General Fantasy Football Chat

carlcon

A bigger squad with more money will actually lead to less thought, because you'd only need 3 real subs out of the 7, leaving 4 of the cheapest players in the game to waste away on the bench so we can have all the best players.

You'd have to be ignoring the Premier League completely to ever be in a situation where your team is so bad you need 4, 5, even 6 players on the bench.

As it is, we probably already have too many sub options, since a huge % of players had a dummy player (like Ferguson) for most of the season. If anything, I'd like to see that cut out.

If you want a more eclectic mix of teams, give us less money and less options. That way, we won't be able to afford all of the "obvious" choices, and will have to mix it up.

manual_man

carlcon wrote: »

A bigger squad with more money will actually lead to less thought, because you'd only need 3 real subs out of the 7, leaving 4 of the cheapest players in the game to waste away on the bench so we can have all the best players.

You'd have to be ignoring the Premier League completely to ever be in a situation where your team is so bad you need 4, 5, even 6 players on the bench.

As it is, we probably already have too many sub options, since a huge % of players had a dummy player (like Ferguson) for most of the season. If anything, I'd like to see that cut out.

If you want a more eclectic mix of teams, give us less money and less options. That way, we won't be able to afford all of the "obvious" choices, and will have to mix it up.

don't agree with that. that's assuming too much. you could easily use your money in a different way, giving yourself more viable choices each gameweek, and we all know the most expensive players aren't always the best ones. you could list 20 players this season to prove that point

carlcon

After a month, everyone playing each week would have the top 3 strikers, the top 3 or 4 midfielders, and a couple of the best defenders, and all would be easily afforded because of the huge bench full of cheap options.

Yes, you could play differently and have 6 mid-range players on your bench so you can have a different team each week... but you'd be nowhere in any of the leagues.

There were better bargains than RVP this season. Better bargains than Silva in the first half of the season, and Dempsey in the second half... but they were all still essential players to have.

Bargains are only great when you can't afford the best. This 20% extra funds and 3 extra defenders idea would allow us to afford the best.

manual_man

carlcon wrote: »

After a month, everyone playing each week would have the top 3 strikers, the top 3 or 4 midfielders, and a couple of the best defenders, and all would be easily afforded because of the huge bench full of cheap options.

Yes, you could play differently and have 6 mid-range players on your bench so you can have a different team each week... but you'd be nowhere in any of the leagues.

There were better bargains than RVP this season. Better bargains than Silva in the first half of the season, and Dempsey in the second half... but they were all still essential players to have.

Bargains are only great when you can't afford the best. This 20% extra funds and 3 extra defenders idea would allow us to afford the best.

That's rubbish to say you'd be nowhere in any of the leagues. Dempsey was fantastic, but for the most part was pants away from home. Imagine having an extra player every second week like Nathan Dyer (who was pretty decent at home himself) to fill in while Demps is away on holidays (ie away from the Cottage)??? The extra funds would be exactly proportional to what we have already, in that sense it wouldn't alter a thing. It's about adding an extra dimension to the game, ff has evolved, and largely due to the internet has resulted in starting elevens being too similar, i think that needs to change. There are must-haves every year in ff, for sure, but name me a player apart from RVP that you were 100% happy to have in your starting eleven every week of the season. Come on man. FF is far from cut and paste. We know that.

Not 3 extra def's btw. But i presume that was a mis-type on your part

FutureGuy

Ugh sorry lads but I think any more than 15 players in the squad would ruin the game. We would see less variability in squad selection, very similar first teams, far less need to evolve your team using transfers and the ability to buy in way more top players (meaning less differential players). The fun of the game is trying to navigate the bumps in the fixtures and make the best of them using your skill as a player. Having a squad of 18-19 players means you could probably pick 8-9 players who have home fixtures each week. Borrrring!

I could easily see myself quitting the game if they ever did so.

manual_man

FutureGuy wrote: »

Ugh sorry lads but I think any more than 15 players in the squad would ruin the game. We would see less variability in squad selection, very similar first teams, far less need to evolve your team using transfers and the ability to buy in way more top players (meaning less differential players). The fun of the game is trying to navigate the bumps in the fixtures and make the best of them using your skill as a player. Having a squad of 18-19 players means you could probably pick 8-9 players who have home fixtures each week. Borrrring!

I could easily see myself quitting the game if they ever did so.

