Jump to content

"Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"


Recommended Posts

New game world announcement!

The idea is to create a realistic yet fun environment, where the emphasis almost solely lies around the financial aspects of football. Now obviously, this isn't a new concept, as many will tell you, but a couple of aspects will make this one unique.

Starting off with the structure: sixteen teams spread over two divisions. [barcelona, Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid, Valencia, Bayern Munich, Wolfsburg, Dortmund, Juventus, Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Roma, Paris Saint-Germain and Benfica].

Every team starts off with an empty squad and an enormous budget. Each manager will be allowed to pick three players of their real-life team [e.g. Messi, Rakitic, Mascherano - Barcelona] as guaranteed names. It is important that each of these players play in different positions [e.g. Messi - Forward; Rakitic - Midfielder; Mascherano - Defender]. Bar these players, the remaining players are put into a massive draft, sorted by rating and position. This is to ensure a fair distribution for the first season; one that will be modified along the course of the seasons that follow. The first season will be relatively quiet in terms of transfers, but hopefully the draft will compensate for that.

The actual draft will be held using random.org, with average ratings deciding who goes first and so on. Once every team has eighteen first-team and five youth-team players, the season can commence, with the objective being simple: end as high as you can. No further rules will be instated for the first season.

For the seasons that follow, the system will always be pretty similar: every team will get five "rules" and five "objectives", so ten in total. The rules are the ones that will either have a positive or negative impact on your budget, with the objectives providing smaller bonuses if met. However, if these aren't met, there will be no negative consequences.

The format of these rules and objectives are according to a certain template:

(1): Rule - Senior player [...] must at least feature # times.

(2): Rule - Junior player [...] must at least feature # times.

(3): Rule - A senior player of rating [...] must be signed from external.

(4): Rule - A junior player of rating [...] must be signed from external.

(5): Rule - The club must finish at least in [...] position.

Rules (1) and (2) ensure equal distribution of the endeavours. If noticing that a team is player hogging, the rule might spread over multiple players, although for that to happen you would have to be seriously hogging, so to say. Rules (3) and (4) ensure an active market engaging the externals; this is simply to avoid inflation and keep the market running steadily. Rule (5) is entirely dependant on the average rating of the squad - no complex algorithm required here, as the team with the highest average rating is expected to end first and vice versa.

Moving on to the objectives:

(1): Objective - If a player scores # goals, the club will be rewarded with [...]M.

(2): Objective - If a goalkeeper keeps # clean sheets, the club gets [...]M.

(3): Objective - If a player gets an average rating of [...], the club gets [...]M.

(4): Objective - If a captain successfully leads his team to # victories, the club will be rewarded with [...]M.

(5): Objective - If any player ends in the top five average divisional performers, the club will get [...]M.

All the rewards/punishments are things I'd like to discuss with those who are interested; as I believe that that is the only way to conquer any form of bias. On that note, I would also like to see every manager write the rules and objectives for another manager (selected through random.org), and this in the most objective way possible, as this will go through a process of scrutinisation.

As is custom in any GW, the concept of internal trading will also be pivotal, but in this case handily modified, as once again random.org will provide us with the ideal platform to indulge in an optimal fair trade. Every season, three players of every team will have a specific release clause; one that cannot be surpassed. In the scenario of multiple teams bidding within a window of twenty-four hours, we will resort to random.org to determine the "winner". This will work with probabilities (# of entries per team in a draw), once again requiring a general vote and a decisive conclusion to follow. Obviously, these players with a clause will not be chosen randomly; all depends on team and individual success. Say a team like Bayern does very well, but a certain Mario Götze does not feature enough to justify his rating, he will most likely be subject to a clause.

Other than these clauses, teams can come to an agreement regarding a player, but this within specific market dates, located before the season and between turns five and seven. To make sure that this is not abused, every deal requires full transparency, with the idea being to keep the market as "unsaturated" as possible. And although this might ****** market activity, it will reinforce team stability and make the setup much more realistic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To notch up the difficulty level, I thought of giving managers a reference number; a number that will always be used when addressing them on a social platform. This is very important, as announcements will always include a reference number, meaning that awareness is a must - a missed announcement can have disastrous effects. These announcements will regard player and financial statuses. Similar to the rule writing, every manager will be responsible for another's status managing, with weekly updates mandatory. Missing an update once will result in a warning; twice will mean a small penalty.

The format of such an announcement will be as such:

"Manager [...] has a budget of [...], with a wage/turn of [...]. Player [...] has (not) performed as expected and as a result is [...]." The first blank is to be filled in by the reference number (hence the difficulty), with the second and third numbers being the values shown by SM. The player in question can be any player, free to choose, as this ensures a kind of a storyline touch to the setup. Obviously, the objective is to be as realistic as possible with these messages, unless of course the objective is to emulate the Daily Mail.

The above is still subject to others' opinions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for wage structures and budgets, I would also like to get opinions from people interested, although definitive structures would possibly be things established after the initial draft (depending on the format of the teams).

