Someone should tell team FRA the L stats have changed,
as they are clearly set up as a long Ball team with almost no midfireld at all !

Could it be that we have an issue of change that Clyde & Calvin support?

Possibly.

Altering the OTF level is an entirely separate issue from altering the cost of OTF points. It adds no resources to the game, and so long as it is done with balance to L and EC and all other tactics in mind, I have no problem with that.

Phil

Could your support have anything to do with this perhaps?

I personally think that the rule doesnt need changing at all. Those that use OTF to their advantage do and those that don't....don't. Like you said earlier its a choice for each manager to make for themselves.

The reason the Longball multipliers were changed was that they were too high and giving the teams that used them an unfair advantage, Ball Control wasnt an effective enough counter tactic as it is now so a change was made. Its not as if teams are too easily dominating using Ball Control so why is a change needed?

I'm not advocating for change. My comments clearly state that any change in OTF needs to take into account balance with other tactics.

As an attorney, I love it when others try to take a snippet of my words out of context to create an unintended message!

great.

GMcD

That is a quality (edited) reply Wee Beardy Bloke.
Really funny, nice one.

Graham is one.....dirty...little....possum.

I never realised that!

D'oh !

It would seem that I have suggested MASS murder -DOWN with Robin -Hang him.

QUOTE "Finally Robin I hope that you are not suggesting a rule change becaues only 25% of manages use it to the maximum, because only 2% of players are passive... ;-)"

Well it is actually only 16% of the managers who are using it to the max.

The other 84% will have a HUGE struggle / CP cost to try to pull it back, and probably won't bother.

I was merely making an observation , that OTF was losing it's appeal.

No worries guys - YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.

Leave it as it is , and you will get a league playing Long & Early

OTF Ball Controll works best in a league dominated by EC and LB.
Look at Flatnz.

Sorry Robin my 25% stat was supposed to read 9 or 10.

I suggest the following idea

Extend OTF maximum to 15. But stagger the cost of increasing your level. So increasing OTF to level 5 would only cost 1CP per level, 6-10, 2CP a level, 11-15 3CP a level. (thus 15OTF is still only 2CP a level)

This would encourage a base level helping tactical flexibility, whilst offering a significant increased benefit for teams that invest heavily.

Don't know (as normal) if this is implementable.

I would think bringing it up to 15 would be easy enough, but as for the change in costs for coaching it to different levels, that is probably going to be trickier.

OTF hasn't changed, as far as I can tell, for ages. In fact, has it not always been 10?

If so, I think a sudden rise of 50% is maybe a little too much.

Also, if it drops down by 30% at ESA, then it would go to 10.5 if you had it maxed.
Depending whether that rounds up to 11 or down to 10 could mean that to get it back to 15 could cost as much as 15CP.
That's a significant investment. In fact that's half of what some managers purchase for CP during the off-season.

I think a lower increase and have the coaching costs remain the same as they are for now.

At the moment it would cost 6 CP to maintain OTF at 10.
An increase to 12 or 13 would see it cost 8 CP to maintain. Provided that 0.7*12 = 8.4 rounds down to 8 at End of Season Aging. If it rounds up to 9, then it remains 6 CP to maintain at 12.

OTF has always been a maximum of 10. In fact, all elements of OTF have remained unchanged since the beginning of the game.

Phil I was hoping that you would weigh in on the OTF/Ball Control thread. I've posted a thought about changing the area stats generated by BC, or the extra midfield bonus for OTF.

As an old timer, I'm generally not in favor of change. I've been around the game for quite awhile, and I've seen the game go through a lot of cycles. For instance, in various leagues we would have periods where L or EC were never used, and then over time it would be quite popular...then as BC built up L and EC would decline for awhile. I trust that as BC goes dormant, eventually teams will begin to use L and EC again...until other teams start countering with BC.

My humble opinion is that the game doesn't need the change. I'm always concerned when the current stage of a cycle causes managers to sound an alarm for change. There's no need for change. Let the game cycle play itself out. OTF has worked fine since the game began. Long term changes based on short term circumstances are not a good thing, in my opinion.

Phil