Jump to content

"Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"


Recommended Posts

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

This doesn't matter' date=' 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.[/quote']

I said FFP should be credited :P

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 ;)

Huddo' date=' it's about recognising or referencing your ideas, it's good practice IRL.

FFP is where this idea has come from and FFP has been improved by its members. I haven't ever claimed FFP is just my idea and I've clearly shown it's progression.

You don't know the history of them but I do, and I think it would be nice if people were to recognise that these ideas have come from a long way back not out of nowhere, this isn't an RKO.

My responses about input will improve this GW Huddo as already I am bringing up very relevant points that need to be seriously considered if you want this GW to work, don't be naive and assume you can keep a lot of the structure of FFP and add a draft to it without serious problems in about 4/5 seasons.

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.

Ani, money isn't carried over in FFP either so what do people do? They spend it all and that means later on in the season clubs with lots of money left over, knowing they won't have it all next season, decided to end up spending big on players they want because they know that money can't carry over!

We all know that is what happens and that's why inflation occurs. You need something that keeps people from getting desperate with their money because nobody will be happy sitting on £50m of profit waiting for next season, they want to spend it on something better than what they have.

Also Ani, if you have a budget then of course people will spend it, you can't assume they won't or the GW won't work... there is a way to fix it though!

The money incentives have to be fair though and a draft idea should mean that from the start teams are a bit more evenly distributed, but after that point Ani I promise you have less control than you think over the transfer market, people make their own choices and you have to let them, that means that people who make good choices and do well should be rewarded but you shouldn't then reward people who make bad choices, they need to learn to make the better choices in order to have any sort of lasting competition in the GW.

Inflating will occur Ani, again though there are ways of reducing it.

Also Ani, success doesn't always mean winning the league, you have one rule where a league finish is required but 4 others related to appearances something easy to complete. A team can always make money regardless of how they actually perform, which doesn't make sense. A team performing in 8th place should not be making a lot of money based on how many games a player plays otherwise it gets boring when winning or losing has no real benefit or downside.

I know it's not going to be a fantasy league, a draft makes that impossible but Ani, realistically you're looking at averages of around 86-89 for a good few seasons, which even with a rich economy will cause havoc and some clubs will not survive long. Their budgets will be cut to the point that performing against your objectives no longer matters as they won't have the budget to spend in game.

Also Ani, it won't help having a smaller league. You need more teams so that more money can be pumped into the GW.

One Division of 10 with £300m each = £3,000m

Two Divisions of 8 with £300m each = £4,800m

That extra £1,800,000,000 will come in handy later on in the GW, you need a lot of total cash to have a draft, if anything Ani, and this is me helping, you need to make the GW bigger than FFP to have a draft AND keep it running for 5+ seasons without anyone running out of cash.

The problem is Ani that your idea of how a player should be used or performing is subjective, and people won't always agree.

The draft idea won't work as you present it, however I am willing to help out with showing you how you could make it work.

If you want this GW to work with a draft, rather than smaller you have to think bigger. There's a lot of ground work that needs putting into this.

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"

What do you think of very small clubs' date=' starting off with extremely small budgets, and eventually building up enough cash to buy the higher rated players?[/quote']

A really nice idea.

Suppose your team gets relegated but a certain player rises +8, he would want to leave to further progress his level and we can add a release clause. Would be different to the original idea and would add another interesting aspect. Draft would become a lot more easier. I think selecting bigger teams with us choosing three players from their youth or B sides from the word go would be make draft more easier and more balanced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

A really nice idea.

Suppose your team gets relegated but a certain player rises +8' date=' he would want to leave to further progress his level and we can add a release clause. Would be different to the original idea and would add another interesting aspect. Draft would become a lot more easier. I think selecting bigger teams with us choosing three players from their youth or B sides from the word go would be make draft more easier and more balanced.[/quote']

Yep, or we can buy players only under 70. Our budgets for the season can start off at 50k or something, which will be MAD!

And it would take a while before we can even buy 90 rated players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Yep' date=' or we can buy players only under 70. Our budgets for the season can start off at 50k or something, which will be MAD!