Those who are interested, please let me know. I would like to see the setup take off sometime beginning July.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interest list so far:

1. Sir Rahul

2. Keystone

3. Raahizer

4. Huddo

5. Keith Fitz

6. Ben C

7. Kopstar

8. Safir

9. Chrismackz

10. Gozzy

11. Stevie GI

12. TomOwen

13. Mathias X

14. Scrooll

15. Closer

16. Noisy

17. Pip

18. Nikidinho

19. Branislav Tokovic

20.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Bear with me Safir; I first want to check whether everyone is okay with the teams (and terms). In the mean time, I had a look at some of the filter options on Transfermarkt, which includes filtering

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare" But okay Ben; if you're not keen on putting your name down due to the canniness of it, I perfectly understand.

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Alas' date=' I would have to give you credit on having the initial idea...

The concept would be similar, but more refined, if I may say so myself.[/quote']

Well then Ani by all means give me credit on the initial post, after all it copies everything within FFP, transfer budgets, wage budgets, objectives, rules, punishments, clauses, bonuses etc...

Essentially it's FFP with a draft at the start and allowing other people to make rules...

I don't happen to think it's more refined though, it's not all calculated in a formulaic manner and I think you'll run into problems with it without adapting, particularly with rules being created by everyone separately. In a complex GW you need a single leader open to suggestions because not everyone will be online to help out. However that would mean making it even more like FFP.

Release clauses too... where I have seen those before... :P

I hope you're not planing on nicking any of my systems for budget and wage calculation without permission too I spent time and effort making them specifically for FFP.

It would have been nice though to be told you were going to copy pretty much everything about FFP before this post though, at least to show a bit of credit and respect where it is due...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Well then Ani by all means give me credit on the initial post' date=' after all it copies everything within FFP, transfer budgets, wage budgets, objectives, rules, punishments, clauses, bonuses etc...

Essentially it's FFP with a draft at the start and allowing other people to make rules...

I don't happen to think it's more refined though, it's not all calculated in a formulaic manner and I think you'll run into problems with it without adapting, particularly with rules being created by everyone separately. In a complex GW you need a single leader open to suggestions because not everyone will be online to help out. However that would mean making it even more like FFP.

Release clauses too... where I have seen those before... :P

I hope you're not planing on nicking any of my systems for budget and wage calculation without permission too I spent time and effort making them specifically for FFP.[/quote']

By no means does it copy "everything" your GW offers; it simply smoothens out the inequalities a GW of your complexity faces. And that in itself would definitely suggest a strong resemblance with your model, but intrinsic reading says otherwise - the idea is create a more realistic platform, and by that I'm not stating that yours isn't, but I feel that this one wouldn't be as prone to a dead end as yours currently is (take that however you want).

The foundations are different; an equal start would avoid controversy with the rules, as that has been a retarding factor in many a complex setup. Templates and equal work distribution makes the world more interactive and cognitive.

This really isn't even FFP, as I don't expect any team to really commit offences, bar of course not living up to one or multiple rules. The squad sizes will always be regulated through the transfer activity, which once again has no resemblance with your model whatsoever. For starters, all the release fees will be discussed in group and based on values stated by TM, thereby avoiding inflation.

And as a result, I will be using completely different algorithms; ones that I'd like all those who are interested to have a say in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

By no means does it copy "everything" your GW offers; it simply smoothens out the inequalities a GW of your complexity faces. And that in itself would definitely suggest a strong resemblance with your model' date=' but intrinsic reading says otherwise - the idea is create a more realistic platform, and by that I'm not stating that yours isn't, but I feel that this one wouldn't be as prone to a dead end as yours currently is (take that however you want).

The foundations are different; an equal start would avoid controversy with the rules, as that has been a retarding factor in many a complex setup. [b']Templates[/b] and equal work distribution makes the world more interactive and cognitive.

This really isn't even FFP, as I don't expect any team to really commit offences, bar of course not living up to one or multiple rules. The squad sizes will always be regulated through the transfer activity, which once again has no resemblance with your model whatsoever. For starters, all the release fees will be discussed in group and based on values stated by TM, thereby avoiding inflation.

And as a result, I will be using completely different algorithms; ones that I'd like all those who are interested to have a say in.

Ani, it copies the whole concept... with as far as I can see 2 differences.

The GW FFP is not unequal if you manage correctly ;) look at Bilbao.

FFP is not 'prone to a dead end' and if it is why join and use the same ideas for this all but identical set up?

The start is not equal at all. A team with Barcelona will no doubt select Messi, Iniesta and Pique etc? They instantly have a huge advantage... If you want it to be completely fair make it a complete draft not a partial one.

If you look at FFP I said at the start we have big and smaller clubs as a challlenge, we've had many successful big and small clubs in the 3 seasons look where Barcelona are now for example?

