MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
 The Trade Window is currently open...
L & EC multiplier review
All Topics
Tim (Zaragoza) - Sunday 03-30-08 19:32

First off, let me begin with an apology for shouting down his suggestion mid-season that EC needed a review. Sorry, Alon; you were right. Reviewing L and EC use this season, I would like to make the following suggestions:

L FW multiplier be increased to 1.3
EC WG multiplier be reduced to 1.65

For those interested in reasons.

Most teams that can play L have moved to EC simply because of the tremendous OFF creation. The loss of accuracy is significantly outweighed by the increase in shots. The EC OFF, even when marked, is so much greater that it is rendering L obsolete. I think a slight increase in L will make it more effective and more attractive, without making it dominant. It would bring the potential scoring ratio of the two tactics into a more even balance (once EC is reduced slightly).

EC, on the other hand, needs a bit of a brake. While it hasn't been an automatic ticket to a winning team, a pair of big WGs create so much OFF that, when combined with the FW-WG bonus multiplier, it is larger than any other tactic can generate with the same team. Changing to P can actually reduce the team's scoring chance. A bit like the first version of CA, when Jay played P and his opponent suddenly found their OFF jump by 100 to 250. A bit too big.

That's what my current thoughts are. Feel free to comment. And it is, as always, Al's call in the end.

Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 03-30-08 21:14
I really don't have a clue when it comes to measuring out the numbers, stats, odds, etc. Here's my input on the two issues: First, does this put L back into the same position that we were in previously? We just finished taking L down a notch, and now we're considering tweaking it upward again. It really did seem like it was a prime ticket to the grand parade previously, and I would hate to see us rotate back to that. One constant in OLMEC play that I have noticed over the seasons is that we often solve a problem, then after a season or two everyone wants to address a new problem that has been created, forgetting the reasons that brought us to the change in the first place. (I'm not saying you are doing that here, Tim, by any means! I just want us to be sure before we start tweaking. I don't have any idea of the statistical impact of these moves.) Second, it is a little frustrating to switch these things after we make investments long term for the teams. Sure, no one wants a dominant tactic. But EC doesn't seem all that dominant for MLB, and now that we've invested in EC as a tactic, we're going to devalue it. Sucks to be us, I guess. :-)
Brian (Stockholm) - Monday 03-31-08 8:14
Don't be so hasty to suggest that there is a major problem.
Also please bare in mind that any changes to the tactic formulae will not only affect MSWL but will also affect SESL & SFLSL.

Now I've gone and done some statistics on the use of EC and LB in MSWL & SESL.
3 (of 24) teams in MSWL do not use either tactic, and 11 (of 48) in SESL do not use either tactic.

In MSWL, 7 teams have EC as top tactic and nobody have LB as top tactic
In SESL, 10 teams have EC as top tactic and have 3 LB as top tactic

But no team in either leauge have BC as their top tactic, this is despite the fact there being 9 OTF 10 teams in MSWL & 11 OTF 10 teams in SESL, surprising what with EC/LB being so dominant.

The other thing that I find interesting is that O is quite popular in MSWL, again a surprise, given that EC/LB are so dominant.

Average OTF in MSWL (season almost over) is 6.92.
Average OTF in SESL (season half over) is 6.16.

So basically, I don't think there is a problem. There are already a number of modifiers to work for teams against LB/EC.

The most skewed teams in the leagues are
MSWL; EC - Essex Slapheads - 59%; LB - Kirksville Invertebrates - 37%; N - Boston Stars - 88%
SESL; EC - Inverness - 89%; LB - Fraserburgh - 67%; N - Alloa Athletic - 84%

For your interest, here are the tables.
Team EC % LB % Other Tactic % OTF
Asteria Kromatos 0% 3% N 66% 10
Ayers Rock 0% 32% N 35% 10
Barcelona FC 0% 8% N 75% 8
Barnsley Brewers 17% 0% N 34% 4
Boston Stars 0% 1% N 88% 7
Bristol Nibbers 29% 2% N 49% 4
British Bull-Dogs 33% 6% N 21% 7
British Over Achievers 19% 0% N 70% 10
Captain Iceland 1% 0% N 65% 10
Essex Slapheads 59% 17% N 13% 3
Gauteng Shooters 48% 7% S 42% 5
Hollywood All-Stars 38% 0% N 52% 10
Kirksville Invertebrates 56% 37% N 5% 1
Liverpool Tigers 23% 10% S 38% 7
Memphis Pharaohs 19% 0% N 50% 10
Missouri Legal Beagles 54% 0% N 19% 10
Montevideo Tricolores 33% 3% O 33% 10
Motor City Redmen 0% 0% N 72% 6
New England Revolution 3% 10% N 61% 2
New York Trashtalkers 0% 3% N 68% 7
Reakland Chimaeras 0% 0% N 80% 9
Scotland FC 34% 1% N 26% 1
Stockholm Science Geeks 0% 0% N 45% 5
Zaragoza Lions 0% 0% N 46% 10

