I like this idea, everyone has the same bonus so every team has the same ability to add those 3 extra levels.

ï»Dont mind this one again as it wont throw game out of balance.

ï»Not really seeing how it changes game much-everyone essentially gets a +3 to 1 player.

ï»Probably say go for it so that those who like change have something happening.

Like this, since it will add to the choices you have to make as to which players play in which game whenever you have a three (or four) game session.

I've always thought teams should have captains !

ï»I'm with Dave i love captains

I quite like the idea of the bonus being the captains age rather than a set 3. ie the bonus represents their experience.  Of course if you play the captain every game it costs more to keep his fitness up.

I am for the idea but do believe that goalkeepers can be captains as well.

Al...What's the logic behind not allowing GK's to be the team captain?

I like Stretch's idea about the Age being the bonus! This could/should allow for ANY player being selected. I think Gk's should be included.  If you pick your age I SL 15... you'd only get a +1; won't tip the scales that much.  If you choose an Age IV (typically SL 11 ~ 13), then you get the +4.  Maintain the Gk/Sw +5 limit and you have no problem there.

I'm not a fan of the Gk as captain as it seems like teams are already able to get very high Levels in the Gk area when you add the +5 they could go even higher.    There will be III/17 Gks next season.

Currently these Gk's are often SL 17 + FIT 2 for 19 in the game.

Add 5 and now they are at level 24.   That's a 94% chance of blocking a shot on goal.

Add 3 more and now they are at level 27.  That's over a 100% chance of blocking a shot on goal.

And frankly I've begin to become less of a fan of adding 5 to the Gk/Sw area (maybe 3 should be the max).   But that's another discussion for another time.  

Definitely against GKs as captain, not just for the reason Al said, but also because they can play three games without losing fitness, so they'd be out there every game, rather than a manager having to choose when to play their captain.  (And Al, I like the max idea, but I'd have a max level for SW and GK to even the playing field a little.)

I'm always a fan of my own idea (although technically this is Mark's idea)... I think it'd be boring/automatic that each team will just assign the captain title to his best player, most likely an Age I SL 15 (session 6+) or Age II SL 16 (session 4+) to add the +3 SL [per match].  If you institute Mark's idea, it should spur a little more creativity and/or strategy.  If it is out of the realm of possibility to even code such an idea then just skip to the bottom.  I do not have a good solution for Gk usage under this model.  It is rare to use a Gk past Age III so perhaps it doesn't matter [if they get to play in 3 matches] or maybe it can be assessed similarly as the GPP.

 IF there is going to be a hard-coded value of 3, just hard-code the Gk value at 2. 

I'm against GKs or Sws being captain because they have a much harder time controlling the pace of play throughout a match and communicating effectively with the offense during the flow of play.  I'd prefer if the Captain gave a +1 to each area total (Df, Mf, Fw) or +2 to their area and +1 to the other two, instead of +3 to their area.  That seems more in the spirit of a team-wide impact that Captains are supposed to be able to bring about instead of just being more superman-like because someone pinned a C to their shirt for a season.

For the Team Captain concept, well it morphed a little bit (as it always does) based on the initial concept and poll.

The poll results are overwhelmingly in favor of the concept.

Andy Bate and then Mark Stretch added the idea of basing the bonus on experience.   Rob Baptiste further said "why not expand it down to Age I as well".   

I've decided to implement this rule immediately for the upcoming season (rather than wait one season).

The new rule is:

1) Each team may select one captain at the beginning of a season

2) The player must be age level I or higher

3) The player must be a Df, Mf, or Fw

4) A captain's total level in a match will be:

   SL + FIT + Age

5) If the captain has been chosen and he becomes injured or is traded/sold a new captain may not be selected for the current season.  

Again this rule will be effective for the season we are about to start.  Once the coding is done for you to select a captain (in 1-2 weeks) you will be notified.

The reason for not including Age I players was that they often played three (or even four) matches a session, since they were so cheap to coach for a fitness gain.  I'd have preferred them not to be eligible, but guess we'll see whether they get used most often.

The reason for not including Age I players was that they often played three (or even four) matches a session, since they were so cheap to coach for a fitness gain.  I'd have preferred them not to be eligible, but guess we'll see whether they get used most often.

Ah, that's what happens when I click the back button.  LOL

Anyway, I'll add another thought on Age I captains - they are easier to get back to fitness if they are captain and get injured.  An older captain would give a coach more pause for thought about whether to coach for fit for those lost levels.

And the original idea was Age III or older, which seemed much more sensible to me.

But Andy, the appeal of having an Age III player as captain over an Age I is the guaranteed +2. Both players are susceptible to injuries at the same rate. Once level on SL, it costs the same in CP to get them to SL 15. Yes, it costs 4 more CP to get the Age III player to Fit +2, and then an extra 2 CP for each level of Fit lost compared to the Age I player, but overall, your Age III superstar is going to be in more matches than your Age I superstar-to-be. You want that consistency in your lineup.

However, you do make a good point with the Age I being able to play 3 matches and only costing 1 CP to keep at the same Fit level. 

I wonder what the distribution looks like amongst teams... How many Age I, II, III players... how many FWs?

I think I went for Age II players myself.  Cheaper to coach for fit, but give two extra levels.  Still think Age III plus was a better proposal.

I went with the Age II as well. Typically the same SL as an Age III, but costs less to maintain the Fit.