Should the cost of Raising OTF be reduced ?
In my opinion YES !

Or perhaps reduce the level lost at season end.

Could OTF be auctioned off at each auction, like CP and TP is currently?

Managers could bid to get a +3 or +4 OTF boost?

This is unbelievable. Just because you can't afford it you want to make the change? My team relies on OTF, and I rely on the fact that other managers won't make that 2 CP investment to my advantage. This also goes back to a resource issue. You're eliminating a cost, putting CP into play, again pushing SL values higher than the software is intended to handle.

I seriously hope that this poll carries no weight.

Phil,Phil,Phil ,
don't panic just because I instigated a Poll does not mean it will mean a rule change!
I just thought that it was an interesting debate & warranted a Poll!

This "clickable smiley" is how I look whenever one of these dramatic rule-changing polls pops up....

I totally agree with what Phil has said!

14 votes to 9 in favour of "NO Left at 2 CP" currently.

Common sense prevails!

I WOULD however like to see OTF awarded as a prize for Cup play, as the danger is OTF gets overlooked and ignotred, and ends up going where SET pieces and Finesse went.....
- into the Olmec trash can forever!

Opposed to further awards for Cup play on the grounds that as a participation game SESL needs to, at least to some extent, allow winning to be it's own reward. Teams progressing in Cup play already gain extra resources for those matches. Once a team wins it, now we're going to give them extra resources to make it easier for them to repeat the feat? That doesn't seem to be good for competition, from a "rich get richer" perspective.

Phil did you oppose the return of MVP?

Because they are the worst form of rich get richer rule in the game currently.

MVP was lost from SESL because the when SESL moved to the current format the code couldn't cope with the mid-week matches. MVPs were based on 2 wins from the 2 league games or 2 wins and a draw from 2 league games and 1 cup game (which were all played on Saturdays).

Over in MSWL there were always 2 games in a session even though they were one per week. You would only get an MVP if your wins were from and odd number followed by an even number game. The cups in MSWL are pre and post the league season.

I've mentioned in another topic already that I believe that the max value for OTF could be increased.
Most teams have players with SL up in the 30 or so range.
I was looking at some of the QF results tonight and some teams were getting area totals that came to over 450!!
Most teams were playing Early Cross.

I think that max OTF should be increased by at least 20%, so up from 10 to 12.
An increase in OTF from 10 to 12 will only add a grand total of 4 to your team area totals so it would allow it to have a larger impact on your team.
Although it's not going to have a huge effect, I think that it could be looked at.

On the subject of MVPs. There are at least 37 matches to be played in the season and we've got one manager on 10 MVPs. A significant achievement and well worthy of some recognition/reward.
If we take the current rules into account and use their guide for the value of TPs (100) and CPs (75), then we find that your first 5 MVPs amass you a grand total of 450k.
This works out at a handy 30k extra per match.
So, in fact, not too dissimilar to the 25k bonus that Division 1 teams get anyway.
If we take the PAAP values for this season, then the reward is actually less than that.
On the other hand, your next 5 MVPs will only get you the less than thrilling amount of 125k altogether.
If you have a good side then you'll probably get plenty of MVPs but the reward drops significantly after the first 4.

Only 10 teams have 5 MVPs or more.
24 teams have only 2 MVPs or less.
I think that each team stands a fair chance to get 2 MVPs over the course of a season. Even a poor side will probably manage to get 2 wins and a draw, now and again.
Although we've not managed it ourselves, yet.

I'm sure we had this discussion a long time ago. From what i can remember:

OTF should be a choice rather than a prize.

If it was made to 1CP then just about everyone would keep it topped up.

leave it as it is so as it's more of a "gamble" if that makes sense?

Although increasing to 12 does interest me!

Increasing the OTF cap to 12 would be interesting.

Extra 4 DEF for a Stall side.
Extra 4 OFF for a press side
Extra 2 DEF and 2 OFF for Normal.
Extra 1 DEF and 3 OFF for Ball Control, min.

Now that last one is interesting, because BC is all about the OTF. An OTF of 12 would mean an extra 0.5 DEF & OFF per extra MF over the opposition.

So it would 4.25 instead of 3.75, I think the area stats and bonus for BC are whats needs to be looked at not OTF, because OTF is generally useful (see Steves comment).

I think the GP penalty on BC is too high, the tactic is not as openly aggressive as Press.
0.5x OTF to DEF and 1.5x to OFF, as opposed to Press's 0x to DEF and 2x to OFF.

The differences between the two
BC adds to GP SW 0.75, DEF 0.25
P adds to GP SW 0.75, DEF 0.25

BC adds to DEF, SW 1.00, DF 0.75, MF 0.75 OTF 0.5
P adds to DEF, SW 1.00, DF 0.75, MF 0.25 OTF 0.0

BC adds to OFF, DF 0.25, MF 0.75, FW 1.00, WG 1.25 OTF 1.5
P adds to OFF, DF 0.5, MF 1.00, FW 1.00, WG 1.25 OTF 2.0

The area stats for BC are less aggressive than P, and it requires a big MF, which means that for the 2:1 rule it needs DF's, it is usually played as a 4-5-1.

I do not know how it could be changed, but I just think that if the GP wasn't half of N for both of them, then BC might see more play. I don't understand how LB can have normal GP and DEF when it is a really openly aggressive strategy.

One area that I think could be changed is the OTF bonus for extra MF's. If the tactic is openly aggressive as stated in the rules, then make it really aggressive.

Just food for thought, trying to stir debate.

I posted some comments on another thread, so if anyone's interested they can see those. Typical comments from me.