will become richer and that's something we should avoid. Anyone from your T11 is pretty much guaranteed to get to 100 rating points in a season, with the best teams being able to do it at least twice. That's more than 10 CP/TP per team, so a team can train/coach another player up to max potential with this system. You're telling me that one more completely free T11 potential player for the top 5-8 teams won't throw things even more out of balance top to bottom? Please keep it so teams have to pay for resources, not just have them handed out for showing up consistently or "not stinking too badly" for part of a season.|