MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
 The Trade Window is currently open...
Team Building
All Topics
Allan (Memphis) - Sunday 09-25-11 20:31

I'd like to blow up TP and move to a format where apprentices and possibly age 1s gain SL by playing games.

Joking aside, sometimes you do need to rebuild a team.   Given the choice in that circumstance a bad team might want to "take the losses" and instead build apprentices (as many as they could) by simply playing them.

For CP, I think we need more of them.  But I think we should consider moving to a format where you spend CP equal to their next SL gain.  If you want to CP that SL 30 player...fine, then you spend 31 CP on him.   

Maybe blow up mid-season aging altogether and have a plan to:
Season 1 - You lose 2 x SL of your next age at the end of the season.  So a 4/25 becomes a 5/15.

Season 2 - You lose 1.5 x SL of your next age at the end of the season.  So a 4/20 becomes a 5/12 (or so).

Season 3 - Its a constant where you lose SL for your next age.

Pull back all the CP on 5 players...revamp the format so some players can only go up by 3-7 SLs a season based on their age.

I have lots of ideas...

David (Barnsley) - Sunday 09-25-11 22:09

Some of the above naturally comes from United and that in itself is not a bad idea. Would be nice to obtain a lot more CPs and use them to coach players up - but why does that player need to play at least 45 minutes?

Let a player be coached/trained up whilst sitting on the bench or not even picked? (And I think the CP losses you suggest seem a bit draconian but they are at least for discussing. E.G. a 4,25 is a cracking player but a 5,15 is near retirement and that happens in one fell swoop. Needs to be a bit less harsh or managers might all settle on teams playing younger ages around the 15-20 mark to minimise the losses. Worth more ideas though!

Allan (Memphis) - Sunday 09-25-11 22:29

Agreed on the Draconian part David.   Not a fully detailed plan there, but just some examples.   Any change would need to be phased in a little, but in my opinion shouldn't take too long to phase in, so that's all open for discussion.

What it feels like Olmec is missing right now to me is 'solid balance'.   I'd like to see balance whereby, for example, a TOP team has to decide if they "work on building youth players" or "playing their T-11".   While a LOWER team has to decide if they try to win or they try to build (it should be easy that they try to build).

But that try to build part seems out of balance right now to me.

And there are other resource aspects of the game that need to be "balance improved".   

And yes, I'm okay with the "coach/train" the player on the bench approach too.

In that vein though I'd like to see a return of "how much you can CP at one time".  The original rule-set back in the 1980s called for players to gradually improve over the season.   Maybe you pull it back to "only Coach one player per game"?

Steve (Asteria) - Monday 09-26-11 13:26
I haven't played United for a long time so can't remember the rules. The 31 CP to increase the SL of an SL 30 player is similar to Flatnz and I liked that rule.

As for the draconian measures, I think SL levels are too high anyway. A 5/15 might be close to retirement today but he'd have a spot in my team and could be T11 if all SLs are lower.

Coaching only one player per game might be going too far though.

John (Richmond) - Monday 09-26-11 23:04

My simple suggestion is for MSWL at least making CPs more expensive, starting next season.

19 of 24 teams have the full 50 CP. Because it's easier to train up 5 players, the 5/15 is much less useful because he's competing with players in the 30's. No one has less than 40 CP to start the season; that's 4 players with full CP 10, or 5 players with CP 8.

It would also help to reduce the cash floating around a little bit, and make it easier for teams to rebuild using the youth route.

Steve (Asteria) - Tuesday 09-27-11 13:38
The good thing about CP being cheap is that nearly every team can afford 50 so there's less advantage to the richest.
Alon (Gauteng) - Tuesday 09-27-11 17:50

My main concern with Als suggestion is that is how United works.It works really great in United but I like to have the two games as different as possible.

Mike (Providence) - Tuesday 09-27-11 19:19

What I really like about United is that you gain CP based on performance.  The better you perform, the more CP you have.  I love the way it builds extra incentive into the game.  

Allan (Memphis) - Tuesday 09-27-11 21:24

I respect the folks commenting that these are United ideas, like with what Alon mentioned.

I struggle with suggesting things from United as I agree...we have "that" game, why should MSWL be a copy.

I don't think it should be a copy.  Differences are good, like the EL management of this game and the subsitution/tactical changes.

For me, Olmec has a very good level of interaction.  It has rules and code that haven't changed much the past few seasons so there's a lot of consistency and familiarity.   However, the resources management aspect of it, which I think is a key seems like it has gotten out of balance and is broken.   There's too much SL variation between a new player and a superstar.  There's not enough random injuries making you build a team rather than just a few stars.  

I have heard arguments that: "if you spread out CP to too many players then all teams will be the same roster of 20 SL 15 players".   I reject the argument.   This is what we do in United and it works fine.   The difference between 1 or 2 SLs in United is important.  But in this game the difference is huge.  I'd probably start by cutting all the SL in half.

Candidly though I think the team building aspect has become too off kilter.  As I mentioned I'd rather see a new balance where teams have to decide if they focus on their stars (and not on playing youth) or playing youth and overtaking that strong team in a couple of seasons.

I'd want the weaker teams to feel like if they build their team with youth they can be competitive in a couple of years.   I'm not sure that's always the case right now.

The bottom line for me is that the United ideas come to mind as they work very well now.  They aren't necessarily the way to go here, I'm sure there are other good ideas.   But I think we need to analyze/improve the resource management/balance of the game.   It feels lacking right now.    

Maybe there's an approach where a team chooses at the beginning of the season:

Pay X to get X CPs


Pay X to get X TPs (or an approach where you can bring up extra apprentices via your "Youth Academy" or whatever you call it)

So a conscious decision of going for "winning now" or "winning in two seasons".

The approaches need not be entirely on each end of the spectrum, maybe there's a "middle road" offering where you can balance CP purchase w/TP purchase (or again free apprentices where the more they play the more SL they grow which is my preference).

Maybe that's a way to go...though it needs more discussion.

Alon (Gauteng) - Thursday 09-29-11 7:35

I think Al may be onto something with his final idea.

We essentially get 50CP and 34 TP at the beginning of each season.Allowing the managers too choose how many CP and how many TP they get would allow managers to have building seasons where they train up many players and thereafter winning seasons where those same players are CP up to the maximum. We could maintain the same balance we have now where the first 34 points are free(in the new schedule they will be either CP or TP) and thereafter CP/TP are paid for at the same rate that we currently pay for CP.

What I really like about this solution is that it is a MSWL sort solution and does not make the game more similar tgo United.It is also simple so their is less chance of causing major unintended consequences. 

All Topics