Proposal/Discussion - WCC Finance System

[Blewy]

I can this see meant to be leveller for mid range lower sides to catch up. But would it be possible to have fixed levels, reckon the suggested format is bit to airer fairly from how read. I might be mis read it. Say your predicted to finish in position x, finish higher or lower then you get fixed percentaged of potential sponsorship. Say 10% for example for each position in each format.

Ok Ill try and explain it better..

Each team will be given 3 different sponsorship options, all will range in expectations and will have different options in them. For higher teams these goals will be much higher then those of lowers sides but with the 3 options you will be able to select what you feel as though you could achieve best. So for example your team, you may get 3 options as follows:

Option A:

Finish top in FC - $1,000,000
Runner Up (or better) in OD - $750,000
Make the Semi's of the 20/20 - $250,000

Option B:

Finish top half in FC - $500,000
Avoid Relegation in OD - $250,000
Win the 20/20 - $600,000

Option C:

Runner Up (or better) in FC - $800,000
Finish Top in OD - $900,000
Make the KO stage of 20/20 - $100,000

Now you will be able to select what options you feel you will be able to achieve best for your season. Hopefully that makes more sense.

Don't rate this at all even if it is a min amount of income. The principle is joke imo. I don't want to read a bunch of random pointless match reports and previews just so people can get money. Defeats the whole purpose of them.

I dont see why its a joke, thats half the problem with the game now, the activity of some managers is pretty piss poor.. Its not hard to post up a little report or press release. Use a bit of imagination and put a storyline to the game and it will become much more enjoyable, and people will start to develop different personalities instead of being robots.

Sound good as I'm over trading and I will just put all the money to wages. Though I still have to make pointless trades prior to the draft, just to keep numbers even.

You can do what you like, hoever once money is dedicated to a certain area, you will not be able to change it back.

Seriously for something like this you would probably need min and max squad numbers, rather then making everyone have 17 players. Some sides might rather use their wages for depth, some for massive superstars. Effectively though this is a cap i guess, that Jason wanted. Just not as specific as the Aussie caps, more an English Super League cap format I guess.

The squad limits would need to be discussed with Simon, but im sure it wouldnt be a major issue.

Should help make even trades, though how would draft trading come into this. Will their be basic range for each round of draft pick for trade to be accepted.

It would make trades even, But moreso would allow a lower division club a chance to pick up a top class player, whereas now they would stand no chance as they couldnt offer players good enough to certain teams..

based on stats or importance to a team btw?

It would be based on player ability only, as it could be skewed as 1 player may be important to one team and not another, and with the way the wages would work it would need to be based totally on player ability.

The changes aren't as massive as I thought intially, depending on how things are implemented. Though still not for the financial side of game yet tbph.

No they arent, and i cant understand why people are so against it TBH.. Its designed to get more activity from everyone, the place is like a graveyard sometimes and this would help boost the activity as well as allow people more input into their teams.

 

[Blewy]

I'm always going to stick with WCC no matter where it goes, and I'm so glad it's back.

Personally, I've enjoyed the reincarnation a little more than the old one, it has been simple and there haven't been too many teams. Personally I think this proposal is too much too soon. I'm in favour of a rankings/points system, but a salary cap of this magnitude could become a little confusing.

I also think this kind of system would only work if you could sign players for a certain time period. Say you picked up a rookie and you really like their potential, you might like to sign them up for 3 years at a low level (or price) the benefit of this would be if the rookie ends up being a really good player, you basically get two years out of him at a rookie level. However if the player is a flop you have to hold on to him for two years or lose money on a trade (or a cost for releasing the player from their contract).

If something like that was introduced, that would be the only way I would be in favour of a salary cap system at this stage.

I guess we need to look at it on the bigger scale... Why do people play this game??

Most will say because its simplicity i understand that, HOWEVER, the amount of re-starts this game has had over the years is a indication that Simplicity isnt a long term option, we will continually re-start over and over because the interest dies off very quickly because other then posting teams and getting results, nothing else happens.. The draft comes around once every few months but then thats gone and its the same over and over..
Im looking on the longer term scale and trying to ensure the longevity so that its not being re-started every 12 months, and IMO a finance system is the way to go..

 

[Blewy]

Not a fan, I still don't see why WCC needs a finance system - if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Thats the thing Jamee, it may not be broke in your eyes, but seriously wheres the interest?
Outside of the current managers, there is nobody waiting for a team, and when you come in here through the season its like a ghost town.. Its exactly why the game has re-started over and over...

 

[Umpire Money]

It doesnt seem so bad just am a little worried about the strong teams getting stronger and the weak teams continueing to struggle and the match previews etc.

I think to see it in action would be better thou.

I'm here willing to try it though and think

"I also think this kind of system would only work if you could sign players for a certain time period. Say you picked up a rookie and you really like their potential, you might like to sign them up for 3 years at a low level (or price) the benefit of this would be if the rookie ends up being a really good player, you basically get two years out of him at a rookie level. However if the player is a flop you have to hold on to him for two years or lose money on a trade (or a cost for releasing the player from their contract). "

Thats a good idea. Having to renegotiate a wage with a player could be good especially if he has done really well or really poorly.

Give it a go and if its too hard then we can at least say we tried it

 

[chaminda_00]

Sometimes the strength of game, can also be it weakness for it long term development.

Every time we have stopped or restarted was after a couple major changes and then when we came back we went back to basics. People started to enjoy the game and we started to slowly get activity back, then tried to improve and make some changes. Then people started to lose interest again and we were back to square one.

Also very considered the reason why people like this game is due to fact they don't have to spend more then a couple hours a week on it. A lot of people quit games as soon as you need to do more and it takes more time. I know I barely have more time for the game these days to write up reports and previews. I would make an effort to write stuff up, but there no way I will have the time to do it every week.