And it would take a while before we can even buy 90 rated players.[/quote']

Would be a stretch IMO, small budgets with no rating cap should do for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

What do you think of very small clubs' date=' starting off with extremely small budgets, and eventually building up enough cash to buy the higher rated players?[/quote']

You need big clubs, United, Barcelona etc to get the revenues needed to make big enough profits each season. So you must keep the big clubs in the GW for it to work however you don't have to make a Draft Bayern Munich the same as RL Bayern Munich.

The difference in ticket sales compared to wages would mean you'd get healthy profits for a few years to supplement the GW's £300m cap.

You wouldn't need to go that extreme though of 70 rated players, which tbh would be a bit boring, but that would be far more sustainable in the long term, people would need to be open to the idea of not having access to top players for a while though.

You could comfortably run the set up from say an 83 rating cap for buying players but no consequence for them rising :) other than you need to have the wage budget space for them.

That is more sustainable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

You need big clubs' date=' United, Barcelona etc to get the revenues needed to make big enough profits each season. So you must keep the big clubs in the GW for it to work however you don't have to make a Draft Bayern Munich the same as RL Bayern Munich.

The difference in ticket sales compared to wages would mean you'd get healthy profits for a few years to supplement the GW's £300m cap.

You wouldn't need to go that extreme though of 70 rated players, which tbh would be a bit boring, but that would be far more sustainable in the long term, people would need to be open to the idea of not having access to top players for a while though.

You could comfortably run the set up from say an 83 rating cap for buying players but no consequence for them rising :) other than you need to have the wage budget space for them.

That is more sustainable.[/quote']

Bigger clubs with small budgets and reserving three players from their youth/B teams should do the trick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

You need big clubs' date=' United, Barcelona etc to get the revenues needed to make big enough profits each season. So you must keep the big clubs in the GW for it to work however you don't have to make a Draft Bayern Munich the same as RL Bayern Munich.

The difference in ticket sales compared to wages would mean you'd get healthy profits for a few years to supplement the GW's £300m cap.

You wouldn't need to go that extreme though of 70 rated players, which tbh would be a bit boring, but that would be far more sustainable in the long term, people would need to be open to the idea of not having access to top players for a while though.

You could comfortably run the set up from say an 83 rating cap for buying players but no consequence for them rising :) other than you need to have the wage budget space for them.

That is more sustainable.[/quote']

Aye this would be a very good sort of setup in my opinion. Plus everyone will start off equal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Thanks for the initial suggestions (Ben & Niki); have to admit that I didn't take the 300M limiting cap into account. However, that doesn't cripple the idea too much, as it would still be viable to take ten teams that are similar and start a draft from there (that is of course if these ten clubs are similar to everyone).

So here are ten names: Tottenham, Liverpool, Dortmund, Leverkusen, Wolfsburg, Valencia, Porto, Inter, Roma and Napoli. According to TM, the value of these ten clubs differ no more than a "mere" 100M. Now, that is still a lot, but bearing in mind that Dortmund, Pool and Roma will be losing a lot of value, and clubs like Porto, Valencia and Inter will be gaining, that should kind of even out the state of matters (at least for the moment). Now obviously, this is subject to revision, as I'd like to hear whether there are some jarring names in the list.

With that in mind, a rich economy with a starting budget of 300M would definitely allow for an interesting follow up; the first roll of the RND generator would be to assign manager to club, with the second roll being the order of drafting. In total, five names can be drafted, for a total fee of 50M.

Now, 50M doesn't sound like that much, but I'd like to see all teams start off with a team of 18: ideally 15-first team and 3 youth-team players. Bearing in mind that most teams have around the 28-player mark, this will mean that every manager will have to pick 18 players he wants to keep. The others will be sold to external, raising funds that can be used during the draft, boosting the budget from a measly 50M to a healthier sum (still TBD).

The draft will allow every club to select five players (one from each position, plus a signing of choice). The RND generator will then pick the manager to choose first, and so on, with the draft reversing for the next position, ensuring an equal pick. However, to make it even more equal, the teams with the lower end IG values (after selling the extra players), will have a higher probability of being picked first, with the following ratio applied:

Three lowest value teams: probability of 6/49.

Three teams in the middle: probability of 5/49.

