|Allan (Memphis) - Saturday 08-04-07 14:45|
|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 here's a proposal:|
Simply move the maximum PU down to 8 (rather than 10).
The idea again here would be that teams would then focus more attention on other players (2-5?) per roster. Without changing the aging table it would also mean fewer stars (or difficulty getting/keeping them higher).
This may even feel much more like a Spinal Tap moment than the ratings idea:
"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 take away the star power? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Having a few more players that can be productive? Again...a good thing or bad thing?
|Robin (Ayers Rock) - Saturday 08-04-07 17:37|
|Personally I would not change from 10 to 8.|
Now I have to think of some good reasons !
I do not always use my full 10 on a player but that is through choice and avoiding Ageing, so in fact it would not bother me.
However some managers prefer to CP/TP away regardless of ageing in order to create stars and others take a different option. If we reduce this to 8 and as Al says spred them about to create possibly 5 great players rather than 3 star players are we going to end up with teams all very similar.
At the moment a manager can only get full value of a 30+ player for 3 games before he has to rest him , or he has to be substituted regularily to play more games. So this gives the opposing manager an insight as to what "Stars" to expect in the opposing lineup (depending on EL/previous tactics) and how long they will be on the pitch.
If we end up with the majority of teams with 6 or possibly even more 24SL players then the teams will all be more similar and less likely for a manager to Judge (guess) the opposition lineup : Also makes it that much easier for a manager to submit a lineup if he has an abundance of players on 24 SL.
At present AYR has 4x29 1x30 1x23 1x24 -which is 7 good players , who will need resting at some stage. However reduce the 30 & 29's to 24's gives me 26 cp to use so I will end up with possibly 11 players over 20+ .
|Oli (C. Iceland) - Sunday 08-05-07 9:13|
|I tend to agree with Robin. When I started to play in the MSWL, I remember reading a part in the rules or a guide for beginners an explanation that you had 2 choices as a manager. A - distribute CP/TP among your players and get a balanced squad. B - Put your CP/TP on a few players and create star players. It was followed by a hint, balanced squads always do well, but the star players win championships !!!|
This suggestion then pushes us all into the balanced option and will make that auction player of 0/10 worth a LOT of money...
Lets look at the 0/0 you can get for a little money.
0/0 with 2 SL for seasoning plus 8 TP and he ends a 0/10.
1/10 will finish as 1/18 and lose 1 SL with post season aging
2/17 will be 2/19 at aging lose 1 SL and finish as a 2/23 with 3 SL loss in post season aging
3/20 will lose 3 SL in mid season and finish as a 3/25 then lose 4 SL after the season.
4/21 will lose 4 SL in mid season and finish as a 4/25 then lose 5 SL after the season
5/20 will lose 5 SL in mid season and without coaching will finish as a 5/15 and lose 5 SL in post season.
6/10 will lose 5 SL in mid season and end as a 6/5 with 3 SL loss after the season
7/2 will probably be put to rest in the hall of fame.
So this gives us a no chance of reaching the 30 SL mark in this players career.
|Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 08-05-07 16:57|
|Not reaching 30 SL is not necessarily a bad thing. The original Olmec code wasn't designed for high power players anyway.|
But I agree with Robin in that 8 PU will tend to lead to all teams becoming similar.
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Sunday 08-05-07 20:30|
A couple of initial comments, off the cuff.
Creating and maintaining a star player uses a great deal of resources. Not just in the cost of purhcasing them, but also the cost of resources and "extra" coaching slots. The auctions are already tending to provide a great deal of filler players of the 15-20 SL caliber. If we cut out the ability to create star players and force the realocation of those resources to the fillers, we're going to have an increasing number of teams with T11 composed entirely of 20-25SL players. The only difference is that some teams will have that extend to their T17 as well. Forces us into a one size fits all. Also known as... Boring!
However! If we reduce everything across the board, then I might be stirred to interest. Max PU of 8, max age 0 SL of 5, auction players SL reduced, resources cost increased (maybe by charging for TP); then maybe we're onto something. :-)
But just dropping PU to 8, not so keen.
|Graham (Barcelona) - Monday 08-06-07 6:59|
|Is there any reason why we just cant have a Max-SL setting for all players - ie say we agree that it should not be possible to take a player above 30SL (or some other suitably chosen number). That way 30 is the maximum any player can ever reach.
Just trying a different slant on the same issue....
|Dave (British Bull-Dogs) - Monday 08-06-07 16:42|
|So how boring would Football be Without Superstars ?|
Take away the Gascoines,Henris,Rooneys, Zedannes & would it detract from Football?
OF COURSE IT WOULD !
We don't need to reduce the PU from 10 ! Now increase it to 12 is what I say!
|Mark (Scotland) - Tuesday 08-07-07 8:28|
|PU10 is a nice round number, 8 is not! |
Cannot think of a new argument against 8, but I DO think Graham's idea of a player-Maximum-SL should be considered.
Suppose by playing aggressive or dirty, a manager can still get his STAR player effective SL somehow, but at a cost.
