|Alon (Gauteng) - Wednesday 10-17-07 5:59|
|In the new rules the way goalkeepers operate when playing A or P has changed.Instead of a .25 change to their shot stopping ability the teams GP ratios are adjusted by 0.25 of the value of the goalie.
Whilst there was obviously a problem in the old way of allowing a GK to play Agressive in that it made him too powerfull the solution is also problematic.
The .25 reduction in GP for passive is way to little a sacrifice in order for teams to play their probably most important player at full efficacy 4 in 5 games instead of 2 in 3.
Even a sweeper who is not nearly as important receives double the penalty(- 0.25 from both GP and DF). In order to really make playing a goalie at P a good news bad news story one probably needs a .25 of goalies value reduction in GP and a .5 of goalies value reduction in DF or a .6 of goalies value reduction in GP ,but then what happens if GP drops bellow 0?
On the other hand a .25 increase in GP for A is probably not sufficient to compensate for the extra loss of SL and chance of giving away a penalty. An amount of 0.4 would probably be about right.
I am more concerned about the P option as it gives managers with only one good goalie a huge advantage at an almost negligable cost.
Another solution would be to keep the new A solution but make the P operate as it did before.
|Steve (Asteria) - Wednesday 10-17-07 7:17|
|I was looking at this as well, Alon, and did one quick check. But I used an SL 25 and SL 20 GK and worked out the difference between playing 4 games out of 5 passive for the better one and 2 games out of 3 normal. It worked out slightly better to play normal GK all the way.|
I didn't work out more extreme differences, and also thought about just having one good GK.
Negative GP isn't a problem, it happened in SESL recently when a team NMRd and Olmec could only pick 4 players.