MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
 The Trade Window is currently open...
Aggressive - Dirty
All Topics
Tim (Zaragoza) - Thursday 08-09-07 18:05

According to the rules, at present there is no difference to playing A vs D, other than the increased chance of injuries. That seems wrong to me. While I don't think the EL cost should be different, it seems to me that the chance of carding and giving away penalties should increase. Maybe, if necessary, the chance of causing injury could be increased as well. But if a team is playing 3 or 4 players dirty, I'd like to see at least one injury (on the other team) and one penalty shot or sending off (against the dirty team). Then it would really mean something.

I told you I'd think of something to mess with, Al! ;-)

Allan (Memphis) - Saturday 08-11-07 16:47
So it sounds like Dr. Given is suggesting more negatives for 'd' players? Let's hear some more on this guys...
Steve (Asteria) - Sunday 08-12-07 4:44
More complicated (and maybe for a future version of Olmec) could be to have players p, n or a (or a better description that describes how much energy they play with) with an additional choice of c(lean) or d(irty).

c and d don't affect EL or SL but do affect injuries, bookings and penalties.

As for causing more injuries with the present setting - on SESL, Commish Mark has set the injury level up a little and it's causing, on average, 1 injury per game.

Tim (Zaragoza) - Sunday 08-12-07 17:24

A little more detail, please, Steve. Is that when playing dirty or all the time? I'm just looking for dirty to be a bit more of a deliberate choice with accepted consequences - I'll take the suspensions/penalty shots if I can injur his players. At present it doesn't seem to be quite strong enough in either regard. Maybe it could be directly linked - an injury to one team is an automatic yellow/red/penalty shot to the other. Worse the injury, worse the penalty. And vice versa - any carding results in an injury to the other team. Worse the carding, worse the injury.

Tim (Zaragoza) - Sunday 08-12-07 17:31

Further to the previous comments, we could start getting situations where one team is getting playes sent off... but the other team is getting players injured off. Which would affect subs. If he's already used them, then he's down a player, and if he hasn't, then he might not be able to sub someone else off as planned. Just think d could get a bit more interesting. Don't think I want to see anything else adjusted; just the effects of playing d.

Steve (Asteria) - Monday 08-13-07 7:06
Current situation is that dirty adds +25% to SL, lose more EL and increased odds of injuries to both sides (based on the total number of a or d players but more to the opposition) and increased odds booking for the player.

With the addition of c and d you have six combinations:

a, n and p are as before for EL, SL, bookings and injuries (a player who is trying harder is will tire quicker and is more likely to mis-time a tackle - call it effort rather than aggression).

d adds to the base value of bookings and injuries but not EL or SL. c does nothing.

So you can have ac, ad, nc, bd, pc or pd.

The d effects could perhaps be set by the commissioner of each league.

Carl (Hollywood) - Saturday 08-18-07 14:51
Never got the dirty agressive difference myself.
A suggestion. A team can play a max of two dirty players which increases their marking and winning the ball back abilities, increases their fouling ability, to injure an opponent and the likelihood of them giving away pens, free kicks and therefore being booked and sent off.
Or is that what happens now anyway :(
Kevin (Kirksville) - Monday 08-20-07 14:42
I don't like the thought of any automatic injuries. I know in real life a player goes out and gets treated and is back for the games next weekend. That's not how these leagues work. If I can play dirty with three guys and guarantee that you'll get injured, why wouldn't I? I can play 2 SL 4 MF's and whoever my #4 defender is on dirty, take out one of your players (hopefully a good one) and might just get a yellow? Even if I get a red and lose an SL 4 (or under) MF on a longball team, so what?

Further, once injured a player could be out for multiple games. As it is, teams have had their chances of a winning season severely hurt by injuries. With the ability of a manager to actually CHOOSE who to screw over, the team in first halfway through is almost guaranteed to start having all their players get hacked and beaten down. In real leagues, this kind of hooliganism is enforced by multiple game suspensions and hefty fines to players and teams by the league officials. We can't do that.

I am strongly opposed to any programming that would allow another manager to have a GOOD chance of deliberately try to destroy another team's entire season if they injure the right player or severly mess up the EL rotation with a critical stretch of games coming up. That's not fun in my book. That's mean and playing cheap. Bad men who will do anything to win exist in the real world. Why do we have to program them into a similator for our entertainment as well?

Tim (Zaragoza) - Monday 08-20-07 16:58

That being so, Kevin, why have Dirty at all? I agree with your comments, but it seems to me that it should either be a case of looking at trading a penalty goal (and possible loss) for inflicting an injury (that may sit a player out for multiple games) or not bother having it. I could just as easily live without it altogether, but if it is going to be available then I'd like it to have a distinct difference.

Kevin (Kirksville) - Tuesday 08-21-07 10:28
Right now, it seems like a player on dirty has a greater chance of getting carded than he does of actually injuring anyone. Once injured, the current charts make it likely that the player will sit just a game, or if injured early won't even miss one (-4 EL anyway). While I would support the suggestion that IF an injury occurs a card is automatically awarded, I am not in support of IF a card occurs an injury gets "awarded." The reason for this is that you can choose who is playing dirty, not who gets injured. I could play my scrubs on dirty and care less if they get suspended for one or even three games at a time. If one of your T11 goes down hard it doesn't take a genius to figure out who got it worse.

Last season I lost two games by having TWO of my top eleven carted off the field by a team playing all or mostly dirty in the match before. Maybe I would have lost those matches anyway. I would have at least had a fighting chance in them though, with a draw and win likely given our top strengths that I was planning on having available. I ended up missing out on the championship and finishing in third by 2 points. In short, dirty play already has an impact on the league. Making it more so would be inviting disaster and would indeed make it very personal. If I played normal against one team and all dirty the next knowing I would injure some of your guys, how is that not personal? And not just "I'm playing you hard because you're my rival" but a full "I'm trying to injure your best players and ruin your season" personal. Entirely different level of attack there. It could also allow conspiracies where every team would play dirty against MP for example, and leave Al and his squad in the emergency room all season and unable to field even half a decent lineup. There is no protection in place against that and that will cause managers to pack up and leave. The team in first after half the season will end up in the morgue before they reach any podium. It's fun to have everyone gunning for you. Buck up, play hard, and beat them down. If everyone is trying to injure you and is actually likely to, there is no recourse and you can do nothing except read the match report and weep. No fun = no managers = no game.

Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 08-21-07 18:25

That's certainly clear enough. :-)

Phil (Missouri) - Monday 10-08-07 21:54
What really makes Kevin's message great is that, knowing Kevin, I can actually hear his voice in my head as I read it.

What happens if I play multiple managers on "dirty" in this scenario? If there's two players on "d," it only doubles the harm identified in Kevin's posting. It's not an understatement. Things could get really ugly. On and off the pitch.
All Topics