MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Wednesday, December 12th, 2018 - 10:34:44 AM (gmt)
 
ball MSWL UNITED ① - Landing
 
Home Auctions Blog Forum History Login Rules Scores Stats Tables Teams
 
Coaches Directory Donate Guest Rankings Schedule Updates Waitlist Wall
 

Join
MSWL
UNITED!

Recent Entries

Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Mike Parnaby
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Tim Batth
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Dave Dohm
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Hayes
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
19 Comments
Brian Beerman
20 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Andy Bate
1 Comment
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
21 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Graham Wilkes
1 Comment
Jose Freitas
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
10 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Rob Baptiste
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Graham Wilkes
6 Comments
Graham Wilkes
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rob Peterson
5 Comments
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
John Holden
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
19 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Rob Baptiste
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Rob Baptiste
5 Comments
Mark Stretch
5 Comments
Jake Hanny
1 Comment
Andy Bate
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Graham Wilkes
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
David Blair
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
12 Comments
Brian Beerman
5 Comments
David Blair
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
18 Comments
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Mark Stretch
17 Comments
John Holden
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Peterson
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Allan Sellers
30 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
15 Comments
Andy Bate
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Mike Cabral
4 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
26 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Kevin Martin
6 Comments
Dave Dohm
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
14 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
John Holden
4 Comments
Mike Cabral
9 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Simon Compton
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Abe Hamdali
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
6 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
20 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Andy Bate
7 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Lewis
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Simon Compton
4 Comments
Kevin Martin
12 Comments
Simon Compton
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rene Wilkens
5 Comments
Trevor Taylor
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
17 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Trevor Taylor
7 Comments
Trevor Taylor
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
27 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Dan Fitzgerald
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Alon Atie
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Rob Peterson
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
 
Additional Ways to Spend Money
Posted by Brian Beerman on Wednesday, Dec. 1st, 2010 at 10:31 AM

I am curious if the league is interested in introducing new ways to spend money.  This stems from the tax debate and on the surface seems like a good alternative method to reduce exorbitant bank accounts.

I am including just a couple of quick thoughts below and welcome any/all discussion or opinions on the topic (hoping to hear from Mr Baptiste regarding his proposed real estate option for the players).  The dollar amounts are obviously flexible and mostly provided as examples.

Prost!

 

Additional Youth Coach (750k):

This would allow a team to use three youth coaches per session for all 10 sessions during one season.  This would require the team carried three youth coaches during that season.  The fee would be due prior to session one and would cover only that one entire season.

Extended Home Bonus (1000k):

This would allow a team an additional two Home Advantage points.  If the team carried a Groundsman during the season, they would be allowed eleven Home Advantage points per home match.  If no Groundsman was carried during the season, the allowable Home Advantage points would be nine per match.  The fee would be due prior to session one and would cover only that one entire season.

Readers Comments

A new slant on how to spend your cash. Whilst I like the further options proposed I have a feeling people won't perceive them as the answer to the "problem" of a couple of players hoarding cash.

It would be a nice option for just these players - the rest of us would query whether we wanted to spend that much from our Auction budget on the above.

For what it's worth, the extra Youth Coach one I like a lot - but not sure I would/could pay 1,000k for just 2 extra home points - but that's me.

And it is another option to the "tax" debate. 

David Blair on Wednesday, Dec. 1st, 2010 at 12:12 PM
 

Another option proposed by Mr Baptiste...

Additional Great Performace Points (750k):

This option would allow a team to purchase an additional ten (10) Great Performance Points for the upcoming season.  The fee would be due prior to session one and would cover only that one entire season.

Brian Beerman on Wednesday, Dec. 1st, 2010 at 12:21 PM
 

I personally love the thought process here. Will post with some thoughts later on in the week...

Rob Peterson on Thursday, Dec. 2nd, 2010 at 2:00 AM
 

For 1k per point, teams can purchase 20 extra points for use in any game against Preston North End.

I have no qualms with Ian but there are enough voters here who may just write this law into the books...

John Holden on Friday, Dec. 3rd, 2010 at 6:03 AM
 

I fear complication of our beautifully simple game.  One of the things I like best about this league is that is uncluttered.   As I understand it, our rules are/were very close to an original set of rules for these games, and that one of the stated intentions of this league was simplicity/purity.  I'm not a "change is bad" guy by any means, but I did want to voice my caution re: overcomplicating.  If it ain't broke...

