i will join as a player

manager.

or player, if there are too many managers.

I'll happily join as player.

I did some more thinking about how to make this work, and I've got an idea that could make this more interesting than just picking the best players you can afford.

Bishes suggested salaries, which I think is fundamental. Untimately, a working game economy will have to have the same total number of war coins going in as coming out, to provide incentive to win, but also to limit the total number of coins available and make it more competitive. My suggestion would be to make each game worth the total salary value of all players combined, and to pay each player their assigned value for playing in that game. Let's look at an example:

Team A has a 4 and two 3s, for a total salary cost of 10. Team B has two 4s and a 2, for a total salary of 10 as well. The game is worth 20 points to the winning team, and each manager pays the 10 salary whether they win or lose. The winning manager will thereby gain 10 to offset future losses.

In this manner, an incredibly cheap team has an innate advantage of not costing very much. This system will require extremely good evaluations of player skill, so that someone who wins every game doesn't ever get marked as a 1, or whatever. I would even suggest that a formula be set up so that teams/players who win beyond a certain ratio continue to cost more, above the 4 we have been talking about so far.

Furthermore, it would probably be best to implement a salary cap for teams, such that a team of all top rated players is not possible. It would then be up to the managers if they wanted two really good players and a dead spot player, or a well-balanced team.

Intresting idea i will think about it. Also I believe that salaries are important, I give you that. Give me some time to think it through

im your top notch undergod, mr. manager.

- specialized in 1600 and long term tactics
- sell n buy conselor
- used to play in team B
- great in makin pizza and cocktails
- ornithology
- no anal sex

YOU WANT ME

(not naked)

3v3 winning % (as a whole number) ÷ 2 = salary?

eg, guy with 3v3 winning % of 50% gets a salary of 2.5.

20*

i was the second guy to ask to be a manager on the thread, i hope i get the job

I think it will involve the hole community. Everybody want to be a part of it first, but second we all want to see the best results, with the best players (we like to see messi and djokovic playing don't we?).
Managers like Richelieu and Heyheuhei its what we are looking for: great players, and with a history of dedication to the game.
So by the end, i dont see how cannot to vote who the managers and players should be.

And should each interested person give a reason to why they should be a manager? (calling dibs will work here?)

I don't think managers should have to be voted on (weather I make it or not) but players having to be voted in )or having to take above a certain place in a tournament perhaps?) would be ok.

My reasoning is that managers would get voted out for being bad players, but they're not playing in the games, just judging how well others will play, which is entirely different.

I'm up for being a player. Funfun!

Eagle, the reason I could see manager voting being required is that not everyone gets along on this site. Consider this... how well would you play if Richelieu was your manager? Or if I were your manager? You aren't exactly a fan of either of us so would you really want to be 'employed' on our teams?

Thats half the fun Sharpe, same as in any sport, good manager/player relations is part of the game. If players are not happy then it is the managers job to address that (or trade them), and if a manager works really well with players that have low overall rankings more power to him/her

Amazing concept, love this!


I'm certainly interested: manager, player, accountant, deputy commissioner, whatever you want me for. I don't have much time at this moment, but I hope that will be better soon.

I think it would work best with up to 10 managers each with only 1 team, because there would be more movement of players possible. A lower ammount of managers makes it much more restricting and that may become boring soon.

I love the idea of player salaries, it would be great to have an open market. As in: you don't have to buy the player, you only need to be able to give him a certain salary for a fixed ammount of time (contracts of 1 game, several games, ...). An owner can only offer money that he has at that moment, so contract length is automatically limited.

This would work great in combination with the "restricted free agent" concept. Any manager can offer any currently "employed" player a higher salary for the duration of the contract, while the current owner has the right to match the offered salary (if he has enough money) or let the player go.
When the existing contract is up, any manager can offer the player a new contract.

This would also solve the end of season issue as new managers can easily gain players from old managers like this. Whenever new managers are added, new players should be added in a similar way.

Trades (mentioned by someone before) would also be great in this system as it would be a great way to shed salary if you lose a few games in a row.

The idea of The Duke to pay the winner the total salaries, makes a lot of sense, but will quickly make good teams better and bad teams worse. I'd rather say both teams get paid by "entertainment value" with the winning team getting 2/3 (rounded to the nearest integer) of the salaries involved and the losing team 1/3. Like this, the richest team can become about twice as rich as the poorest team, which makes sense. It will also allow a poor team to play with real bad players in an attempt to recover and stack some money to buy better players in the long run.


On chosing the managers: in about every existing league, the commissioner, along with the existing team owners/members, decides on this, I don't see why it would be any different here.
Having owners that are not universally loved, may make it more interesting. Players may ask to be traded if they don't like their owner or not play hard, as lobstrosity said.

@Richard - I'd be fine with it. We'd find a way to get along. In all truth, I'd probably never draft someone to my team that I don't get along with if I was manager for exactly that reason. He's the only one on this site currently that I don't necessarily get along with, and even that wouldn't be much of a problem.

So I still don't see the need for it, I think that it should be just at the coordinator's judgement if someone could handle it or not.

@Math I have no idea what sort of leagues you are talking about there......in every pro league I'm familiar with, only the Commish has the power to veto a "new" owner for a team. The teams joining themselves are what's chose by the league and the owners' votes. Second, this is not that type of league, this is the START of a league, not adding someone down the line (for the first season anyway).

There's no league in the world where ever owner is liked and respected (look up Jerry Jones) but the rest of the owners have no say over that.

@Gui in regards to salary- I think basing it solely off of a win percent is a bad idea, my 3v3 percent was around 80, but then I stopped playing 3v3 auto and started only playing in tournaments against very strong players. Point being win percent does not always indicate skill as it depends on the average skill of your opponents (and also sample size)

As to getting prizes of more money for winning games, I don't think it's the best system. Instead, point awarded should come from over-all standings at the end of the season or some sort of tournament at the end.