In an earlier post I told you all that i was against this new feature. Having read things better I have come to another conclusion.

This could be a great new feature. Managers have to plan more with their CP/TP usage, making it more a managing game in stead of a simulation game. Players PU is now limited to 8, because of the extra SL. Now the 40 TP and the average of 30 CP is spend on 7 players. Now more players would be trained/coached.

I do think that the current aging table needs to be altered though, specially the mid season. The older guys lose skill to fast. With less SL loss these players will have a longer SESL life.

I don't like this idea for the following.

1) The rich will get richer, the more you win the better the ratings the more SL you get, the more you win etc, etc,
2) The planning element is limited, and adds little to what everyone already does, it will mean that stars may be trained later and you coach one or two high level age 4's instead.
3) Adding 2 SL on every player just inflates the whole league it adds very little.
4) Ratings are arbitarily given by a computer and bare no relevance at all to something you control. There are so many random elements already do we need another?

Personally if you wish to add something along these lines it should be mid-season aging loss against minutes played.

Say for example the best players play 2500 (no idea but as an example) mins upto mid season and the worst 0.
Players having played between 800-1200 gain 1 SL instead of aging
1200-1600 Do not age
1600 -2000 lose 1 less than normal.
2000-2400 age as normal
Over 2400 age +1 more than normal.

400-800 Do not age
0-400 Age as normal
Players not played lose +1

Thus you have match fit players not ageing so much but exhausted and the best players ageing as normal if not more. Plus players who haven't played have no match fitness and lose SL. Also will encourage apprentices, who could gain an extra SL if played early enough in the season.

All skill - no luck and would encourage the CHOICE of using fringe players. Will need some refining (obviously) but better than ratings.

I have to admit that I don't see the value in making this change.

.... and your alterative is Phil ?

That is a handful of Beagle forum posts dated 20Aug,
and every one of them N E G A T I V E.

Your opinion is valued, but at least try and make a balanced contribution.
You are a trained lawyer I think, so you should be well aware of 2 sides to any story.

No offence mate. You are a legend in SESL.
Respect.

Why does there need to be an alternative ?

I could quite easily live without this change and think all it will do is add unwanted resources. Same with the rivals issue, personally other than giving everybody a little extra cash I don't really see what difference it makes. For my money there is already more than enough resources and cash to go around, certainly much more than there was a few seasons ago. I think there has to be a time when we balance this out and would hate to see maybe ageing get more severe as a result.

Dag nabbit.

Boland beats me to the punch! I was just getting ready to type in, "Why does there have to be an alternative?"

I come from the position that not all change is for the better, and before we jump into making changes, there needs to be a clear reason or advantage to making the move. Also, with any changes to the game, managers need to consider the balance in the software. Each change alters something in the game, and it all ties into resource availability. If the resources inflate, it puts the resource level closer to a point where the program isn't designed to account for it. I think that we saw a good example of that with the aggressive GK issue this offseason, and the proper adjustment was made.

I tend to be of the position that SESL is a great game. Any alteration in the game needs to be carefully considered, including the long term consequences of seemingly small adjustments.

Thanks, All.

Phil

Each team is in a division.
That division is full of similar skill level teams.

So in any given league match each team has the chance to have stars.
We are not talking about HEA playing ROS every other week here.

There is no rich get richer situation here. Every team plays the same number of league games and they play them against only teams in your division.

This is trying to make squad players mean more than they currently do. Teams pump their CP mainly into FW and GK's currently. It would be nice to see some more variety in skill levels of player positions.

Perhaps if the value of the increase was increased from 100 to a bigger number it might change things. But first and foremost the debate about changing how match rating points are assigned needs to be finished.

Have to agree with Garner the new resource should be spread fairly evenly across all divisions.

Some players might reach it quicker than others but thats always going to happen and depends greatly on the selections a manager makes.

I see some are saying why the need for more resources? Have they not seen the amount of injuries that are happening out there?

'Squad' players are going to be more important from now on as more T17 players are out injured.

The question is what are we trying to achieve by this rule change?

At the moment it will add 1-2 SL across most of your T17 and everyone will be affected equally. So why do it?
The argument there is more temptation to play more of your squad - why do we want this encouraged? This is being encouraged by the large number of additional random injuries already.

As Phil says the program is designed for a certian SL why do we want to increase it? If anything we should be looking at changes to bring the SL totals down.

OK, so I sat back on purpose and let the discussion flow.

Some good opinions, and while the general idea is a good one, I think we should shelve this idea for now.

Lets try get player ratings resolved, and perhaps they could be linked to team morale to give them a purpose above just a stat?
Just an idea.

We can discuss ideas on other topic threads, but remember Al Sellers will have final say on what is implemented, and generally the easier it is to code, the better chance a good idea has of happening.


Mark
Commish