Every time rules are made I discuss them with the GW on the forum and we make a decision, honestly you need someone to make a decision for everyone or the rules will be disputed, it's less fair for everyone to make a rule and more fair to give one person that role as at least then everyone is judged the same.

The squad sizes for FFP are regulated by transfer activity, that was the point of the set up, wage and transfer budgets dictate market activity resulting in low squad teams, which we have even the best team in the league only has 26 players!

It has complete resemblance some of which may be accidental through your own lack of understanding of how FFP works as a concept but if I could give this idea of 'Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare' a DNA test, I'd definitely be the father!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Essentially if you are going to make something this similar to FFP, it would have been great to have mentioned it to me for a few reasons;

  1. Respect - You've participated in the GW long enough to know how long it took to come up with all the above, it would have been nice for you to say, 'I like FFP but want to make a GW similar with a few changes' it shows a bit of gratitude and respect that I would give to any forumer if I were using their ideas.
  2. Assistance - Believe it or not Ani, I could help you greatly in making this or something similar to FFP a success because it is more difficult then you think to make everyone happy, keep things balanced and fair because some managers are just better SM players and you can't really punish them for it, just like I can't punish Kop for being successful with Bayern. If you want this to go well and be similar to FFP but better you'll probably need my help.
  3. Credit - Given the distinct similarities, which I am sure if I were to ask any past or present member of FFP about they would agree with me on, you could have at least put on your opening post that you explicitly understand that you have been influenced by the GW. By your own admission (just now) you are trying to improve it how you feel it could be improved so why not just be honest and say so on the initial post.

It's great that you feel inspired to try and adapt FFP for your own preferences, it would be even better though if you were to give credit where it is due though.

I haven't said I'm not interested in helping out either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Ani' date=' it copies the whole concept... with as far as I can see 2 differences.

The GW FFP is not unequal if you manage correctly ;) look at Bilbao.

FFP is not 'prone to a dead end' and if it is why join and use the same ideas for this all but identical set up?

The start is not equal at all. A team with Barcelona will no doubt select Messi, Iniesta and Pique etc? They instantly have a huge advantage... If you want it to be completely fair make it a complete draft not a partial one.

If you look at FFP I said at the start we have big and smaller clubs as a challlenge, we've had many successful big and small clubs in the 3 seasons look where Barcelona are now for example?

Every time rules are made I discuss them with the GW on the forum and we make a decision, honestly you need someone to make a decision for everyone or the rules will be disputed, it's less fair for everyone to make a rule and more fair to give one person that role as at least then everyone is judged the same.

The squad sizes for FFP are regulated by transfer activity, that was the point of the set up, wage and transfer budgets dictate market activity resulting in low squad teams, which we have even the best team in the league only has 26 players!

It has complete resemblance some of which may be accidental through your own lack of understanding of how FFP works as a concept but if I could give this idea of 'Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare' a DNA test, I'd definitely be the father![/quote']

Once again - far from identical.

Funny you mention Bilbao, as the person in question had a long chat with me regarding the state of things, and whilst he undoubtedly wasn't "upset" by the current state of affairs, there were quite a few mentions of instability coming from him, not me. Plus, you could say the complete opposite looking at Everton.

The main dead end is the inflation - nothing more to add to that, and that is the sole reason as to why this market will be completely unique, starting from the word "go".

The equal distribution and overall transparency of FFP has always been a worry, not only to me but to many others. Once again, a different yet consistent structure will change that and the entire dimension of this GW.

Concerning the partial draft pick, the decision to choose say Messi over Neymar will not be that simple, as bigger names come with exponentially bigger expectations. And once again, the rigid yet flexible structure will enhance the experience by making the market more watertight.

Squad sizes are good and all of that, but at the end of the day quality matters too, and that will be a main focus, along with many other (predominantly) financial ones.

But I understand that you feel somewhat insulted by the whole thing, just may I ask you not to comment further if there is no genuine interest? Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Once again - far from identical.

Funny you mention Bilbao' date=' as the person in question had a long chat with me regarding the state of things, and whilst he undoubtedly wasn't "upset" by the current state of affairs, there were quite a few mentions of instability coming from him, not me. Plus, you could say the complete opposite looking at Everton.

The main dead end is the inflation - nothing more to add to that, and that is the sole reason as to why this market will be completely unique, starting from the word "go".

The equal distribution and overall transparency of FFP has always been a worry, not only to me but to many others. Once again, a different yet consistent structure will change that and the entire dimension of this GW.

Concerning the partial draft pick, the decision to choose say Messi over Neymar will not be that simple, as bigger names come with exponentially bigger expectations. And once again, the rigid yet flexible structure will enhance the experience by making the market more watertight.

Squad sizes are good and all of that, but at the end of the day quality matters too, and that will be a main focus, along with many other (predominantly) financial ones.