Team EC % LB % Other Tactic % OTF
Aberdeen 0% 0% N 61% 7
Airdrie United 0% 0% N 59% 6
Albion Rovers 6% 8% N 64% 4
Alloa Athletic 0% 11% N 84% 4
Arbroath 27% 4% N 56% 3
Ayr United 0% 6% S 37% 10
Berwick 7% 29% N 53% 4
Brechin City 0% 0% N 80% 7
Buckie Thistle 6% 0% N 63% 6
Celtic 48% 6% N 35% 3
Clyde FC 0% 0% N 47% 10
Clydebank 0% 10% N 70% 10
Cowdenbeath 0% 36% O 30% 4
Deveronvale 62% 2% S 24% 5
Dumbarton 3% 4% N 74% 8
Dundee FC 41% 2% N 32% 4
Dundee United 3% 13% N 64% 4
Dunfermline Athletic 43% 9% N/S 16% 6
East Fife 2% 20% N 53% 10
East Stirlingshire 0% 0% N 78% 6
Elgin City 0% 0% N 53% 10
Falkirk 1% 0% N 50% 10
Forfar Athletic 28% 3% O 33% 3
Fraserburgh 0% 67% N 22% 3
Greenock Morton 14% 0% N 67% 10
Gretna 56% 0% N 26% 5
Hamilton Accies 42% 0% N 43% 10
Hearts 46% 0% N 35% 3
Hibernian 32% 0% O 31% 9
Huntly 3% 13% N 56% 7
Inverness 89% 0% S 7% 7
Kilmarnock 0% 13% N 47% 5
Livingston 58% 0% S 42% 5
Montrose 0% 0% N 76% 4
Motherwell 45% 0% N 23% 5
Nairn County 6% 47% S 43% 4
Partick Thistle 0% 3% N 56% 6
Peterhead 0% 0% N 70% 10
Queen of the South 0% 1% N 59% 8
Queens Park 0% 7% N 77% 9
Raith Rovers 0% 0% N 50% 10
Rangers 5% 0% N 55% 10
Ross County 0% 0% N 78% 3
Saint Johnstone 26% 5% N 61% 3
Saint Mirren 15% 2% N 47% 4
Stenhousemuir 0% 5% N 57% 6
Stirling 0% 0% O 57% 2
Stranraer 0% 0% N 73% 4

Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 04-01-08 17:17

First of all, nothing I've suggested is major. Both are minor tweaks to 2 tactics, one of which is falling into disuse and the other which appears to generate more than may be healthy in view of the tactical options as a whole (including the modifiers working against L/EC, of which the only one I can bring to mind is marking).

The FW multiplier for L was dropped from 1.5 to 1.25. I'm suggesting that the drop was too large and is rendering L obsolete. The data Brian supplied would appear to back that up. Increasing it by 0.05 would increase the production of 4x30SL FWs by... 6. Maybe it needs to be increased by 0.1 to 1.35. That's an increase of a whole 12 to OFF. But 0.05 is all I'm suggesting for the moment.

Dropping the EC WG modifier by 0.1 to 1.65 would reduce EC OFF by ~3% (about 7 off your OFF). Hardly crippling and certainly not worth dumping your developlement, Phil. P is supposed to be the most offensive tactic, but it only generates a bit more than 2/3 the OFF of a good EC team. That has to do with team composition and positioning of SL and stuff as well, so no need to do anything there, I don't believe. But EC does look in need of a little easing back. And as you can see, by little I mean little.

I've played BC with marking against all teams I've considered likely to play L/EC, unless they didn't have any FWs/WGs worth marking. The reason I've played more N than BC is because I've played more N based teams. 4.5 of those 7 EC teams (giving MT a 0.5) are in Div 1.

Steve (Asteria) - Tuesday 04-01-08 18:25
I think Brian is referring to sweepers against EC and their +50% SL to DEF. SESL has turned into a big EC league and I made hay with it last season finishing with 3 WGs SL 32, 29 and 16 and this season just after mid-season I have 2 WGs at 33 and 26->30. But what I do have is an SL 19 SW (he was SL 24 a couple of games ago) and two SDs that are ages 1 and 3 will be SL 30 in 12 game's time. Very important in SESL. And it wasn't as though I planned to go EC - I picked up a rookie WG and the next season wanted some extra attacking power so traded a DF for another one.