People are afraid of change. It would add extra variables. 'Top players' is a subject for debate. No one 'top player' performed week-in-week-out, maybe bar the legend that is RVP. A fuller squad could indeed result in most managers using the extra cash to buy in 'way' more top players (well, maybe two at a push), but that in no way guarantees that they would do better than a manager who has maybe one less 'top player', but who has probably more 'viable' options when it comes to their starting 11 each week. It adds a bit of spice, more to consider. I would have argued against this back in the 'old days', but while the internet has helped the game grow massively, it has also resulted in it being too easy to predict your opponents next move, at least my 'idea' goes some way to tackling that. Maybe the increase in budget could be a bit less, maybe there could be some other stuff, i don't know, but i think my general idea is pretty bloody good in a game that is in danger of going stale... it's not changing things majorly, but it's tackling an issue, that well, has become an issue, as the game's popularity has grown. If people are happy for things to stay as they are, fine, but personally the game doesn't excite me too much any more, it's become too damn predictable

Jimmy Iovine

John Ruddy is going to the Euros. Hodgson must have been looking on here during the season and seen how highly we all regard him .

manual_man

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

John Ruddy is going to the Euros. Hodgson must have been looking on here during the season and seen how highly we all regard him .

fair play to John. he's actually a good keeper. the 4 goons in front of him were just utterly rubbish

Jax Teller

manual_man wrote: »

fair play to John. he's actually a good keeper. the 4 goons in front of him were just utterly rubbish

He's ****e he couldn't a cold .

Ares

manual_man wrote: »

People are afraid of change. It would add extra variables. 'Top players' is a subject for debate. No one 'top player' performed week-in-week-out, maybe bar the legend that is RVP. A fuller squad could indeed result in most managers using the extra cash to buy in 'way' more top players (well, maybe two at a push), but that in no way guarantees that they would do better than a manager who has maybe one less 'top player', but who has probably more 'viable' options when it comes to their starting 11 each week. It adds a bit of spice, more to consider. I would have argued against this back in the 'old days', but while the internet has helped the game grow massively, it has also resulted in it being too easy to predict your opponents next move, at least my 'idea' goes some way to tackling that. Maybe the increase in budget could be a bit less, maybe there could be some other stuff, i don't know, but i think my general idea is pretty bloody good in a game that is in danger of going stale... it's not changing things majorly, but it's tackling an issue, that well, has become an issue, as the game's popularity has grown. If people are happy for things to stay as they are, fine, but personally the game doesn't excite me too much any more, it's become too damn predictable

You assume the best of human nature with your idea.

In reality what will happen is that people will fill their bench with 5 duds while using the spare money to buy better players, why settle for s strikeforce of RVP, Newcastle forward, Fulham forward and Norwich forward when you can instead get RVP, Aguero, Rooney and a cheap playing forward like Graham was this year.

If your rules were brought in and you played it the way you wish to play you would be slaughtered. And you'd be on here bitching then, guaranteed.

If you want to make it more exciting then just make the budget at the start of the year 90 million while keeping the prices as they would normally. Suddenly no one can afford a 3man strikeforce worth 35 million without having donkeys throughout the rest of their team.

That would do what you want. You're the only person here arguing for this. No one can see any sense in what you want. Yet you seem unable to actually argue a counter point, merely you repeat that it will give you more options again and again and again and again.

Also I love this bit:

while the internet has helped the game grow massively,

when the fúck was this game ever not on the internet. Are you harking back to the glory days of this game back in the 70's or are you spoofing absolute spoofery?

manual_man

Ares wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

People are afraid of change. It would add extra variables. 'Top players' is a subject for debate. No one 'top player' performed week-in-week-out, maybe bar the legend that is RVP. A fuller squad could indeed result in most managers using the extra cash to buy in 'way' more top players (well, maybe two at a push), but that in no way guarantees that they would do better than a manager who has maybe one less 'top player', but who has probably more 'viable' options when it comes to their starting 11 each week. It adds a bit of spice, more to consider. I would have argued against this back in the 'old days', but while the internet has helped the game grow massively, it has also resulted in it being too easy to predict your opponents next move, at least my 'idea' goes some way to tackling that. Maybe the increase in budget could be a bit less, maybe there could be some other stuff, i don't know, but i think my general idea is pretty bloody good in a game that is in danger of going stale... it's not changing things majorly, but it's tackling an issue, that well, has become an issue, as the game's popularity has grown. If people are happy for things to stay as they are, fine, but personally the game doesn't excite me too much any more, it's become too damn predictable

You assume the best of human nature with your idea.