But I understand that you feel somewhat insulted by the whole thing, just may I ask you not to comment further if there is no genuine interest? Thank you.[/quote']

I've also had a chat with him about the GW and his expectations of it too :P he's unhappy about losing out on a few players to other teams for example Mert going for £21m etc also probably has something to do with the fact he upset the whole GW a few days ago..

Everton are much stronger than when they started in all areas.

Inflation is natural, but Ani I anticipated inflation in FFP, you will see how new systems work strongly against it in Season 5 if you wait around for it :P

Everyone can see how every calculation is made, how much more transparent do you want, if I could go back I would use the calculations from the word go, but they will sort out the issues naturally over time :)

You can't have consistency if everyone makes up a rule Ani, you need one person with their own criteria for rule creation, this can be finessed for the individual with power and transparent too if you set out criteria for rules but requires a lot of thought and won't be possible with a everyone making rules.

Also Ani, you can't completely control the market, because you can't control people. You can try to steer a market one way, and BOOM one surprise transfer and it moves another, that's the beauty of SM and the transfer marker it's unpredictability that's what most SM users I know enjoy, making transfers, because the match engine itself is not the best.

If your objective is to make an equal set up in terms of quality then again that is possible, but how fun will it be for a successful side to not be able to improve more than an unsuccessful side. At some point you have to reward people for doing better than others and without meaning to cause offence here a club like AS Roma in FFP is hard to reward due to the consistent 7th/8th place finishes whereas Everton, Bilbao etc get big rewards when they do well :) in fact Bilbao had the biggest transfer budget in the GW this season :)

There is an interest Ani, and I could help you quite a lot with making this work a bit better than how it would as it stands but as I've said before you should be acknowledging where the idea for this originates from; Financial Fair Play, Reality Check and Performance Review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Alas' date=' I would have to give you credit on having the initial idea...

The concept would be similar, but more refined, if I may say so myself.[/quote']

He got the idea from BroodroosterNL and I.

But there has been gameworlds before too I believe.

THE ORIGINAL FFP ;):P

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?t=123627

Thread provided as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

I've also had a chat with him about the GW and his expectations of it too :P he's unhappy about losing out on a few players to other teams for example Mert going for £21m etc also probably has something to do with the fact he upset the whole GW a few days ago..

When did we have a chat dear?

Ben, I see the concept is taken from the FFP thread but there are some big changes that Ani has to be credited with. The first season is totally different and the working out of release clauses is much more refined I feel.

You can put me down Ani.

EDIT: Ben, just checked the page and Pip's post shows that you also copied the idea? The only credit you have is the budget system and clauses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

I've also had a chat with him about the GW and his expectations of it too :P he's unhappy about losing out on a few players to other teams for example Mert going for £21m etc also probably has something to do with the fact he upset the whole GW a few days ago..

Everton are much stronger than when they started in all areas.

Inflation is natural' date=' but Ani I anticipated inflation in FFP, you will see how new systems work strongly against it in Season 5 if you wait around for it :P

Everyone can see how every calculation is made, how much more transparent do you want, if I could go back I would use the calculations from the word go, but they will sort out the issues naturally over time :)

You can't have consistency if everyone makes up a rule Ani, you need one person with their own criteria for rule creation, this can be finessed for the individual with power and transparent too if you set out criteria for rules but requires a lot of thought and won't be possible with a everyone making rules.

Also Ani, you can't completely control the market, because you can't control people. You can try to steer a market one way, and BOOM one surprise transfer and it moves another, that's the beauty of SM and the transfer marker it's unpredictability that's what most SM users I know enjoy, making transfers, because the match engine itself is not the best.

If your objective is to make an equal set up in terms of quality then again that is possible, but how fun will it be for a successful side to not be able to improve more than an unsuccessful side. At some point you have to reward people for doing better than others and without meaning to cause offence here a club like AS Roma in FFP is hard to reward due to the consistent 7th/8th place finishes whereas Everton, Bilbao etc get big rewards when they do well :) in fact Bilbao had the biggest transfer budget in the GW this season :)

There is an interest Ani, and I could help you quite a lot with making this work a bit better than how it would as it stands but as I've said before you should be acknowledging where the idea for this originates from; Financial Fair Play, Reality Check and Performance Review.[/quote']

Inflation is most definitely a natural occurrence, and I will be intrigued to see how you conquer it in season five, as I for one believe that the current inflation has created a point of no return. Everton might be somewhat stronger than the team they initially were, but teams with bigger budgets are clearly setting the market trend, making it hard for many to keep up with it (including Everton). And unless season five holds a complete recalculation of the budgets, I can't really see that creating the ideal market environment I look to achieve.

As for the rule system, there have been many occasions where the rules just haven't convened with what the other managers think, and some of us have mentioned it time and again: it is an unconquerable bias that one faces when having all the power, which is fully acceptable. However, it is retarding, as we saw this season, with the window opening way after the actual season started, and whilst I do think you got the rules pretty much spot on this season, small conflicts like these cost a lot of time.