Interesting that I've played Stall (now) 25% of the time in SESL, especially with the 18 of 25 wins I believe, but I have a rookie GK and have also played a lot of 45 minutes resting stars as well.

Probably the only reason Asteria is not an EC side is that the WGs just haven't been there at the right time. Nobody had any to sell at the start of the season and in previous seasons I've need FW or DF more.

As for changing the modifiers? Well as long as there is fair warning for SESL and SFLSL. The problem with the reduction in the L modifier was that it was sudden and many teams weren't equipped for the change. If it was going to change for the start of the next season of MSWL then SFLSL would be around the middle of the season after next, and SESL towards the end of the next season.

And as Ball Control is mentioned - if we wanted to make this a little more effective then the (OTF+5)/4 x (MF excess) could easily be altered. The maximum addition is 11.24 OFF and DEF. Assuming this was based on a T11 of 20 then increasing the maximum to say 15 (for todays T11s) could be achieved by changing the 4 to a 3 or the 5 to a 10.

Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 04-01-08 19:07

I certainly wouldn't be complaining to see a boost to BC. :-)

Alon (Gauteng) - Tuesday 04-08-08 7:02
I am glad to see this discussion has been reopened.
I think the main aim for the rules is to make all tactics more or less equal in strength so that different managers set up their teams differently. This will definately make the game more interesting as then when playing teams that use different tactics a manager can tweak his own team accordingly.
I believe L is correctly weighted with regards to the other tactics. If EC was cancelled as a tactic L would immediately become the most popular tactic and probably remain that way even after people have a chance to reballance their squads. Even BC is not that bad and I have won the league(in the days when the L and EC multipliers were correct) using predominantly that tactic,though a small increase there might be OK.
Essentially there were 2 tactics that made the rest of them redundant EC and L. L is now very marginally stronger than the rest but not to such a degree that the rest are redundant,however I would strongly oppose strengthening it.
The EC offensive multiplier should be reduced to no more tha 1.55 and maybe slightly less as else it just does not make any mathematical sense to use any other offensive tactic.
Brian (Stockholm) - Tuesday 04-08-08 8:24
But there are already checks and balances for EC, the WG's shot penalty is directly linked to their off production, and marking hurts EC disproportionally to other tactics.

BC has diminished in favour of N as the alternative as Sl's have risen, as the GP penalty attached to BC is very costly for only 13 extra Sl to OFF & DEF.

Steve (Asteria) - Tuesday 04-08-08 13:26
I make it 11.25 OFF and DEF. But also a BC team is likely to have big MFs and they get 1.5 of their SL. So I thought I'd do a quick Excel calculation looking at N (4-3-3 and 4-4-2), L (4-2-2 and 5-2-3), EC (4-2-4 and 5-2-3) and BC (3-5-2 and 4-5-1).

Firstly with some simple, lets assume every player has the same SL = 20, always play a SW and OTF = 10. EC plays 2 WG, the rest play none. And BC is always against 2 MF.

Well first off 3-5-2 BC would violate 2:1 rule, and any tactic except BC with 4-5-1 and EC would be better with a WG or two (L marginally so).

All I've done is add GP+DEF+OFF (what I tend to do in deciding tactics anyway judging that the more you put on the field the better your chances). Taking 4-3-3 N as 100% the weakest are the two L at 98%. 101% is 4-2-4 EC, 102% is 4-4-2 N and 3-5-2 BC, 103% is 4-5-1 BC, and 5-2-3 EC is 105%. As DF put 1.75 on the field (except with BC) and MF and FW are less than this, then more DF-SL will always be better, but of course we all need big FWs anyway.

Taking some SL off MF and giving it to FW helps L, off FW and to MF helps BC etc. I tried lowering the WG OFF multiplier for EC but it makes 4-2-4 EC too weak (GP+DEF+OFF). Then I remembered that DF-OFF for EC used to be 0.125 and that made all the difference.

The following table has SLs set at 25 (more realistic), EC DF-OFF at 0.125 but apart from that the same as before for the first column. For the second column I took SL (10 per player) from one area and added it to the MF, MF, FW, WG for N, BC, L, EC respectively, to come up with the second column.

4-4-2 N	  102%	101%
4-3-3 N	  100%	100%
4-2-4 L	  100%	106%
5-2-3 L	  100%	 99%
4-2-4 E	   99%	102%
5-2-3 E	  103%	104%
3-5-2 B	  101%	102%
4-5-1 B	  103%	102%
Tim (Zaragoza) - Tuesday 04-08-08 17:28

If I understand what you're getting at (and I'm not entirely sure I do), what you are showing is the realtive strengths of the tactics?