In reality what will happen is that people will fill their bench with 5 duds while using the spare money to buy better players, why settle for s strikeforce of RVP, Newcastle forward, Fulham forward and Norwich forward when you can instead get RVP, Aguero, Rooney and a cheap playing forward like Graham was this year.

If your rules were brought in and you played it the way you wish to play you would be slaughtered. And you'd be on here bitching then, guaranteed.

If you want to make it more exciting then just make the budget at the start of the year 90 million while keeping the prices as they would normally. Suddenly no one can afford a 3man strikeforce worth 35 million without having donkeys throughout the rest of their team.

That would do what you want. You're the only person here arguing for this. No one can see any sense in what you want. Yet you seem unable to actually argue a counter point, merely you repeat that it will give you more options again and again and again and again.

Also I love this bit:

while the internet has helped the game grow massively,

when the fúck was this game ever not on the internet. Are you harking back to the glory days of this game back in the 70's or are you spoofing absolute spoofery?

Are you for real? I don't imagine you'd have the balls to talk to me like that in person. Have some respect. And go punch a wall or something. Coz you're obviously angry about something

:rolleyes:

Ares

manual_man wrote: »

Are you for real? I don't imagine you'd have the balls to talk to me like that in person. Have some respect. And go punch a wall or something. Coz you're obviously angry about something

:rolleyes:

Really? That's the best you can. Can't even address any of the points offered.

Because you have no points, you haven't a clue, everyone has contradicted you and you plough on regardless with your stupid idea.

Oh, and by the way, I'm 6"4 and 18 stone. I'd definitely have the balls to say to you anything I wanted to..

manual_man

Ares wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

Are you for real? I don't imagine you'd have the balls to talk to me like that in person. Have some respect. And go punch a wall or something. Coz you're obviously angry about something

:rolleyes:

Really? That's the best you can. Can't even address any of the points offered.

Because you have no points, you haven't a clue, everyone has contradicted you and you plough on regardless with your stupid idea.

Oh, and by the way, I'm 6"4 and 18 stone. I'd definitely have the balls to say to you anything I wanted to..

Very good man. Clap yourself on the back. In case it wasn't obvious, i didn't address your points coz of your totally childish and ignorant manner. You've made some impression in your short time here :rolleyes:

Ares

manual_man wrote: »

Very good man. Clap yourself on the back. In case it wasn't obvious, i didn't address your points coz of your totally childish and ignorant manner. You've made some impression in your short time here :rolleyes:

Did I upset you? In that case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHaCzb3yYk

Apologies done with perhaps you could address my original points like a good lad. :cool:


You assume the best of human nature with your idea.

In reality what will happen is that people will fill their bench with 5 duds while using the spare money to buy better players, why settle for s strikeforce of RVP, Newcastle forward, Fulham forward and Norwich forward when you can instead get RVP, Aguero, Rooney and a cheap playing forward like Graham was this year.

If your rules were brought in and you played it the way you wish to play you would be slaughtered. And you'd be on here bitching then, guaranteed.

If you want to make it more exciting then just make the budget at the start of the year 90 million while keeping the prices as they would normally. Suddenly no one can afford a 3man strikeforce worth 35 million without having donkeys throughout the rest of their team.

manual_man

Ares wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

Very good man. Clap yourself on the back. In case it wasn't obvious, i didn't address your points coz of your totally childish and ignorant manner. You've made some impression in your short time here :rolleyes:

Did I upset you? In that case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHaCzb3yYk

Apologies done with perhaps you could address my original points like a good lad. :cool:


You assume the best of human nature with your idea.

In reality what will happen is that people will fill their bench with 5 duds while using the spare money to buy better players, why settle for s strikeforce of RVP, Newcastle forward, Fulham forward and Norwich forward when you can instead get RVP, Aguero, Rooney and a cheap playing forward like Graham was this year.

If your rules were brought in and you played it the way you wish to play you would be slaughtered. And you'd be on here bitching then, guaranteed.

If you want to make it more exciting then just make the budget at the start of the year 90 million while keeping the prices as they would normally. Suddenly no one can afford a 3man strikeforce worth 35 million without having donkeys throughout the rest of their team.

