Recent Entries
 | Coaching per session Posted by |
For each session a player may be raised no more than ONE Skill level through coaching.
However, "how many" coaching points can be used on a player in a session?
I've coded it so that one can raise a player by one SL and also raise a player 'almost' to the next SL after that if they want to spend that many CP.
But that seems "more than the spirit of the rules"?
Should we not allow Coaching points to be assigned to a player that would go beyond the raise in SL?
Al
Readers Comments
If I understand things correctly, we can only carry a maximum of 15 CPs from one session to the next. If that's the case, then I can see it being VERY difficult to raise player's SLs after they reach SL 10, though it does seem like there is potential for a team to earn 35-60 CPs for a session. Perhaps allow Coaching Points to be assigned to a player up to 50% of the "next" SL? For example, an SL 8 player would be allowed a total of 14 CPs to be used - 9 to get to SL 9, and then 5 more towards SL 10.
The way it seems to read in the rules and my own personal interpretation of it was 'all or nothing' If you want to raise a player from 10 to 11, then assign 11 CP. No more, no less. I hadn't really considered partial raises.
I thought that only came in to play for SBY and APP and for them it's governed purely by number of matches played, not assigned CP.
We can carry 15 CP forward and we get CP per session as well?? So that's between 20 and 35 CP right there? You could coach two SL16 player up to 17 with that.
Apolosies for all the ??? but I don't have the rules open.
Thanks Rob and David for feedback thus far. Here's what I need help with...do we:
a) Allow folks to put CP on a player in an incremental way? For example...an SL 6 player...can we put 3 CP on him in session 1 and 4 on him in session 2?
b) Allow for what's in a, but go farther...allow a manager to put incremental and above on him so that he could be raised one SL in the given session and be assigned X number of CP in that session so he's 1 CP away from being raised another SL in the subsequent session. This is how I've coded the orders page so far.
c) You are only given one CP option to raise a player in a session. That's how many you need to spend on him. So for an SL 6 player you are given a choice of 0 or 7 (or 6 rather than 7 if you have a coach). This is the one David King mentions above along with a note I received from Andy Lewis.
For simplicity, I'm leaning towards c right now. Its more straightforward and forces managers to make a choice. And if they have extra CP over the max 15 carried across each session they can also apply the CP on fitness.
Comments please...and quickly. 
Al
Im Ok with (b) as you have already coded it
but I agree that (c) would keep it simple, & basic & simple were the keywords when you started MSWL united I believe Al ?
I think Option C is the best. Keeps it nice and simple.
Additionally I do not really see the need for part coaching, particulalry as you can carry over 15CP each session, just coach that player with full amount in the next session.
I like Option C - simple is good for me while I'm trying to get my head round this league!
C is the simple option and the option that people who player other United type games are probably most used to I'm guessing.
I do like the possibilities of option A but do think it complicates things more. One of the reasons I like that is so I don't waste CPs. I know we can carry 15 CPs over, but sometimes that may still mean I waste some on players I don't necessarily intend on playing because guys have already been given a fitness level for this issue or are at the max fitness level.
I think Option B is the best. I think we're going to find that most teams are going to have ~30 CP per session as the only guaranteed CPs that are given are those for players who's fitness is >= -2. This will mean somwhere between 18-25 CP. The remainder of the CP allocation is wholely dependent upon the team's success. I think we should allow partial CP usage to allow for teams that may run through a rough spell where they do not win any games for a couple weeks. If we don't, then we are going to find that, very quickly, the teams that get out of the gate quicker and win more games sooner, are going to pull WAY out in front.
While it's good that the best teams are rewarded, we do want to make sure that the playing field is level and that we're not setting up a system that is going to fail. I think it's worth it to take the extra time to make sure that the system put in place is going to be beneficial to the whole league.
I'm leaning towards c right now also.
B ok too!
