Myrgard

Salary cap is stupid. Why? Because assigning a value to a player is not enough.

Look at what you're trying to emulate: real world sports franchises. The offseason of any major is sport is rife with stories of Team A grossly overpaying for a certain free agent, or Team B unable to sign needed pieces because they've got no cap room. You can't emulate that in Myth in one go, certainly not for this year, at least.

The value of a player is what others would be willing to pay to have him. Even in sports, this is never based solely on ability or skill. As many are already saying, the assessments are also controversial and unreliable.

Assuming the ratings are perfect, without a draft, how do you assign the players? GKG and Zak may both have cap room to sign a particular 4-baller, but who decides which of them actually gets to sign him? Is it up to the player? A committee or commissioner? Or is this really just another draft with an extra, useless mechanic attached to it?

GiantKillerGen wrote:Never in my life have I seen mwc teams with such talent underperform consistently for multiple years as any top team ducky has captained. His only rival in horrible capping being raz. He has singlehandedly ruined what otherwise would have been good quality top mwc matches year after years after year, and it is a real shame.

This was half the point I was trying to make: his capping skills are as good as his bc skills.

falcon wrote:Sam butcher, asmo, zak and vantobia discussing myth future and penlord giving conclusions. Fucking Gold

Dont be such a jerk you jerkface.

hey stfu kid.

Falcon- Sam the butcher says Islam is the biggest problem in the world.

wwo wrote:Salary cap is stupid. Why? Because assigning a value to a player is not enough.

It wouldnt exactly be a Salary cap. It would be a Player points cap per game. So not a maximum Salary cap or Player points for the whole team. Just a limit on Player points per game. A team can have however many Player Points they want. They just cant field more than 48 Points per game.

I think already the Player ratings for TWS were pretty good. Yea there are a few that people disagree on but over all they werent bad. If we refined it a little more by like I said voting on 3 active, accomplished, well know Players to set the rankings I think we would have pretty accurate rankings, Players like Ratking, Genghis, GKG, Paris, Adren, Asmo, Limp, Zak etc provided they want to. Whichever 3 of them are voted in to set rankings. They each give a ranking to every Player independently. They then compare the lists. Any Player ranking that was the same from at least 2 of the ranking judges thats their rank. If a specific Player gets 3 different ranks then the ranking judges discuss it and if at least 2 can agree on a rank then thats their rank. I think using Players like I listed and having them come to a consensus on ranks will give accurate rankings. For most of the active Players I think their general ranking is pretty well know anyway. I dont think that if we had like Ratking, Genghis, GKG as ranking judges they are going to end up ranking a Player a 7 thats really a 4. I think those guys have a pretty good idea of each Players ranking and then needing to come to a consensus they will be pretty right on. If done like this I dont see getting accurate rankings as a problem.

wwo wrote:Assuming the ratings are perfect, without a draft, how do you assign the players? GKG and Zak may both have cap room to sign a particular 4-baller, but who decides which of them actually gets to sign him? Is it up to the player? A committee or commissioner? Or is this really just another draft with an extra, useless mechanic attached to it?

You dont assign Players. Teams recruit whoever they want (no caps) just like always. Just being a limit on the total number of Players per team like 10 or so which I think has been standard. Just that for a match/game a team can only field a total of 48 Player Points.

So a team could be like this: 10,9,9,9,8,8,8,7,7,7. Which is a pretty stacked team. But for a match/game they could only field up to 48 Player Points. Which when you consider that some teams will have less active Players that dont make it to some matches it could happen naturally. The Players could be interchangeable throughout the match also, whoever you want just stay at the 48 Player point limit.

So for a match/game the team could look like this: 10,9,8,7,7,7. 48 Player Points

That way it is much more fair for all the teams because there would be other teams that couldnt get that many higher ranked Players especially since most of the top Players pretty much all end up on like 4 teams. Which pretty much makes MWC pointless except for the semi-finals and on.

So assuming that with this system it still happens that there are totally stacked teams like above. Another team that cant get that many heavy hitters may look like this 7,6,6,6,5,5,5,4,4,4. So fielding 48 Player Points for the match/game they could be like this: 7,6,6,6,5,5,5,4,4. 48 Player Points.

The match up between those 2 teams would look like this: Team A) 10,9,8,7,7,7. 48 Player Points-VS-Team B) 7,6,6,6,5,5,5,4,4. 48 Player Points. I think this ends up being a fairly even match up. Team A has better Players but Team B has more. I think different people would see an advantage for each team. Like Asmo said he would rather have less but higher ranked Players than more lower ranked Players (scrubs) other people may see the advantage of having more Players.

As I was writing the last post I thought of one possible issue I can see with a 10 Player limit is for the teams with a lot of mid/low ranked Players. The possible issue being able to field 48 Player Points from a 10 Player roster. Like the example I gave above the team with the mid/low ranked Players would need to field 9 out of 10 of their Players. That may be difficult. There are 2 ways that this can be addressed.

1) Allow teams to be bigger like 15 Players. Issues with this are A) Being able to recruit that many Players. B) More Players per team means less teams.

2) Set a fairly high total salary cap for each team without a Player limit. Issue is it does limit team building but if the number is high enough but that may be minimal.

If you total up the points for the first team I listed in the last post 10,9,9,9,8,8,8,7,7,7 it equals 82 points. That is a really strong team. To get an idea I went to last years MWC and checked the threat assessments for "My Team" South Parkians didnt have individual threat assessments. If the 5 Ball system was converted to a 10 point system with 9-10 = 5 Balls 7-8 = 4 Balls etc. They have a team total of around 69 points. So I think a total team Points cap of around 75 would not be very restrictive at all. That would make things more fair for team with more mid/low ranked Players.

Being that a team with mid/low ranked Players need to field more Players to reach the 48 Point limit naturally the need a larger team to do that. Which I think is fair.

Honkey wrote:Falcon- Sam the butcher says Islam is the biggest problem in the world.

Honkey trying to start shit.

I'll send you money to not start that again sam.