The Great Roster Cull

[Shteve0]

I'm not actually suggesting we change anything. I was saying that I thought it was already a consideration. It seems that I was wrong, and that a less elegant, more haphazard (yet equally reverse engineered) process was in place. Whatever; the results are the same.

But, on the idea under discussion, I think the idea that the same skill might attract a different cost depending on when you take it is clumsy in the extreme.

[dode74]

It's not the skill, but the potential benefit of combining with other skills which cannot be taken (except on doubles) by players without the skill access which you are paying for. We can all think of plenty of cross-category skill combinations which we think are very powerful, and you said yourself that it's at least partly down to the good skill access on multiple players which causes those teams to be good at high TV - the options to take "good" skills increase when there is access to another category, so this makes sense.

Anyway, I've hijacked your thread. Apologies.

[Shteve0]

As the environment develops and the higher potential player does too then he should pay more for his greater options, either in terms of cash or in terms of TV.

I don't agree with this assertion, at all. We already consciously make this decision in our own team selections every season. Not every roster option is of equal value when we make those perfunctory cost-benefit analyses.

If an Amazon blitzer is worth 90k to a linewoman with block at 70k...

We decide when picking our teams what we need, and then what represents good value in pursuing that end to best fit. Some players are seen as bargains in this light, others less so. Skill access is a very real consideration when you choose rosters in all formats. Ignoring it as a factor in team design (and yes, costing) is irrational.

[Shteve0]

It's not the skill, but the potential benefit of combining with other skills which cannot be taken (except on doubles) by players without the skill access which you are paying for. We can all think of plenty of cross-category skill combinations which we think are very powerful, and you said yourself that it's at least partly down to the good skill access on multiple players which causes those teams to be good at high TV - the options to take "good" skills increase when there is access to another category, so this makes sense.

Anyway, I've hijacked your thread. Apologies.

Lol, not at all.

My point is that I think paying up front for the potential is better than, effectively, guaranteeing what would ordinarily be doubles options free of charge. There should be an inherent cost to these decisions; essentially that you've part paid for access to the category in exchange for discounts down the line. And I contest that there (largely) already is, whether the designers built it in consciously or not. That's all, really.

[dode74]

I don't think Amazons are a good race to hold out as exemplary of anything other than poor team design, personally

Not every roster option is of equal value when we make those perfunctory cost-benefit analyses.

The team is assessed as a whole when selecting it. I'm not arguing that. Remember, the argument is based solely around the fact that good high-TV teams tend to be those with good skill access across the board.

Ignoring on-pitch capability as being the most important thing in terms of individual game balance, and therefore in terms of on-pitch "cost" (that being the supposed determinant of balance) makes no sense whatsoever. In light of that, I ask again: why should an unskilled 6338G player should cost less than an unskilled 6338GSPM player? Surely he shouldn't. But, equally surely, once the GSPM player deviates from skill options which the G player has access to as well, that's when he becomes more valuable due to his improved on-pitch capability, and that is when he should cost more.

I think paying up front for the potential is better than, effectively, guaranteeing what would ordinarily be doubles options free of charge.

Skill access is part of the flavour and balance of the team, and I doubt we'd want to go to a bland system where such access is homogeneous. That said, currently teams are given what would "ordinarily be doubles options" absolutely free of charge (whether there is a 10k addition at the start or not, which I contest that in the majority of cases there is not); all I'm suggesting is that teams still get the option, but that they pay for it in terms of TV, just as other teams have to.

[Shteve0]

Ignoring on-pitch capability as being the most important thing in terms of individual game balance, and therefore in terms of on-pitch "cost" (that being the supposed determinant of balance) makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not doing that, I'm saying it's not the only factor.

In light of that, I ask again: why should an unskilled 6338G player should cost less than an unskilled 6338GSPM player? Surely he shouldn't.

And I answer again; team context. It's not about relative value across rosters, but within your own.

But, equally surely, once the GSPM player deviates from skill options which the G player has access to as well, that's when he becomes more valuable due to his improved on-pitch capability, and that is when he should cost more.

Fair enough. I totally hear what you're saying, and I believe I fully understand your view. I just absolutely disagree, that's all.

[dode74]

And I answer again; team context. It's not about relative value across rosters, but within your own.

I'd say that relative values between rosters is at least as, if not more, important. Part of the game is TV management, obviously, and if there is something within your roster which is clearly overcosted (Slann blitzers are often cited as an example) compared to others on that roster then you have the option to not take them. If, however, a single roster is internally coherent but under- or over-priced relative to other rosters then it causes an issue in the game overall. Specifically, the "clause 3" you cited is there, imo, to allow us to "fudge" the balance by enabling individual players within a roster to make less internally coherent sense, but for the roster to work within the overall game.
I'm not saying that all identical players on every team must have the same cost (although I suspect it would make more sense to people if they did), but that if it is possible to make a team of 11 6338 players (and it is, of course, although it would be both dull and fairly dumb in the case of Humans) then they should cost the same as rookies whether they have G or GSPM access because there is no difference between the players on the pitch. When it shouldn't cost the same is when the GSPM players start taking other skills which the G players can't, because they do so for free and without restriction and this causes imbalance.

[Digger Goreman]

Limit access to (at least) multiple plethoras of obscene skill combos by a hard cap 1.5 million AND reintroduce aging.... Face it, old age is about all that is going to take down a 5 skill increased whore-dancer.... And how many clawpomb'ers can you afford before you reach that plateau...?

Breathe, Timmy, breathe... you can put down the nitroglycerin pills and calm yer clinching sphincters... it will never come to that....

Still, I can only fondly imagine what good could be done with real management choices forced upon the coaches....

Meh, too many people would rather be Steinbrenner and the Yankees....