OLMEC SOFTWARE ENHANCEMENT

player rating skill level boost

Under development currently is an idea that for every 100 total rating points...
a player earns 1 SL

IF and ONLY IF their PU is less than 10.

This would allow teams to spread their CP a little more (or TP too).
Hence the thinking is teams might have a more diverse roster.


To implement this, software creator Allan Sellers needs:
a ) Some acceptance of the idea and
b ) Some serious design from the SESL managers on what goes into a 1-10 rating for a player.

see also forum topic
Player Ratings by Olmec software

My first thought is that this could add too much SL to the league(s). Assuming just 11 players play and they all get a 6 rating and the team plays 40 matches (37 minimum in SESL and 42 minimum in MSWL) this adds up to 26 SL. With ratings of 7 (for a good team that keeps winning) and playing 13 in a game this is getting towards 40 SL.

Some of the SL will be for weak players anyway and sometimes they'll lose it due to reaching the next level, and some will be wasted as the stars will have 10 PU added.

On the other hand +1 SL every 13-17 games doesn't seem that bad.

Last season, my top 11 players played the equivalent of 28-30 matches each. At a rating of 6 or 7, this would give them all +1 or +2SL over the season. It would be a serious struggle to get to +3SL. Fringe players played less are less likely to get higher ratings, but I am pretty sure that a further 6 players would have played enough to get +1SL. So, the effect of this rule would be an increase of 1 SL across the board, with a few star players getting +2SL, giving around 22-30 SL increase in total. This seems like a lot to me, although it would be very welcome!

However, due to substitutions, my leading players actually took some part in closer to 40 matches and received a rating in each case, which would make it much easier to reach +3SL. I would suggest that, for example, if a player played for 45 minutes then he only adds half of his rating to the total.

Some of the increases would go to fringe players, which would just help a little. Some would go to stars and it is unlikely that much of this would be wasted. Any player who is expected to play lots of matches would expect to get +1SL so there would be no point in using more than 9 CPs or TPs on him.

Question would be - is the total 100 rating points for the team or for a single player (ie around 16 games @ 6 per game)

If it is for the team then a player per week being increased is a possiblility (11-14 players @ 6-7 points each)
If it is for every single player, then an average team could expect every player to gain an increase around the 16 game mark, with the better teams getting more of them.

A flaw here is that the better teams will become even better as they will gain the higher game ratings.

A couple of options:

1) Could it be phased in that the player gaining the extra point would be the oldest - "new lease of life" - not likely to be getting CP'd normally.

2) I wonder if it should be that every team's single best performer during both halves of a season will receive the +SL boost (ie 2 players @ +1SL each). This could be a starter and could be looked at at the end of a season to adjust if necessary.

It would be 100 player rating for a single player.

2SL is most majority of players would ever see a season, but the idea could be to encourage more PLANNING and not simply to lump 10 CP on to the few players, but maybe add 7 and hope for a SL boost via ratings.

Skill will be required to avoid the next band threshold on the ageing skill loss tables also.

Outcome is CP/TP spent more around the team, so perhaps more balanced rosters?

Personally I dont like it.

The teams at the top of the leagues are more likely to gain (however incrementally) over the smaller teams in the league.

I'm a bigger fan of balancing measures to reduce the advantage.

GMcD.

Player ratings calculation would probably need to include time on pitch for the calculation, or managers could just throw players on in last minute to get some ratings points.

Or like TP / CP you could make it that a player needs to play for 45 minutes to earn a rating.

Overall I like this idea though , something new

It's a interesting one and I always think that rewarding teams that show some foresight and planning is a good idea. However it does bring in a hell of a lot of extra CP and a few TP.

How this will affect things I'm not sure. Maybe just mean that every team gets a bit stronger and CP a bit cheaper.

On the other hand it may mean team selection being influenced by something other than EL and SL. I'm not sure if this is good or not?

I guess teams in real life give fringe players a taster to get more experience. Could this be called an 'experience' or 'form' boost? Kind of makes sense.

I say run with it and if things get out of hand we can increase the ageing by 1 at the end of season thus taking away the 'experience' increase as during pre-season they are no longer in form or experiencing.