I think i've put forward my arguments pretty clearly already (and no, i'm not expecting everyone to agree! i'm not in charge of implementing game changes for 2012/2013 season!!! )

Anyways.... you say i 'assume the best of human nature'. this game doesn't exactly involve goodwill towards your opponent(s). I think most peoples concern is about crushing them lol What i said before is that people would have choice how to spend their money, and i argued that filling your team with all the 'top dogs' and a number of cheap duds, wouldn't necessarily outscore a person that managed their budget in a more, say, 'balanced' way... i think it's quite easy to over simplify things when talking about ff management, when in reality i believe there's quite a bit more to it...

Ares

manual_man wrote: »

I think i've put forward my arguments pretty clearly already (and no, i'm not expecting everyone to agree! i'm not in charge of implementing game changes for 2012/2013 season!!! )

Anyways.... you say i 'assume the best of human nature'. this game doesn't exactly involve goodwill towards your opponent(s). I think most peoples concern is about crushing them lol What i said before is that people would have choice how to spend their money, and i argued that filling your team with all the 'top dogs' and a number of cheap duds, wouldn't necessarily outscore a person that managed their budget in a more, say, 'balanced' way... i think it's quite easy to over simplify things when talking about ff management, when in reality i believe there's quite a bit more to it...

It is simple though. Well concept wise. The best players always are the highest value, pretty much every year, this year is no exception. The key is getting in guys in form while filling the other positions with value who can produce points on a regular basis. Now the more high value players you can get into your team the better.

With extra money and no onus to play the extra players then anybody with a notion will simply upgrade their Jarvis to a Silva with no cost whatsoever.

3 subs are loads the only time the 3 subs were needed was in GW 38. Only time.

With the 18 players you could have 9 playing at home, every single week. If most players had the same teams with 15 then it stands to reason that they will be more likely to be similar with 18.

Keep everything constant and reduce the money to 85 or 90 if you want variation.

swoody

for me the top priorities for 2012/13 are

1. Manager/Manual Substitutions
2. For every 5 recovered balls (the total of clearances completed and gaining possession tackles)
3. Team sheets back on home page
4. To be able to change captain if he hasnt played myself
5. Reduced the number of players you can pick from one team to two rather than three
6. Give bonus points to MOTM as well as the EA SPORTS Player Performance Index

FatRat

Whether we want to believe it or not....FPL is a very balanced game. Any dramatic changes to the system and that could go down the drain. They will never take a risk like that. They might make very minor changes that won't have too much of an impact on the game but that's about it. We can expect pretty much the same from 2012/2013 FPL and if that's not what we get, I'll be very surprised. This whole extra players and points for passing/tackling is never gonna happen imo, it would hinder the balance of the game too much.

PerrinV2

FatRat wrote: »

Whether we want to believe it or not....FPL is a very balanced game. Any dramatic changes to the system and that could go down the drain. They will never take a risk like that. They might make very minor changes that won't have too much of an impact on the game but that's about it. We can expect pretty much the same from 2012/2013 FPL and if that's not what we get, I'll be very surprised. This whole extra players and points for passing/tackling is never gonna happen imo, it would hinder the balance of the game too much.

Well they added the points for balls recovered to the champions league fantasy football and for me it improved that,made defenders a little bit more important.Hardly a drastic either as you rarely see a defender get 2 extra points for recovering balls

carlcon

Ares wrote: »

Oh, and by the way, I'm 6"4 and 18 stone. I'd definitely have the balls to say to you anything I wanted to..

To be fair, I doubt you could catch him. That's a lot of lumber. :pac:

Heh, in all seriousness, I'm on your side of the fence in terms of which way the money should go. Less cash would feck us over and we'd never be able to pick all the obvious players, which would indeed result in a bigger/better mix of players.

FatRat wrote: »

Whether we want to believe it or not....FPL is a very balanced game. Any dramatic changes to the system and that could go down the drain. They will never take a risk like that. They might make very minor changes that won't have too much of an impact on the game but that's about it. We can expect pretty much the same from 2012/2013 FPL and if that's not what we get, I'll be very surprised. This whole extra players and points for passing/tackling is never gonna happen imo, it would hinder the balance of the game too much.

In terms of balance, if it was that balanced, great players like Parker and Tiote wouldn't be useless in it.

It's relatively well balanced, but there's definitely room for improvement. The prime improvement being what a few have mentioned already, the CL-style points for intercepting passes and winning the ball.

Although to add that and keep the game balanced, defenders would have to increase a little in price, I would imagine. Again, similar to the CL version.

OneColdHand

The only way having extra subs would work would be if they reduced the number of transfers allowed. Say, 1 a month? So the emphasis would shift to having to have a good squad with good quality subs that would come in event of injuries.

