Rule Changes to Start With Season 4.

My biggest concern is that I don't think there's ever been a random strategy element between OLMEC, MSWL United, or TMVL until the assistant coaches - all the randomness happens during the game, which is honestly a gameplay element I value as it means luck turns into Diplomacy-style luck, where you can get lucky, but it depends on how other people have also entered their orders/auction results, and you can change your luck by managing risk (ie hardness in MSWL.)

The other thing is that coaches in MSWL United give you an incentive to keep and play older players which doesn't exist in this game - they are an important part of the ecosystem of player development which doesn't exist here due to the differing nature of the game.

Basically, I think we're getting closer to a balanced game and I'm nervous this will unbalance it too much and add an extra layer of unneeded complexity. The biggest thing that needs changing at the moment is recruiting (which is fine, the RPs just need to be balanced so players don't slip thru the cracks) and home court advantage.

Personally I'd assume every team has an assistant coach and a marketing director. At the bottom of each orders page, if it's a home game, the marketing director gets to pick a skill to -1 the away team for, and the assistant coach can +1 a skill once a session in any game. No additional resource allocation, gives more strategy to the orders page, reduces home court advantage without minimising it completely, as Michael Scott would say, that's a win win win.

Thanks for the feedback John.

To make sure I understand your idea, is the final paragraph the complete proposal?

- Home Court goes from -1 in all six abilities to -1 in one of six abilities?

- One assistant coach to use once per session that can +1 an ability in one match each session?

- Anything else?

I'll hold my feedback until you confirm.

For all managers, please provide your "I like this" and "I don't agree with that" for the proposal I have above.  You can be honest as John was, I can take it!   :-)

If its something like: I like the above but I don't like randomness, that's fine.  Or if it needs simplification (there's a lot going on), that's fine.  Or if you do/don't see a potential recruiting discrepancy that can happen as folks may take over teams that missed some coaching, please comment there too.  

If you have an alternative proposal, please create a new forum topic and add it.   

I'll get to spend some time with Max this weekend, so I'm hoping to run a lot of this past him for his ideas as he's been pretty busy with school and playing volleyball!

I like most of the proposal, especially the draft for coaches. The main problem in games like these is where strong teams stay strong because they win more CP. One of the strongest teams this season has alrwady earned 33 CP more than one of the weakest. It can vmve hard to break into the elite without luck in games. 

In another thread there's the idea that coaches come from retiring seniors. But we all have 4 of each age so that's going to happen anyway. However if a SNR had to have say 13 at ATK to be able to coach ATK then it makes.more sense. 13 comes from an average Level 3 (7) being fully coached each season. Downside is richer teams in RP and/or CP will achieve this easier. Also no idea about coding this.

The only caveat on the coaching draft is where home teams.with those +1 bonuses can get +2 in some.areas. Can more than 1 coach help in a game? 

I'll read some.more.

I like the idea that the worst team get to draft first to get the better assistants. It will give a levelling effect to the league.

But my biggest fear is that the game get to complex. I like to keep it simple. That luck plays a part is no problem for me but I play in some other manager-games outside MSWL aswell as many of you do. And I tend to mess upp the rules if they differ to much, so I might get in the situation that I have to leave some leagues to concentrate on a few. And if I dont get the rules easily in my head (sorry for my english) I might choose to leave that game. So try to keep it simple.

I will do a bit more thinking later but now its dinner.

If including the randomness of drafted assistants for whether or not the stats are going to get a boost, I like that at least one is at 100% effectiveness.  That way, if you drafted a multi-slot assistant coach and put them in a match, you'll at least get some boost, if not 2 or 3.  At the same time, teams that draft late and only get a 1-slot assistant will always have it effective, yet it will only be to the same area every time, with no chance of improvement.  Good balance, in my opinion.  Perhaps frustrating, yet not too much reward or boost for a team finishing poorly to overtake a team finishing mid-table.
It does add complexity, yet I think it's manageable as it doesn't change lineups or add some tactic that counters another tactic.  Just adds a small boost to one area, for one match.

I like the "directors" proposals as well, and again the randomness of effectiveness for each session works in my mind, as long as there is a base or floor to make the investment worthwhile even in a "worst case scenario" kind of situation where Olmec curses you every time you play Steve.  For example, if the marketing director fails on the first two checks, then the third stat check is guaranteed to be effective, so there is at least a little payout for not going with the Recruiter and getting some RP that session.  Similarly, not maxing the RP received back each session from a Recruiter could add variance and not allow teams to be guaranteed an extra auction pickup each season by going that route.  I like the 40-60 range (+/- 10 from base of 50), as it would always be less than what a team gets every session anyway, and may or may not exceed the league-wide "freebies" to start Season 4.
In short, I find all Al's proposals worth a shot and interesting.
If we're going to make these coaches come from rosters in the future, Steve's suggestion of limiting effectiveness of coaches to areas where they exceed a set limit, such as 13, 14, 15, etc. has lots of fun merit and can impact coaching decisions as sophomores and juniors.  Do I give the extra point to that other stat to possibly get a coach, or 2-value or 3-value coach, in two or three seasons from now?  Or just pump up the 5-star freshman?

In case anyone was wondering with a 3-ability coach there's a 59.5% chance of getting all three, 36% chance of two and 4.5% chance of just one.

I'm a little late to the party here, but for the most part, I do like Al's proposal. I like that we are starting wtih a draft selection - that seems fair and equitable. I like that the assistants can only impact 1 match per session. One thing I'm not sure about though is that if you get 3 assistants, then aren't we putting ourselves back in the situation where each team can have a big impact for every home match? Would it be better if we only had 1 assistant coach? Then, a manager has to choose between the big home match versus Quincy or the Cup match againts Tuetopolis. 

I love the idea of the Marketing Director and Recruiting Director. The proposal allows for 2, but says to choose between them. I would absolutely love the idea of there being more Assistant/Director options than we have positions for. It makes managers have to choose between different strategies. So, I would propose that we either start next season with only 1 Director slot, or come up with a couple additional ideas. Or, conversely, are managers allowed to have 2 of one of the directors? ie 2 Recruiting Directors for 100RPs?

Overall I'm in favor of the proposals, just have the few questions I put forth.