I'm all for measures which give the match rating some purpose. Personally I all feel as others do that this could bring too many extra CP & TP to the game.

Maybe we could link form to the ageing process. Say at each ageing point the 3 players in each team with top average rating can offset up to 2 points due to come off through ageing. This would give up to a maximum of 12 CP/TP over the season. Also every team would have the same chance it wouldn't be linked to how big a team they are or how well they're playing

I think the Chairman is right that this would deliver a more diverse roster.

Currently managers are clambouring for age 1 players to replace age 4 and 5 who have 'no future' (except the Captain). These 3,4 and 5's would be selected to not recieve any CP's during the season, but if they were picking up SL's that the manager did not specifically select them for, they may have a better future.

And we're ALL going to need larger more flexible squads with the increased possibilty of Injury from this season

So it all sounds good to me.

As for players coming on with minutes to go just to gain a rating of 6, perhaps the rating itself could be linked to EL expenditure for that player.

Final Rating = (rating/6)*(EL expenditure/6) so passive players would get a slightly lower rating and aggressive slightly higher. But if you were only on the pitch for 10 minutes the final rating would be around 1 (+/- all the stuff that gets you a rating anyway)

Sounds a good idea to me.

Like what Bishop says, it may mean team selection being influenced by something other than EL and SL.

That adds something new to the game so I applaud that.
Always willing to take on new challenges - no old 'stick in the muds'
at forward-thinking-Hearts!

I am against this, because it has effects to other areas of the game also.

Why?

• Aging
  This would mean that all players who play regularly gain an SL between matches 16-20. This "extra" SL will be taken away when the Mid-Season Aging occurs (for a lot of players), so it does not help that much. Also the next "possibilaty is just before the End Of Season Aging and the same will happen. When this would be implemented, the whole aging system is ready for a review.
• TP/CP usage
  At this moment managers have to look at the amount of TP/CP they give to a player, because of the aging. A TP or CP to much and more than one is taken away by aging. It will still be a matter of planning.
• Bad season
  Teams who have a bad season, get punished for that. Their ratings are not high and have to wait longer before the extra SL is added and that gives them less chance against the other teams leaving an unbalanced league.

I can see that this would be used to give players a reward for their good play, but IRL players are not getting better when they get good ratings. They get better by playing matches and good training (well in theory because nowadays nobody gets a chance to train because of the massive amount of matches that have to be played).

If you want to implement a sort of SL-bonus, why not use an experience bonus instead, linked to minutes played. Each player who has played lets say 2500 minutes gets an extra SL and it is not counted in the points used, just like the apprentice players. Apprentices are not able to gain this reward, because they get the seasoning bonus (or they get the reward and more managers are encouraged to sign any). The player is than rewarded for their increased experience and not for what he gets as rating.

Or change the aging formula, to give age 4 and 5 players a bit more chance of being of any importance in the league. They are now only rescue backup benchwarmers without any future if their curren Sl is below 15. This would leave the whole discussion stranded in the forum.

PT boss argument above 'in other words':


"A TP or CP to much and more than one is taken away by aging. "

The new rule proposal is to reward planning. Clever managers will not go too near next ageing threshold, obviously.

"give age 4 and 5 players a bit more chance of being of any importance in the league"

The new rule proposal does exactly that!

Like the idea... but we're not seeing many ideas about how the rating is awarded.

Any progress on this anyone?

Sorry the fact that a SL is going to be lost at the next ageing is not the point, because it is still one more SL than the player would have after the ageing.

I do think that 6's should not be automatic though for rating if this is going to be enacted, but there is another debate about that. But I like the idea that it is somewhat linked to time on pitch.

I think this is a brilliant idea, it gives meaning to match ratings other than window dressing. But like the commish says, it allows for broader teams. Currently teams put their CP only into FW's, GK's and a DF if there is any left. MF's get very little attention, there is not a lot of BC teams in SESL.

I also disagree with the rich get richer argument being perpetrated here. It is constantly being trotted out to argue against any change in this league.

Come on people, progress evolution these are not swear words.