Four teams with the highest value: probability of 4/49.

What are the initial thoughts?

As for crediting the idea of FFP Ben, I'll happily do that, but save me the "petulance"; that is all I ask for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Thanks for the initial suggestions (Ben & Niki); have to admit that I didn't take the 300M limiting cap into account. However' date=' that doesn't cripple the idea too much, as it would still be viable to take ten teams that are similar and start a draft from there (that is of course if these ten clubs are similar to everyone).

So here are ten names: Tottenham, Liverpool, Dortmund, Leverkusen, Wolfsburg, Valencia, Porto, Inter, Roma and Napoli. According to TM, the value of these ten clubs differ no more than a "mere" 100M. Now, that is still a lot, but bearing in mind that Dortmund, Pool and Roma will be losing a lot of value, and clubs like Porto, Valencia and Inter will be gaining, that should kind of even out the state of matters (at least for the moment). Now obviously, this is subject to revision, as I'd like to hear whether there are some jarring names in the list.

With that in mind, a rich economy with a starting budget of 300M would definitely allow for an interesting follow up; the first roll of the RND generator would be to assign manager to club, with the second roll being the order of drafting. In total, five names can be drafted, for a total fee of 50M.

Now, 50M doesn't sound like that much, but I'd like to see all teams start off with a team of 18: ideally 15-first team and 3 youth-team players. Bearing in mind that most teams have around the 28-player mark, this will mean that every manager will have to pick 18 players he wants to keep. The others will be sold to external, raising funds that can be used during the draft, boosting the budget from a measly 50M to a healthier sum (still TBD).

The draft will allow every club to select five players (one from each position, plus a signing of choice). The RND generator will then pick the manager to choose first, and so on, with the draft reversing for the next position, ensuring an equal pick. However, to make it even more equal, the teams with the lower end IG values (after selling the extra players), will have a higher probability of being picked first, with the following ratio applied:

Three lowest value teams: probability of 6/49.

Three teams in the middle: probability of 5/49.

Four teams with the highest value: probability of 4/49.

What are the initial thoughts?

As for crediting the idea of FFP Ben, I'll happily do that, but save me the "petulance"; that is all I ask for.[/quote']

See I'm not just a pretty face ;) saved the GW :P

With a cap on players you could operate with 10 sides and 1 Division, I'll take a bit more of a look into the market to work out what the max the cap could be without affecting things too heavily...

You want the biggest possible stadium sizes too Ani, I don't know off the top of my head who has the biggest, but you need the balance between squad value (for the initial boost in GW funds) and Stadium size (for the long term benefits of matchday revenues)

Make sure it is VERY RICH every season, we'll need it!

I think you need more than 18 players to be honest...

The draft seems ok, though you're maybe overcomplicating it a bit with changing the probabilities :P I think most people would just accept a random draft.

In case it isn't clear I'm interested in joining and helping :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

See I'm not just a pretty face ;) saved the GW :P

With a cap on players you could operate with 10 sides and 1 Division' date=' I'll take a bit more of a look into the market to work out what the max the cap could be without affecting things too heavily...

You want the biggest possible stadium sizes too Ani, I don't know off the top of my head who has the biggest, but you need the balance between squad value (for the initial boost in GW funds) and Stadium size (for the long term benefits of matchday revenues)

Make sure it is VERY RICH every season, we'll need it!

I think you need more than 18 players to be honest...

The draft seems ok, though you're maybe overcomplicating it a bit with changing the probabilities :P I think most people would just accept a random draft.

In case it isn't clear I'm interested in joining and helping :P[/quote']

The "Lane" - 36k

Anfield - 45k

Signal Iduna - 80k

Bay Arena - 30k

Volkswagen Arena - 26k

Mestalla - 55k

Dragão - 50k

San Siro - 80k

Olimpico - 82k

San Paulo - 60k

Now bearing in mind that all of the Italian stadiums, bar the Juventus stadium, is tops half-full, that would mean that only Dortmund would have a significant advantage... The economy will sure as hell be very rich.

I think that by the time this can be fully established, the player ratings "season" will be over, ensuring quite a few healthy rises. Would a 93-cap be too farfetched?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

The other idea circulating (Raahizar and Niki) is the complete opposite scenario: low budgets and low caps, with what is potentially an enormous economy.