This would be avoidable with the template situation I suggest, making the rulings more objective whilst able to distribute the work evenly. Hell, that could even make the GW more regular, as everyone will be expected to do more than the bare minimum - every manager holds an equal stake in the GW.

(1): Rule - Senior player [...] must at least feature # times.

(2): Rule - Junior player [...] must at least feature # times.

(3): Rule - A senior player of rating [...] must be signed from external.

(4): Rule - A junior player of rating [...] must be signed from external.

(5): Rule - The club must finish at least in [...] position.

(1): Objective - If a player scores # goals, the club will be rewarded with [...]M.

(2): Objective - If a goalkeeper keeps # clean sheets, the club gets [...]M.

(3): Objective - If a player gets an average rating of [...], the club gets [...]M.

(4): Objective - If a captain successfully leads his team to # victories, the club will be rewarded with [...]M.

(5): Objective - If any player ends in the top five average divisional performers, the club will get [...]M.

For the first five (the "rules"), the values will be pretty unanimous: a mid-table divisional team should receive 5M for every rule they fulfil, with a subtraction of 5M for rule they don't - a clear but simple bonus-malus system. Only rule 5 will have a touch of complexity, as for that there will be an algorithm set in place. Generally, every team should be able to pocket at least 30M, with standouts pocketing somewhere near 40M and underachievers less (around 20M) from the rules only.

The objectives are slightly more complicated, but there again the ideal would be to work with a fixed set of numbers, ranging between 3-5M for every objective. And as none of the objectives are really "easy", the bonus system will feel more like a bonus rather than a fulfilment.

The thing about the market is the following: by no means do I look to create a fully unsaturated market, as I do believe inflated fees to be a common occurrence, and I do somewhat regard this as a "pleasant" surprise (as you mention). However, the restrictions I look to implement will ensure that an inflated fee does not create a chain reaction of inflation, which can severely damage a GW if not dealt with promptly, hence the distinction between the rules and the objectives. If a manager is caught player hogging, the rules will spread over multiple players, restricting his selection and possibly forcing him to sell.

As for the actual market activity, the GW would be a system closely intertwined with a RND generator (random.org), to ensure a completely random, yet logical approach. Working with probabilities isn't that big a deal really; the idea would be to give someone equal chances, and whilst I'm not complaining about the current state of my club in FFP, that would for example be one of the things I would look to conquer. Making it a partial draft from the beginning helps as well, as if you take FUT, you would know that building a team around one player is far easier than building one around three. This will definitely require a lot of thinking prior to selecting; hence the complexity of a partial draft.

If anything, the concoction of activities would make this a more active concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

He got the idea from BroodroosterNL and I.

But there has been gameworlds before too I believe.

THE ORIGINAL FFP ;):P

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?t=123627

Thread provided as well.

Ok and now for the full story :)

If you are still in touch with Brood you'd know that I took over the original set up with him after Kevin left and began working on the rules for it but if you want proof just look at page 73 on that thread.

Then when I was creating this version of FFP' date=' I made sure to credit both the original set up, Performance Review and Reality Check owners by speaking to them about the idea and asking if they would be ok with it first. They were all really supportive of it and it meant no bad blood between GW's, in fact a few of the owners joined the set up to support it.

If you don't believe me then check that thread you linked in page 73 onwards myself and Brood took over.

I started to make more rules based around finances with caps etc but unfortunately two family members and a very close friend of mine died whilst I was finishing off the rules. Then my partner was hospitalised with her heart condition so I quit SM all together for about 8 months.

So after a massive absence from SM I decided to reboot FFP thread below.

[url']http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?t=162907[/url]

I generated a lot of interest and credited the initial FFP in the opening post, I invited the previous members of the original too, whoever was left. However the idea developed a lot between the two.

Unfortunately into the process of creating the GW my partner fell Ill again and I had to care for her a bit longer. However as soon as she was better I created the current FFP thread and GW.

It differs a lot from the original idea but was undoubtably influenced by it hence the name, I made it very clear where these ideas all came from and anyone involved in the previous GW would understand and appreciate that. We changed things to make it more accesible especially with the selection of teams which went from smaller clubs to big teams, something I feel helped people feel more engaged with their clubs, in fact the inclusion of Athletic Club and Everton, if you were to pay any attention, were nods of recognition to my two favourite original Financial Fair Play clubs, one of which I managed (Athletic Club).

At no point have I ever not credited the original FFP just check the threads properly.

I'm interested as well. Liked the way FFP worked (from an outsider's POV) and I think this league is pretty similar. Game for a challenge. ;)

Of course it's similar' date=' he's making his preferred version of FFP taking all the ideas from other people without crediting them...

When did we have a chat dear?

Ben, I see the concept is taken from the FFP thread but there are some big changes that Ani has to be credited with. The first season is totally different and the working out of release clauses is much more refined I feel.

You can put me down Ani.