I tried TEAM max SL of 400 in SESL a few years ago, but this never worked as a deterrent, even when I was deleting the highest SL player when teams went above 400 team SL threshold, the managers just kept doing it (out of habit I guess).
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Thursday 08-09-07 17:40|
God Lord!! I'm in agreement with Dave?!! Surely this means the end of the world is near?
|Paul (Bristol) - Friday 08-10-07 19:11|
|As a compromise on this, why not have a max of one player in the squad who has over 30 SL? Would be nice to retain the capacity to build a team around a genius (Argentina 86 etc.), but it's hard to justify having more than one such player.|
|Clive (Essex) - Wednesday 08-15-07 7:53|
|Actually, the code(when I last studied it carefully) offered balanced choices across most tactics when players were up to Level 25 or so. Beyond that, for example, Ball Control no longer affords the bonuses to make it viable against Long Ball. Personally I'd suggest that above Level (say) 24, that it costs double to coach a player. That way you can still push a selected few into stardom, but at a greater sacrifice to the overall team. I think that would restore the balances that have been lost - PSFA in particular suffered it where I could field a team of 11 players between 27 and 41 (two Level 41's, one of them a GK, the other a FW)... it really didn't make sense to play anything other than L due to the code not really handling the extremes we had.|
If we are not careful, MSWL could head the same way. However, as I say, limiting the PU is only one way, I suggest the 2 CP per level over 24 as an alternative that will allow at least a handfull of players to be in with a shot of greatness.
|Carl (Hollywood) - Saturday 08-18-07 15:32|
|Is this perhaps where I sneak my wages structure in again.|
Having been a director of a local semi pro team one of our biggest concerns was paying the wages. The better the player the greater the wage he demanded.
So how about every player in your squad (because the buggers want paid whether picked on Saturday or not) of >24 SL costs you 10K and every player >29 costs 20K per session. Then in turn to help the "better" teams, the home team keeps all the gate money for league games and the gate is split for cup games (including the play-offs) as with the big boys game.
If that doesn't work for you what about 25K to coach a player with >24SL and of course 50K if doing multiple coaching that game.
NB I have no idea what these proposals would do to the bell curve, so someone with a better eye for stats could propose better SL and K.
|Kevin (Kirksville) - Monday 08-20-07 14:57|
|My vote is to keep it at 10. Determining where and how much to sink into one player is what keeps the teams unique. 10 is good to keep things from getting entirely too ridiculous in terms of max SL per player, however 8 wouldn't allow for age 4 and 5 players to fully keep up with aging if SL 30+. The "stars" in the game would only be so for one or two seasons instead of three to four, and that would tend to hurt the character of teams and the color of the league overall I think. While it would be just as playable, I see the move hurting the "unique" part of each team and that's just as important as the "strength" part when making a league more than just carbon copies relying on luck for wins/losses. We may still rely on luck, however we're prettier than you and that counts for a lot!|
|Graham (Barcelona) - Tuesday 08-28-07 7:36|
|I like Carls idea of wages, but something would have to be increased to up the ability of the team to pay wages (at the moment folk are budgeting mainly for the end of season most of the time and run very low at the start of the season).
I'd suggest that if this idea took off then the weekly gate receipts should be upped to take account of the increased outgoings. Though of course it would be at around an average level.
So if we said:
... then I'd suggest that we aim gate receipts to pay about 20K per player?
Or something like that - my lunch break finished 30 minutes ago and I'm typing furiously to get back to work so I'm not thinking it out fully....
|Mark (Scotland) - Sunday 09-09-07 17:41|
|PU I'd leave at 10, a nice round number. |
Wages is a decent idea,
but for sheer simplicity, its hard to beat Clive's suggestion that
"it costs double (2CP) to coach a player above 24SL"
|Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 09-23-07 21:08|
|Here's a couple of thoughts from someone that doesn't know enough about codes to go around making comments...but here it goes...
First, take note of what Rockin' Robin said above: with a PU reduction all teams will be similar. Sigh. That calls to mind a time when all teams really were similar. Yes, folks, I'm referring to MSWL's inaugural season. Of course, when all teams are similar, the only distinction between teams is the manager. All other things really are equal and the managerial cream rises to the top. Case in point, in the inaugural season, with all other things being equal, MLB rises to the top and wins the inaugural regular season title. One could only conclude, then, that all other things being equal, that MLB's manager was the variable that made the difference between first and second and last place.
Sigh. Going back to those days wouldn't be all bad, would it?
Second, and more seriously, I think that a better way to address this issue, if it needs addressing at all, is via the aging scales rather than the PU process. If there's too many stars, tax them via the aging system and pull them back down. PU stays the same, but it's harder to keep stars at the top. And teams that choose to do so may find it hard in terms of resources to continue to do so. Under this process, though, it would need to be beneficial in the long run for a team to maintain more 21-25 SL players rather than a few 30's.
Up the Beagles.
(not sure we're really on board with that slogan, to be honest.)