Comments re tactics. EC needs significantly more OFF than L to achieve the same % chance of scoring shots as L because with WGs generate majority of OFF, most shots will go to WGs who shoot... just went and checked the rules and found that all the shooting SLs have changed. It used to be a 20% penalty per position, eg. MFs at 80%, DFs at 60%. Now it is only 10%. That makes Alon's comments even more applicable! However, we do want EC to generate more OFF than L.

Remember with calculations, start with expansion team and work out costs of bringing up to stardom, because additional costs during that time will put you that much further behind, eg. the cost of increasing OTF from 3->10. The big difference between L/EC and the rest is that you get more player SL for your coaching. You have extra to spend and fewer areas to spend it on. That can be quite a difference after a couple of seasons, but eases back after about 4 to a lesser influence.

I'd like to bring up Rob Peterson's suggested changes to shots on target at this point, because that is where L is supposed to have a real advantage (FWs taking majority of shots), but at the moment a DF of 25+SL can't miss, let alone a 30SL FW. I think the problem is that some elements of the tactical calculations are dynamic and others are fixed. They need to be either one or the other. If they are fixed, then you have to limit the amount of SL in the league to the level intended when they were fixed. If SL growth is not an issue, then those fixed numbers need to be made relative to team strength.

This would mean OTF would be a percentage of something. Shots on target would be a percentage of something. What other things are fixed numbers? Any tactical multiplier or determiner would have to be relative. So you've built your OTF up from 3 to 10; now it gives you a bonus of (pick a number) 10% to your OFF and DEF (1% per point OTF; maybe 0.5% would be better). Shots on target, don't quite know how you'd make that relative, but I do remember that Rob's suggestion was a good one. He made it when we were working on tactical stats before last season. I don't appear to have kept it, so I'll have to get him to post it. I think the upper SL limit possible is fairly much fixed by the aging tables, and he'd adjusted it for the existing levels, rather than S6 when it was set (and incidentally in a 10 session season where you could only put 1 point in per session, with 5 before aging and 5 after).

Phil (Missouri) - Wednesday 04-09-08 0:31
Brian (Stockholm) - Thursday 04-10-08 2:49
Excellent work Steve,
But the 3-5-2 would be okay on the 2:1 rule if it didn't play a SW, or if the 2:1 rule was changed to be (SW+DF);MF;FW rather than just DF;MF;FW.

But excellent analysis all the same, but by just counting the 3 stats and not their relatives to other teams is not quiet scientific as some teams want the more shots (L) and others want less (B).

Steve (Asteria) - Thursday 04-10-08 14:06
Brian has beaten me here (and it's not often I can say that in Olmec), but tells me I already proposed this somewhere before. SW ought to be included in the 2:1 calculation.

And something I also thought of that might make EC a little harder: as it stands an EC side only really needs 14 players for a T17 and the 3 midfielders can rotate 2 per game (I should know as it's how I play in SESL). Any CP that might be put into MF can be put into DF and WG instead. 2 CP for a MF adds just 1 DEF and 1 OFF, put 1 CP in each of DF and WG and you get 0.5 GP, 1 DEF and 1.9 OFF. Who needs MFs?

So how about making the 2:1 rule for EC being the same as for the other tactics, so you at least need some decent MF.

On an unrelated note, so that SWs can score more goals (Kenny Burns used to go up for corners and Forest did not play O, but BC or F), instead of DF-OFF being 0.25 with SW or 0.20 if no SW, have all DFs and SW at 0.20 for OFF.

Tim (Zaragoza) - Thursday 04-10-08 16:51

I know it is all interelated, but maybe start a separate SW thread. Personally, I think SW is fine as is, and essentially denying SW to BC teams due to 2:1 is a good thing. Also, allowing DFs to be more attacking when playing a SW makes sense.

On the L/EC question, SW playing N is good because marking costs more, while SW not able to play BC is also good because marking costs less than reduction of OFF. Having both is too much. If OTF became a % added to DEF & OFF, that would help and probably be better than adjusting the MF bonus for BC. (And on reflection, 10% for OTF of 10 looks about right.)

I still stand by my opening suggestion for modifying the L & EC multipliers though.

Phil (Missouri) - Saturday 04-12-08 13:44
I agree that SW is fine as it is. Every change we make makes a ripple through other parts of the game. This whole discussion about EC/L is a result of a prior change. "Never take a fence down until you consider the reasons why you put it up." Old cat saying.
All Topics