EDIT: Ben, just checked the page and Pip's post shows that you also copied the idea? The only credit you have is the budget system and clauses?

We had a chat about your rules, you weren't happy, I then discovered you had a few gripes with another manager over them selling a player elsewhere for more money etc you also had a go at most members in the GW at one point too :P

Don't patronise me by calling me dear...

As I have said before there are 2 changes he's made to my version of FFP. But at no point has he credited the set up or spoke to me about it, which I find a bit rude to be honest and I know many people agree with me on this.

Also Raahizar if you bothered to read the thread properly you'd know how heavily involved I was in the setting up of Financial Fair Play and it's continuation.

Inflation is most definitely a natural occurrence' date=' and I will be intrigued to see how you conquer it in season five, as I for one believe that the current inflation has created a point of no return. Everton might be somewhat stronger than the team they initially were, but teams with bigger budgets are clearly setting the market trend, making it hard for many to keep up with it (including Everton). And unless season five holds a complete recalculation of the budgets, I can't really see that creating the ideal market environment I look to achieve.

As for the rule system, there have been many occasions where the rules just haven't convened with what the other managers think, and some of us have mentioned it time and again: it is an unconquerable bias that one faces when having all the power, which is fully acceptable. However, it is retarding, as we saw this season, with the window opening way after the actual season started, and whilst I do think you got the rules pretty much spot on this season, small conflicts like these cost a lot of time.

This would be avoidable with the template situation I suggest, making the rulings more objective whilst able to distribute the work evenly. Hell, that could even make the GW more regular, as everyone will be expected to do more than the bare minimum - every manager holds an equal stake in the GW.

(1): Rule - Senior player [...'] must at least feature # times.

(2): Rule - Junior player [...] must at least feature # times.

(3): Rule - A senior player of rating [...] must be signed from external.

(4): Rule - A junior player of rating [...] must be signed from external.

(5): Rule - The club must finish at least in [...] position.

(1): Objective - If a player scores # goals, the club will be rewarded with [...]M.

(2): Objective - If a goalkeeper keeps # clean sheets, the club gets [...]M.

(3): Objective - If a player gets an average rating of [...], the club gets [...]M.

(4): Objective - If a captain successfully leads his team to # victories, the club will be rewarded with [...]M.

(5): Objective - If any player ends in the top five average divisional performers, the club will get [...]M.

For the first five (the "rules"), the values will be pretty unanimous: a mid-table divisional team should receive 5M for every rule they fulfil, with a subtraction of 5M for rule they don't - a clear but simple bonus-malus system. Only rule 5 will have a touch of complexity, as for that there will be an algorithm set in place. Generally, every team should be able to pocket at least 30M, with standouts pocketing somewhere near 40M and underachievers less (around 20M) from the rules only.

The objectives are slightly more complicated, but there again the ideal would be to work with a fixed set of numbers, ranging between 3-5M for every objective. And as none of the objectives are really "easy", the bonus system will feel more like a bonus rather than a fulfilment.

The thing about the market is the following: by no means do I look to create a fully unsaturated market, as I do believe inflated fees to be a common occurrence, and I do somewhat regard this as a "pleasant" surprise (as you mention). However, the restrictions I look to implement will ensure that an inflated fee does not create a chain reaction of inflation, which can severely damage a GW if not dealt with promptly, hence the distinction between the rules and the objectives. If a manager is caught player hogging, the rules will spread over multiple players, restricting his selection and possibly forcing him to sell.

As for the actual market activity, the GW would be a system closely intertwined with a RND generator (random.org), to ensure a completely random, yet logical approach. Working with probabilities isn't that big a deal really; the idea would be to give someone equal chances, and whilst I'm not complaining about the current state of my club in FFP, that would for example be one of the things I would look to conquer. Making it a partial draft from the beginning helps as well, as if you take FUT, you would know that building a team around one player is far easier than building one around three. This will definitely require a lot of thinking prior to selecting; hence the complexity of a partial draft.

If anything, the concoction of activities would make this a more active concept.

What you don't seem to understand though is that by awarding teams £5m per rule you will inflate the market massively for bigger clubs right from the offing!

Any club that completes all their rules and objectives would be rewarded in theory with £50m. That money will then be used to buy players who will obviously be good ones.

Now say you have a team that consistently performs well each season because they have a good manager like Bayern in FFP, they will consistently receive cash for their objectives and buy better players. Your solution is to punish better players in the GW by accusing them of 'player hogging' and making their rules harder, no doubt impossible, to achieve? Doesn't seem fair that someone should be punished for performing well over a period of time and the whole point of SM is building a winning team is it not? So why hinder those that work hard to create a winning team? Does not seem fair and you will ruin the market and experience for anyone who is good at SM and knows how to win regularly.

I know because I've seen the effects of cash incentives!