 

[Simon]

I think Blewy may have exaggerated the re-start thing a bit, WCC has been going for nearly 7 years and we have only had 2 re-starts, but his point is still valid imo.

 

[Mister Wright]

I'd rather see a contract system rather than a finance system allocated. Something like this could work:

Each team is required to have a minimum squad of 17 (number can be negotiated) however, teams can have more players as long as they do not exceed the required contract points.

Let's say players are ranked this way:

Player rankings are just a guide.

5 points - Marquee player
4 points - Both form regular
3 points - 1 form specialist
2 points - Back up player
1 point - Retirement rookie.

Basically this would allow for 3 5 point players, 4 4 point players, 4 3 point players, 4 2 point players, 2 1 point players.

That's a squad of 17 players. 53 Points.

Players would need to be ranked by the WCCB. Also, you would have to leave enough points for the draft. 1st round pick = 5 points, 2nd round pick = 4 points, 3rd round pick - 3 points & 4th round pick = 2 point. So if you are using all of your 4 picks you would need 14 points left in your squad to draft. Obviously if you've traded for some first round picks or 2nd round picks you would have to have the required amount of points left over to draft.


Also, you could sign players to contracts. If you've picked up a retirement rookie on 1 point, and you think he'll be a good one you could sign him to a 3 season contract. You have that player at 1 point for 3 seasons even if he would have been upgraded by the WCCB.

I think this system has the best of both worlds. It adds some kind of strategy with some kind of salary, but doesn't have the messiness of dollar figures that can sometimes get confusing. It also allows a simple guide of exactly what you need to have. No team is disadvantaged and for instance if you can fit 20 less skilled players in your squad you have that option, but everyone has a minimum squad. It also allows for those managers that want to get really active a chance to get right into it, but also gives those managers who just want to post a team, get results and do a bit of trading the chance to do that.

 

[luffy]

Yeah, sounds like a great idea.

 

[Simon]

That idea has merit Kyle, the only thing is that Id like it to be a more relaxed cap, not like CWXI where captains are trying to squeeze out every point. If and what system comes in the current squads would have to be acceptable. A team like Kandurata is basically full of "marquee" type players and it wouldnt be fair to see them penalised.

 

[Mister Wright]

That idea has merit Kyle, the only thing is that Id like it to be a more relaxed cap, not like CWXI where captains are trying to squeeze out every point. If and what system comes in the current squads would have to be acceptable. A team like Kandurata is basically full of "marquee" type players and it wouldnt be fair to see them penalised.

Perhaps that's something where Blewy had a good idea. Extra points could be given to clubs (by sponsors) for reaching certain goals and for press releases ect. Perhaps division one teams could have a higher cap than division two teams. I just think a point based contract system is easier to manage than a salary based system. It still allows for strategy, but doesn't get too complicated for people that just want to play and have fun.

 

[Simon]

Yeh I agree, I think people managing numbers, up to say 70 would be less confusing than a bunch on money values over the $2,000,000 mark.

 

[chaminda_00]

A team like Kandurata is basically full of "marquee" type players and it wouldnt be fair to see them penalised.

Yet it is fine for us to be penalised through the current draft system.

I actually much prefer Kyle idea in principle. The issue is that a players that might be say a both form players for one side might not be for another side. That for mine is one of biggest faults of the CWXI system. It should be based on overall ability not their role in a side.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

That for mine is one of biggest faults of the CWXI system. It should be based on overall ability not their role in a side.

Yeah, this.

 

[Blewy]

I guess thats another option, I just prefer the dealing with money as its more like reality...

I agree with Tharmi that players should be gauged on their ability and not their value to their squad though, If that was to be the case then alot of bias would be going on..

There would need to be a Max limit on seasons a player could be contracted, also if a player is contracted IMO you should not be allowed to release him before that period, or if you do you are taxed a certain amount of points..

How would trading work?

 

[NZTailender]

I still think WCC is fine as it is. There was a high submission rate amongst managers and Simon got a good response from his survey, plus there was a decent amount of trading done as well.

If people aren't writing a match report each week then I think there's a good chance they won't take to a finance system.

 

[Mister Wright]

I guess thats another option, I just prefer the dealing with money as its more like reality...

I agree with Tharmi that players should be gauged on their ability and not their value to their squad though, If that was to be the case then alot of bias would be going on..

There would need to be a Max limit on seasons a player could be contracted, also if a player is contracted IMO you should not be allowed to release him before that period, or if you do you are taxed a certain amount of points..

How would trading work?

Trading would work how it is. However you have to make sure you have enough left over points for the amount of draft pick points you need. Players would have to be revalued before trading incase managers want to trade a contracted player and for players that have come off contract. Three seasons would have to be the maximum contract period.

 

[Mister Wright]

I still think WCC is fine as it is. There was a high submission rate amongst managers and Simon got a good response from his survey, plus there was a decent amount of trading done as well.

If people aren't writing a match report each week then I think there's a good chance they won't take to a finance system.

Agree.

 

[alternative]

I still think WCC is fine as it is. There was a high submission rate amongst managers and Simon got a good response from his survey, plus there was a decent amount of trading done as well.

If people aren't writing a match report each week then I think there's a good chance they won't take to a finance system.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Umpire Money]

I agree but people are trying to better it.

I think they are asking the question... Is this WCC all its ever going to be? and if the answer is yes then really boredom will settle in soon or later.

Im happy with a change, to what degree it remains to be seen but if people leave because they think it will take too much time or they think it will be poop then I suppose thats a risk either way

 

[NZTailender]

I can understand the need for change to keep people interested, but IMO, a finance change isn't it.

Brain storming session in order.