Sounds like a good idea!
If you need any more players, I'm more than up for being a cheap utility player :D

I like the possibility of being live competition. So we could have 10 players/team, and the players that will play you be choosen between the ones that are available.
Would have to be saturdays and sunday, in the night/asia day/europe morning/america time.
3 minutes to play (all board games have a speed play games, like chess, checkers and o), so the time to exchange would be little and each player would account for itself.

Being live would permit up to 3 games in an hour period with 3 minutes play (a player that passes 3 minutes 2/3 times should be booted by the other team).

It would possibility the teams to be bigger (10 players) and would be the first tournament with a real schedule (that i know of). By the number of responses we are having in this forum we will have enough players to commit.

It would make availability a great skill to a player have in the team.

also, i think that the hole team should be able the talk in the picks, but not after. (so teamplay play some part in the game)

Im honestly impressed with the outpour of support for this endeavor. I think because of that. Creating 10 teams a league or multi leagues isn't an inappropriate thought.

Though. I think that it should be five players max with the manager included so that all players are played in at at least one game.

If this takes off shy not make it something akin to multi leagues. With teams moving up and down after 60/90/120 days.

about salary based on winning %:

in professional sports, players assume their worth and try to get paid that much when negotiating their salaries. on warlight, players assume their worth and play games to make it appear they are worth that much (ie, their stats reflect their ego to some extent: player A plays easy games to pad stats to impress others with his apparent worth as a player).

in this way stats (inflated or deflated) determine price and managers have to make decisions based on what they think actual ability is.

lots of athletes get overpaid based on their perceived (but not actual) value. why not force managers here to make the same value judgments, rather than rely on myhand to do it for us?

Why not then just let managers decide the salary they are willing to pay for the players via bidding wars rather than have it decided by win %?

i was thinking in terms of initial salary, to save myhand the time of having to attempt to give 100+ players fair market values to begin (he said he will set initial salaries). bidding wars, salary fluctuation, etc. are good options too.

Sounds like a great idea! i know im a bit late on reading this but i would love to be a player if you are still taking on people

:)

there has been a lot of discusion on this so i thought i would put my 2 pence in



what i would like to see is something simple to start with

each manager just has 1 team but maybe 10managers over 2 leagues
but i would make team sizes 4v4 or 5v5

anyway
all managers start with the same pot of money say 100
Managers are given 50 for wining a game and 20 when losing
Managers get bonuses on what position they finish the legues
Players are paid wages before every game


to start all players start in the "Free list" and then its up to the managers to sign the players and negotiate thier per game wages, there is no price tag for these players because nobody owns them only their per game wages and therefore its up to the player which manager they sign for

at any time managers can put players on the "purchase list" with a purchase figure to entice other managers to buy the players

at any rime the manager can get rid of a player and put them back on the "Free List"
if they do this they get no money for the player and only save on their wages

at anytime managers can put offers into other managersto buy their players

i feel if you run it like this things are much simplier and its the market that sets the value on a player not any assigned mathmatic formular which is much more relaistic to real sports

any thoughts

As a follow on

Any new players that wanted to join would then have to put their name on the "Free list" and hope that somebody wants to sign them.

If they are on the list for a while they could entice managers by saying they will play for low wages.

Players and managers would then be responsable for their own contracts...the managers could impliment win bonus league win bonuses etc what ever they felt like but they would need to stay in positive money. if they couldnt afford to pay wages before the game they would need to sell or get rid of players and sign someone for lower wages.


there would be a list of all players and their career/seasonal earnings to see which player had been negotiating the best and then earns the MVP award

I don't like the whole wages thing
i think it should be that you engage in auctions, in cases of less wanted players, the price is lower, for ace players like ladder winners and the like, the price will obviously go higher, i've already said it in an early post bt i'd like to be a manager.

For me the wages thing is a must - just my opinion

There would be a bidding war if 2 people want to buy the same player off a Manager

with the auction thing you mention would this be the only way to transfer money back and forth?

Well what i thought was, you start with so much, say 100000 credits. You then bid on players, but bidding wars would eventually end because of your finite cash. You would see some teams with one ace player, then lots of cheap ones and more well rounded teams. I think this would be pretty interesting. I don't like the idea of salaries because it would overcomplicate.

I agree with Mac that player wages have to be implemented in some way or another. With an auction system the risk of a game-breaking imbalance is too high.
IMO you have to prevent the case of a manager just getting lucky with the initial rooster and subsequently dominating the whole game. With wages (and a salary cap maybe, but I'm not too familiar with this as we don't have it in Europe), things could balance out way more easily.

Yes but once you have bought a good player there is no incentive to sell if you have a good team. what if you get a few good players that dont go high on the auctions. once you have your team thats it

with wages it brings the players into the "Management game" too. if they are doing well in a team they might think they are worth more wages and ask for more. if he doesnt get what he wants he may decide to move teams...thats of course if someone else wants him for the high wages?

i think this is the whole essence of the "Management" game. i think that just a basic auction would create a very static game with not much movement of players

Darn. Roster, not rooster. xD

Why don`t learn from soccer:

1. Managers can only Buy/sell players in some periodes (2 (?) times per sesson)
2. Instead of regular wages I suggest a one time bill, after the possebility for buying/selling players.
3. I think one of the most inportent things is a simple system, wich evreybody easlily can understand.
4. I think each mannager should have 1 team each. (simplest sulution)
5. A big problem is that sombody would need to use a lot of time to orgenaize this, even the simplest soulutions, and so far I don`thtink anybody would do that. (any vulenters)

Edit:
Forget the first line (why don`t learn from soccer)

I like the idea, but would think we would need than 2 transfer periods. It could maybe be something like transfers the fisrt week of the month.

if i can i will be a manager