Also making things random doesn't make it fair, it makes it random. A club in this system could miss out on every single target due to bad luck whereas different systems allow you to think about really who needs a player more and give the player to that team, which is fairer IMO. What happens if the biggest team in the GW wins on the random? Would you honestly feel happy giving them ANOTHER player to 'hog' as you say or would you be tempted to let the struggling lesser side have their day?

Also Ani, do you want to know how I know the draft pick thing won't work for this GW?

How are you going to afford all these draft picks? You know the max cash limit for any Custom GW starting budget is £300m.

Now say you give players a £100m budget for a team of 25 players they will only have £4m spend per player, or £200m (£8m per player) heck you might want them to have £300m (£12m per player). That is fine but think about this?

How many seasons do you want this GW to run? I'm guessing more than 1?

Now say a club manages to fulfil all their rules and objectives for 4 seasons? That's £200m they are owed right? Well then where is the next set of objective based money going to come from? Some teams won't be always making a profit, especially those smaller teams who will need to spend all their budgets to improve season after season, they'll be chipping away at that budget and SM's prize money won't offset that.

Also you say you don't want inflation to occcur, but it will and it could actually save this GW from the above! One team that performs excellently holding a lot of cash could save smaller clubs from not being able to participate at all later on.

But before all that consider how much fun will it be Ani for a manager who completes all his rules and objectives pocketing and deserving large sums of cash who is then able to buy better players than under performing managers who is then told he's essentially not allowed those players through rules designed to make him sell a team he worked hard for? How happy is he/she going to be?

Also your idea of player hogging is very different to others BTW, a club with only 26 players can't be accused of player hogging if they are successful enough to make most of those players good ones!

As I've said before Ani this is incredibly similar to FFP, do you not think I've considered a similar approach myself with some of these ideas?

I know that a draft is doomed to fail well before a basic set up. I have many ideas how you can improve this or even prevent this and still have a draft... all I ask is you put a little thing on the first post, 'Inspired by Financial Fair Play, Reality Check and Performance Review'.

Then I would gladly be on board and help you to make this as best as possible because I was thinking of Franchising FFP anyway :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

I still can't remember when we had a chat regarding my rules rather a SINGLE reply to each others posts.

Ben, I find your only issue regarding this is that you haven't been credited with the idea while implementing the rule of clauses in here as this is what I find identical to your FFP. Others like Rules,Wages,Budgets were all introduced by Pip and Brood?

Regarding having a go, I had a proper heated argument with KopStar only and for all you know, we have actually patched up and after that day, I have conversated with him more then anyone else.

No one can argue that you have refined the idea and should be credited with it and I think Ani did that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

I still can't remember when we had a chat regarding my rules rather a SINGLE reply to each others posts.

Ben' date=' I find your only issue regarding this is that you haven't been credited with the idea while implementing the rule of clauses in here as this is what I find identical to your FFP. Others like Rules,Wages,Budgets were all introduced by Pip and Brood?

Regarding having a go, I had a proper heated argument with KopStar only and for all you know, we have actually patched up and after that day, I have conversated with him more then anyone else.

No one can argue that you have refined the idea and should be credited with it and I think Ani did that?[/quote']

Crediting FFP doesn't just mean crediting me, it means crediting the legacy of it, hence Performance Review and Reality Check.

It's like submitting a University Dissertation with no references...

I know lots of things going on in the GW Raahizar ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Crediting FFP doesn't just mean crediting me' date=' it means crediting the legacy of it, hence Performance Review and Reality Check.

It's like submitting a University Dissertation with no references...

I know lots of things going on in the GW Raahizar ;)[/quote']

This doesn't matter, as you said in your previous posts that you should be credited with it so that's what I said, I wasn't part of it so spare me.

Hardly anything tbh, only disappointment from my side due to some ruling that I already said about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Crediting FFP doesn't just mean crediting me' date=' it means crediting the legacy of it, hence Performance Review and Reality Check.

It's like submitting a University Dissertation with no references...

I know lots of things going on in the GW Raahizar ;)[/quote']

I've been trying to not get involved with the discussion going on but I can't resist.

Ben you need to put your ego in check while you have put in a great amount of effort with FFP to make it an enjoyable experience that I for one have enjoyed. Many of the rules were in your favour and by being the sole person controlling the rules this is bound to happen.

If it wasn't for the feedback of many managers especially Tom Owen which led to an overhaul of the budgets FFP would not be where it is today.

I don't know the history of these other game world's you mention but if Ani wants your input I'm sure he would ask for it.

Your constant responses about needing your input are getting tiresome.

Good luck Ani with your gameworld I love the name and look forward to contributing to its success ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

What you don't seem to understand though is that by awarding teams £5m per rule you will inflate the market massively for bigger clubs right from the offing!

Any club that completes all their rules and objectives would be rewarded in theory with £50m. That money will then be used to buy players who will obviously be good ones.