I think it would be an interesting shift, and would reward people who had well thought out squads from the start. However it's a pretty dramatic change, so can't see it happening.

grohlisagod

Ares wrote: »

Also I love this bit: when the fúck was this game ever not on the internet. Are you harking back to the glory days of this game back in the 70's or are you spoofing absolute spoofery?

This particular fantasy game has only ever been on the Internet but there were fantasy games long before that, where people posted in their transfers to a newspaper and such like.

In that scenario it was virtually impossible to predict what someone was going to do, whereas now you can check if your rival's team value has gone up or down, how many transfers they have made, if they have wildcarded, etc.

PerrinV2

grohlisagod wrote: »

This particular fantasy game has only ever been on the Internet but there were fantasy games long before that, where people posted in their transfers to a newspaper and such like.

In that scenario it was virtually impossible to predict what someone was going to do, whereas now you can check if your rival's team value has gone up or down, how many transfers they have made, if they have wildcarded, etc.

I remember doing one in the paper years ago where the scottish league was included too.Henrik Larsson was a must!!!

Ormus

OneColdHand wrote: »

The only way having extra subs would work would be if they reduced the number of transfers allowed. Say, 1 a month? So the emphasis would shift to having to have a good squad with good quality subs that would come in event of injuries.

I think it would be an interesting shift, and would reward people who had well thought out squads from the start. However it's a pretty dramatic change, so can't see it happening.

Website suicide, never gonna happen, it would drastically reduce the traffic on their site, which is the whole point of them running the game in the first place.

Ormus

swoody wrote: »

for me the top priorities for 2012/13 are

1. Manager/Manual Substitutions
2. For every 5 recovered balls (the total of clearances completed and gaining possession tackles)
3. Team sheets back on home page
4. To be able to change captain if he hasnt played myself
5. Reduced the number of players you can pick from one team to two rather than three
6. Give bonus points to MOTM as well as the EA SPORTS Player Performance Index

I think that would be a step in the right direction.

carlcon

PerrinV2 wrote: »

I remember doing one in the paper years ago where the scottish league was included too.Henrik Larsson was a must!!!

Holy flashback, Batman. I completely forgot about those! Relatively speaking, it wasn't that long ago when they existed, was it? I think I remember one as recent as 6/7 years ago.

Then once a week (or month?), they'd print the top 10 players if I remember correctly.

Man, I appreciate the ease of the internet more than ever now.

eire 2012

I would like to see half points for your subs bench which would stop teams having 4 cheap non playing players and I think a hat trick bonus of ten points would also be good.
Anybody ?

FatRat

As far as the balanced pointed I made above goes...... the fact that Tiote and Parker don't get many points is exactly why I think it is balanced. Tiote is priced at what? 4.5? And Parker 6. For a centre mid of a high up team, that's pretty good. In terms of being a good player (if the points were awarded for that), Tiote should be 8+ million and same with Parker, but because they don't get as many points as attacking mids or wingers is exactly the reason they are priced so low.


Bringing in points for recovered balls would change everything. All defenders and defensive mids would have to have their prices increased, therefore changing the value of your 100 million completely. Getting the pricing right, for FPL, would be a ridiculously hard thing to do. Just think about it for a while and you might understand what I'm trying to say.

carlcon

FatRat wrote: »

Bringing in points for recovered balls would change everything. All defenders and defensive mids would have to have their prices increased, therefore changing the value of your 100 million completely. Getting the pricing right, for FPL, would be a ridiculously hard thing to do.

Works perfectly for the Champions League game. Defenders are generally more expensive than in FPL, even though they start the likes of Messi and Ronaldo at ridiculously high prices in comparison. Even the Euro 2012 game we're playing now... you'll see a lot more 7m defenders around (and some even pricier!). The balance then comes in when they slightly reduce the price of midfielders (you won't see any 11m wastes of space. 8-9m will get you some of the best in the world)

The less money you have to spend, the more you struggle to afford the "usuals". And that's a good thing for people who are looking for variation.

In fact, the defenders in Euro 2012 are even more expensive than I first imagined, just look at this lot:


And I bet the game will seem finely balanced.

FatRat wrote: »

Just think about it for a while and you might understand what I'm trying to say.

Just play the Euro FF this year and you might understand what the rest of us are trying to say.

swoody

just seen JTs (6.5) value above....^^
overvalued by FPL or undervalued by UCL and Euro2012....i'm thinking the former! but could be a real gem in the euros.......