Mike Cabral on Friday, Dec. 3rd, 2010 at 8:36 AM
 

I definitely agree with Mike that we need to keep things simple, however there are 2 areas of the game that I think we can tweak without complicating things. One of them is incorporating "rivals" into the game (something that's been talked about since Season 2), and the other is a way to actually spend the money that teams earn - the only outlet is through the auction. If we can find uncomplicated ways to spend money, then I'm for it.

Rob Peterson on Saturday, Dec. 4th, 2010 at 4:43 PM
 

I agree: simplicity is the best and I think we can keep things simple while also introducing additional outlets for money.

Brian Beerman on Saturday, Dec. 4th, 2010 at 5:55 PM
 

First off, I really like the anti-Ian rules that JH suggests.  :-)

Actually I guess that's all I had...

Allan Sellers on Monday, Dec. 6th, 2010 at 4:49 AM
 

Three common ways to get money of out of circulation in multiplayer video games with an economic system (think World of Warcraft, or similar MMORPG):

1) Repair costs.  The better the gear, the more it costs to keep it useful.  The players with the most stuff (and usually with the most money) have to spend a whole lot more money just in upkeep than lower-level players with lower-level gear.  United application: salaries.  Higher-SL players cost more to keep on your roster than lower-SL players.  One time retention fee would be paid in each off-season, prior to the first pre-season auction.  Problem: what happens if a team bids the bank in the auction for session 7, and doesn't have enough built back up to pay their team in the off-season?  Do they lose players?  Do they have to cut some or sell some off?  If they refuse (or NMR) how does the commish choose for them?  Since cash is never needed in gameplay, do we let the team go into the red and work their way out of it as the next season progresses, with that team simply unable to bid on any players as they have a negative bank balance?

2) Geometrical cost progression.  Lower-level items that everyone needs from the start are cheap.  The better stuff doesn't just cost twice as much, yet could be up to 10 times as much.  Example: +1 enchantment on your weapon could cost 100k in materials/fees.  +2 costs 250k.  +3 costs 600k.  +4 costs 1500k.  +5 costs 4000k.  Etc.  The same increase at higher levels costs considerably more.  United application: increase the geometric progression of minimum player prices at auction.  Make the non-league price times 15k instead of 10k.  A II/12 at auction then carries a minimum bid of 750k instead of 500k.  All prices would increase by half again what they currently cost.  If too high, even a 12k multiplier instead of 10k would increase prices by 20% across the board for minimum bids.  The trickier system would be to do something like age I players get the 10k multiplier, age II at 15k, age III at 12k, age IV at 10, or something like that so the players most in demand for higher SL cost the most without increasing prices on the backups or future players at ages I & IV.  Problem: that pushes the price for the star players at age II and III out of the range that most rebuilders/Div 3 teams can afford.  Precluding some teams from getting a top player more than once every three seasons doesn't seem in the spirit of league fairness.

3) You get screwed at the trading post.  You want to buy that?  Sure, you can buy it for 50k.  You want to sell it to me?  Sure, you can sell it for 25k.  Whatever you sell back is worth way less than what it costs to buy it.  This encourages players to trade more amongst each other for rarer items, as what a player is willing to pay is nearly guaranteed to be more than what the program will buy it for.  It also makes it harder to accumulate money just by 'farming' items and selling them to the program.  You have to find player buyers to get any real cash built up.  United application: make the non-league sale price half (or 3/4) of what it is if you want to sell a player to the non-league.  This would cut down the glut of cash into the league by several teams at the session 8 deadline.  They wouldn't be worth nearly as much.  At the same time, they could be sold to another manager at less than auction price, but more than non-league sale price.  That's a win-win scenario that would greatly increase the value of trades, while hurting the "hoarders," which is what we're trying to do anyway, right?  This decreases the amount of "free" money coming into the league (as it costs nothing to sign a schoolboy, raise them up, and sell them two or three seasons later), without cutting the minimum bid level of auction buys so those prices stay up.  Problems: dumping older guys or mid-range SL players is one of the few ways that a rebuilding team can make money down in Div 3.  They get less each session, and won't be winning Cups any time soon.  So now we cut down on their primary earning opportunity even more?  While it would certainly hurt the hoarders more than the spenders, anything that makes it harder to get a team back on its feet should be implemented only after careful consideration of options.

That's how the multi-million dollar software companies do it.  Anything sound good for us?

Kevin Martin on Tuesday, Dec. 7th, 2010 at 9:00 PM
 

ï»I am with Mike.

ï»I think the rules for this game were unbelievably well written and dont need to be changed.

ï» If we want to make a change to add variety the  change I would make is introducing seasoning of players to a 2nd position as that was in the original rules.

Alon Atie on Wednesday, Dec. 8th, 2010 at 9:25 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions