Cutch
Full Member
There's a danger i might be too stupid to play this game.
Don't think so, but you can choose a manager (preferable fro a different time zone) to partner with.Any places left?
I'm from the US. Happy to get you involved if you wantAny room left?
Edit: Ah, feck it.
Okay, I'll try for Assistant Manager instead.
Listen ye managers!
My time zone is GMT +5.30, so if you're from the US you might benefit from a night-time caretaker.
I'll also
- provide advice about the transfers if you need it
- do research on required players to see if we need him
- argue for your team's strengths in the games
- scout around for other teams weaknesses, and work out tactics to combat them
- take over when you need to go the loo
- and so on
Anyone interested?
The problem with that is all players will have inflated prices on average, and there's no scope for any manager to plan his team.In this kind of a draft, think its pretty much necessary for all managers to be online at the time of auction for it to work. Perhaps something like this?
Get the randomizer to set the participating players in order.
1st guy posts in the thread that he wants player X.
Organizers then set a base price for the player.
Bidding starts. Whoever bids the maximum gets the player. If no one bids but the 1st guy, he gets the player for the base price.
Then to the 2nd guy and so on.
As its necessary for managers to be online, set a time every day for a couple of hours when this will be done.
Sure - thanks! I'm in.I'm from the US. Happy to get you involved if you want
Why inflated prices? No one's gonna bump up the price unnecessarily because if the original bidder backs out, you're stuck with the player at a high price. The snake order is just for the bidding, it doesnt mean the 1st guy in the list gets the 1st player.The problem with that is all players will have inflated prices on average, and there's no scope for any manager to plan his team.
This seems the way forward to me. That, and limited bids from each manager, one per round per player, and four/five players per round.I don't think this is the right way to do it.
It has to be round based. Make it positions based rounds if you have to. Letting the bids open for all 11-12 players till the end would not work.
True, but you DO need CBs, good or bad. Bid for the cheapest CBs then and save your money for the strikers. If you're clear in your priorities, you'll know how much to psend in which department.Position wise bidding doesnt make sense imo. For instance, say we decide to pick CBs first. Why force me to pick 2 CBs first if my top priority is to get say a top striker?
Managers should get the freedom to build their squad whichever way/order they want to.
Not really. It'd see quite a few unbalanced teams and might even see funds wasted. For instance, going by this method, say I save up 60mil to get Messi picking very average CBs and we go to strikers last. If other managers dont have that high a priority and dont save up enough, I might have wasted saving 60mil and might get Messi for say 40mil thus wasting 20mil of my funds. There's also the problem of different formations and styles. It wont be that big an issue while picking CBs but will change totally when it comes to CMs, wingers etc.True, but you DO need CBs, good or bad. Bid for the cheapest CBs then and save your money for the strikers. If you're clear in your priorities, you'll know how much to psend in which department.
That'll be be YOUR miscalculation, no?Not really. It'd see quite a few unbalanced teams and might even see funds wasted. For instance, going by this method, say I save up 60mil to get Messi picking very average CBs and we go to strikers last. If other managers dont have that high a priority and dont save up enough, I might have wasted saving 60mil and might get Messi for say 40mil thus wasting 20mil of my funds.
Agreed on this. But what your point actually does is determine the order of bidding.There's also the problem of different formations and styles. It wont be that big an issue while picking CBs but will change totally when it comes to CMs, wingers etc.
That's exactly the way how I have played this in the past but the issue is if we go player by player it would literally take ages. Which is why I suggested throwing in 20-30 names instead of one but in principal following the same method.In this kind of a draft, think its pretty much necessary for all managers to be online at the time of auction for it to work. Perhaps something like this?
Get the randomizer to set the participating players in order.
1st guy posts in the thread that he wants player X.
Organizers then set a base price for the player.
Bidding starts. Whoever bids the maximum gets the player. If no one bids but the 1st guy, he gets the player for the base price.
Then to the 2nd guy and so on.
As its necessary for managers to be online, set a time every day for a couple of hours when this will be done.
Exactly, I'm really not in favour of division with respect to position.Position wise bidding doesnt make sense imo. For instance, say we decide to pick CBs first. Why force me to pick 2 CBs first if my top priority is to get say a top striker?
Managers should get the freedom to build their squad whichever way/order they want to.
It doesnt. The 1st player might go for a striker, the 2nd for a winger, the 3rd for a CM and the 4th again for a CM etc.That'll be be YOUR miscalculation, no?
Agreed on this. But what your point actually does is determine the order of bidding.
CBs
FBs
STs
CMs
AMs
GKs
Throwing in multiple names at a go is something I thought of but the problem is that it'd essentially mean creating a total player pool before the game starts. Which would be very cumbersome. Also, it'd be tough to decide the composition of the 20 players that go in every round. Still workable though so if everyone cant agree to committing couple of hours at a fixed time, this would be the next best alternative.That's exactly the way how I have played this in the past but the issue is if we go player by player it would literally take ages. Which is why I suggested throwing in 20-30 names instead of one but in principal following the same method.
Limited bids in an auction draft doesnt quite fit. Same with the idea of hidden bids and then the max one getting the player. Bidding wars is where its at.limited bids would kill the fun a bit. Not only you wouldn't be able to change your bid in case you want to but also, bidding wars and intentional inflation involve a lot of bids.
It doesn't cover all positions firstly. Sweepers, wingbacks, wing forwards, etc.That'll be be YOUR miscalculation, no?
Agreed on this. But what your point actually does is determine the order of bidding.
CBs
FBs
STs
CMs
AMs
GKs
You couldn't have picked a better time to return, this is like the age of draft revolution here.Limited bids in an auction draft doesnt quite fit. Same with the idea of hidden bids and then the max one getting the player. Bidding wars is where its at.
Also, needless to say, am interested in this. I see the spots are taken up so would like to assist someone. Havent played a draft up here at all.
Its not that am returning in any way as I've seen and followed drafts up here anyways. Its just that most of the drafts involve players way before my timeYou couldn't have picked a better time to return, this is like the age of draft revolution here.
I wouldn't mind teaming up with you but as usual I have plenty of time on me so if someone who's short on time and actually needs a partner it would be better if you team up with him. Otherwise I'm always there.
Hadn't considered that. True.@Gandalf Greyhame limited bids would kill the fun a bit. Not only you wouldn't be able to change your bid in case you want to but also, bidding wars and intentional inflation involve a lot of bids.
I actually meant YOUR order, but I get your point. Every order combo will be a disadvantage to one manager or the other. So positional priority has to be a no.It doesnt. The 1st player might go for a striker, the 2nd for a winger, the 3rd for a CM and the 4th again for a CM etc.
.
In what doesn't it make sense? Different managers will have different priorities, so each position will have its set of dedicated and not-so-bothered takers. And as to the following part, won't that be more entertaining? It actually brings your 'transfer acumen' into play, and it'll be a good way to learn.EDIT: I dont agree its a simple case of miscalculation as it means a manager is fecked because other managers dont put as much emphasis on a spot which doesnt make sense. But even if it was, seeing it'd adversely affect the teams and their balance, it should be a no go anyways especially considering it looks like the 1st time most of us would play a draft like this.
The probability of all managers/AMs sitting down together is low.. Still workable though so if everyone cant agree to committing couple of hours at a fixed time, this would be the next best alternative.
If people can commit to a fixed time for 2hrs, it'd move very fast.
That list was a mini-generalization for Varun.It doesn't cover all positions firstly. Sweepers, wingbacks, wing forwards, etc.
Also, what about versatile players? Say someone bids for Gullit in the CM round and plays him as an AM?
Anyhow, I don't agree that any manager should be forced to bid on one position before the other. That's for him to strategize.
I feel the same, too.Its not that am returning in any way as I've seen and followed drafts up here anyways. Its just that most of the drafts involve players way before my time
Why? That would mean everyone could just nominate shit players throughout? Nominating two players is great, imo, but managers should be allowed to bid for their own nominations, gives way more room for team building strategies. It also gives the other managers an idea of his plans, which could lead to funny bidding wars.Everyone nominates 2 players, but you can't pick your own nominations? If more than one person nominates the same player, @Annahnomoss would add another player of equal quality to the nominations list.
It would be 32 players in total to bid from in one round, which is more than enough depth in terms of quality and positions.
You should be able to bid on your own nominations as well. The nominations just makes a 32 player pool that has been contributed by every manager and then we bid.Everyone nominates 2 players, but you can't pick your own nominations? If more than one person nominates the same player, @Annahnomoss would add another player of equal quality to the nominations list.
It would be 32 players in total to bid from in one round, which is more than enough depth in terms of quality and positions.
We'd be nominating out here in the open, no? Just use random generator to draw an order and everyone nominates two players in that order, no repeats.Why? That would mean everyone could just nominate shit players throughout? Nominating two players is great, imo, but managers should be allowed to bid for their own nominations, gives way more room for team building strategies. It also gives the other managers an idea of his plans, which could lead to funny bidding wars.
I also don't think Annah should add players to the list, if he's playing himself, that makes no sense. Why not just leave the reduced number of players then? Make 10 rounds, max 2 players each round, which means the squad could be 20 players in the end. But don't fill up the list, if players are nominated more than once. Again bidding wars then, a manager could end up without a player in one of the rounds, but it doesn't matter, because he can still get 18 players in the other rounds. It would also give the option to opt for a bigger squad instead of bigger names to have more versatility. Might make the games more interesting, if someone fields a galactico team with no useful squad while the opponent can go for perfect tactics because of more players available and exploit weaknesses perfectly.
Oh, okay. Though blind nominations and open bidding sounds fun . And I really like the possibility of a bigger squad here to add a few versatile players in the end, if you spent less money than others on the big names early on.We'd be nominating out here in the open, no? Just use random generator to draw an order and everyone nominates two players in that order, no repeats.
I'd expect nobody to be a douche and nominate crap players.Why? That would mean everyone could just nominate shit players throughout? Nominating two players is great, imo, but managers should be allowed to bid for their own nominations, gives way more room for team building strategies. It also gives the other managers an idea of his plans, which could lead to funny bidding wars.
I also don't think Annah should add players to the list, if he's playing himself, that makes no sense. Why not just leave the reduced number of players then? Make 10 rounds, max 2 players each round, which means the squad could be 20 players in the end. But don't fill up the list, if players are nominated more than once. Again bidding wars then, a manager could end up without a player in one of the rounds, but it doesn't matter, because he can still get 18 players in the other rounds. It would also give the option to opt for a bigger squad instead of bigger names to have more versatility. Might make the games more interesting, if someone fields a galactico team with no useful squad while the opponent can go for perfect tactics because of more players available and exploit weaknesses perfectly.
See my last post. Crap nominations won't be there.I'd expect nobody to be a douche and nominate crap players.
Having to rely on what others nominate would in theory make it more difficult and confusing, which would probably lead to more interesting results. Otherwise you would only go for the players you nominate, which is something I personally would do.
I forgot Annah was playing, I thought he was managing the draft.
But here's a revised version of the idea:
Everyone nominates two players, but whoever publishes the list (Polaroid?) doesn't say who nominated who. Then it's basically a free for all to get what you want. Or to make it more interesting, you can only nominate one player, so nobody has the "safety net" on their second nomination.
Don't think there should be a limit on that. Every player on which you have the highest bid is yours. And when you reach 12 players in your squad you are out of the process.How many players can you buy in each round by the way? Only 2? Or 5 and someone could end up with none?
Voters tend to get swayed by big names though. Why not simply end participation when one has say 12-13 players?Oh, okay. Though blind nominations and open bidding sounds fun . And I really like the possibility of a bigger squad here to add a few versatile players in the end, if you spent less money than others on the big names early on.