Big teams with huge stadiums and revenues will be battling it out to sign la crème de la crème de la jeunesse; in other words: the best youth. The initial draft will allow twenty-three youngsters to be chosen, all of which are under a certain cap (TBD). The first season will circulate around those youngsters; ultimately looking to end as high as possible, to be able to start season two with the bang.

The cap will steadily be risen, as rules and regulations will accommodate the managers accordingly.

So, there are two suggestions out now: either a high cap, high budget structure, or a low cap, low budget structure, with the former having pre-filled teams (one of the ten suggested) and the latter having empty squads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Actually what I meant was there would be no cap past the first season. Then it's a flat out battle to improve your team as much as you can.

You are only limited by budget' date=' wage budget, and rules relating to your league position.[/quote']

That could work too, although I'd be concerned with the spending once season two starts - I'd like all teams to be in a similar bracket at all times, ensuring outmost competitively. But either way, that would mean a first season of getting the right youth and filling up the squad in the best way possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

Actually what I meant was there would be no cap past the first season. Then it's a flat out battle to improve your team as much as you can.

You are only limited by budget' date=' wage budget, and rules relating to your league position.[/quote']

Yeah I agree, cap season 1 (still calculating a realistic cap) and then uncap it, that way people have built up I reckon about £50-60m bonus cash due to low wages which should keep us up and running for another 2 seasons beyond the 6 I expected with uncapped.

With no one able to just buy above outright you'll see a GW that can last at least 15+ seasons financially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

That could work too' date=' although I'd be concerned with the spending once season two starts - [b']I'd like all teams to be in a similar bracket at all times, ensuring outmost competitively[/b]. But either way, that would mean a first season of getting the right youth and filling up the squad in the best way possible.

But then that takes away from the competition and makes the market harder for everyone, a narrow talent pool + lots of money = inflation of prices

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

But then that takes away from the competition and makes the market harder for everyone' date=' a narrow talent pool + lots of money = inflation of prices[/quote']

The money need not always be there to be spent.

The problem would be if someone decides to buy e.g. Messi in season two, and others settle for lower profile names, the inequality might end up being too much at the end of the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

That could work too' date=' although I'd be concerned with the spending once season two starts - I'd like all teams to be in a similar bracket at all times, ensuring outmost competitively. But either way, that would mean a first season of getting the right youth and filling up the squad in the best way possible.[/quote']

Even if these people sell risers for profit they'll be limited by a small wage budget that they must work by achieveing objectives and finishing high in the table to increase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

It is coming together slowly...good contributions from all. The idea of capping the first season and then letting the budgets control player purchases seems to work well for me and of course you do need the larger clubs to meet the wage budgets when the big players start to arrive or they will eat into the available cash.

Whether or not the rating cap needs to disappear at season one or just increase for a couple of seasons is debatable but I agree...the budgets should help control that.

I do like the idea of starting with random squad selection and then allowing buys. I did suggest that putting the players with a team and then randomly selecting managers to fill the vacancies would be even more interesting. The "life is like a box of chocolates" principle.

Personally I would prefer two divisions of 10.

...and finally it looks like this discussion is moving away from the earlier ranting...which is a good and positive thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "Daniel Levy's Worst Nightmare"

It is coming together slowly...good contributions from all. The idea of capping the first season and then letting the budgets control player purchases seems to work well for me and of course you do need the larger clubs to meet the wage budgets when the big players start to arrive or they will eat into the available cash.

Whether or not the rating cap needs to disappear at season one or just increase for a couple of seasons is debatable but I agree...the budgets should help control that.

I do like the idea of starting with random squad selection and then allowing buys. I did suggest that putting the players with a team and then randomly selecting managers to fill the vacancies would be even more interesting. The "life is like a box of chocolates" principle.

Personally I would prefer two divisions of 10.

...and finally it looks like this discussion is moving away from the earlier ranting...which is a good and positive thing.

Will be looking to further elaborate on things later this week, as I've currently got a lot on my plate. Even so, I'd be looking to keep the GW relatively small and coordinated - matter of having people who I know I can work with.

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...