Now say you have a team that consistently performs well each season because they have a good manager like Bayern in FFP' date=' they will consistently receive cash for their objectives and buy better players. Your solution is to punish better players in the GW by accusing them of 'player hogging' and making their rules harder, no doubt impossible, to achieve? Doesn't seem fair that someone should be punished for performing well over a period of time and the whole point of SM is building a winning team is it not? So why hinder those that work hard to create a winning team? Does not seem fair and you will ruin the market and experience for anyone who is good at SM and knows how to win regularly.

I know because I've seen the effects of cash incentives!

Also making things random doesn't make it fair, it makes it random. A club in this system could miss out on every single target due to bad luck whereas different systems allow you to think about really who needs a player more and give the player to that team, which is fairer IMO. What happens if the biggest team in the GW wins on the random? Would you honestly feel happy giving them ANOTHER player to 'hog' as you say or would you be tempted to let the struggling lesser side have their day?

Also Ani, do you want to know how I know the draft pick thing won't work for this GW?

How are you going to afford all these draft picks? You know the max cash limit for any Custom GW starting budget is £300m.

Now say you give players a £100m budget for a team of 25 players they will only have £4m spend per player, or £200m (£8m per player) heck you might want them to have £300m (£12m per player). That is fine but think about this?

How many seasons do you want this GW to run? I'm guessing more than 1?

Now say a club manages to fulfil all their rules and objectives for 4 seasons? That's £200m they are owed right? Well then where is the next set of objective based money going to come from? Some teams won't be always making a profit, especially those smaller teams who will need to spend all their budgets to improve season after season, they'll be chipping away at that budget and SM's prize money won't offset that.

Also you say you don't want inflation to occcur, but it will and it could actually save this GW from the above! One team that performs excellently holding a lot of cash could save smaller clubs from not being able to participate at all later on.

But before all that consider how much fun will it be Ani for a manager who completes all his rules and objectives pocketing and deserving large sums of cash who is then able to buy better players than under performing managers who is then told he's essentially not allowed those players through rules designed to make him sell a team he worked hard for? How happy is he/she going to be?

Also your idea of player hogging is very different to others BTW, a club with only 26 players can't be accused of player hogging if they are successful enough to make most of those players good ones!

As I've said before Ani this is incredibly similar to FFP, do you not think I've considered a similar approach myself with some of these ideas?

I know that a draft is doomed to fail well before a basic set up. I have many ideas how you can improve this or even prevent this and still have a draft... all I ask is you put a little thing on the first post, 'Inspired by Financial Fair Play, Reality Check and Performance Review'.

Then I would gladly be on board and help you to make this as best as possible because I was thinking of Franchising FFP anyway :P[/quote']

It won't inflate the market, as money is not carried over, and the idea is not to always spend all that money, as new money will always be available due to the leniency of the rules. So yes, money is being lost, but in real life that would be the equivalent of a club making bigger revenues. So if a team is successful and makes a lot of money in the process, but chooses not to spend the lot of it, that money is simply stored, and the club in question is lauded for its effectiveness. The money incentive is more to keep the smaller clubs in contention to succeed.

Once again, I don't mind seeing an inflated price once in a while, but the limitations will make sure that there is no domino effect. Say a club buys a player like Isco for 40M (possibly out of desperation), the amount of rules and objectives will make it more sensible for the manager receiving the money to either invest that in smaller or external targets, or simply store it up for a good buy. In other words, inflating is not a long-term option for anyone.

For your second point, there is no permutation that guarantees success in this game; with the engine dating from 2010, the results are as random as can be, which is good and bad at the same time. The good thing would be the longitude of it, people will not get sick and tired of the setup, as every season will be as challenging as the previous and the next. If a team succeeds in winning the league say three times, then I might be calling it a day, but the possibility of that happening three seasons in a row is incredibly low, especially with the structure I have in mind.

For the draft, I am well aware that it will be a heavy expense, but that is where the initial pick makes all the difference; however appealing it is to pick three players initially, it might come back to haunt you if you go all guns blazing from the start, which is why the partial draft is so complex. Plus, when playing in the WC Showdown GW, I had Argentina, and was perfectly able to accommodate a full squad of 23 players, spending about 200M in the process. The moment you place a cap on the amount of spendable money during the draft (say 200M), the rest will take care of itself, as you'll never blow the 100M away completely. The money that remains will be used during season two to spend on the players one desires (depending on the rules that is).

From the above, I hope you gather that this is by no means a fantasy football league. I fully expect the average rating of every club to lie around 90, not higher and definitely not lower. I've also already considered making the GW smaller; one division with ten teams, instead of sixteen teams over two divisions, ensuring a wider selection during the draft and better incomes (when activating the "very rich economy" setting on SM).

As I said, players will not needlessly be placed on the transfer list if the club is fairing well; there will be a select criteria judging whether the player should be transferred or not. If a team is doing well and all players are utilised as expected, I'd even give the manager the option of who he'd like to transfer.

I will definitely be reviewing the draft idea, as I don't think it's completely cushty yet, but I'm sure there is a perfectly viable solution to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...