@J Russell

I havent figured out a proper system yet. Allthought the idea mentioned by you seems very logical at first, there is a downside to you form of playersdistribution. The players will get all auctioned off, leading to teams in which the best players possible will play. All the not so good players will never see any action.
I want players like Heyheuhei be expensive at the beginning, so people have to rely on bad players first, seeing there games, deciding on who to keep , who to exchange.

I guess it will have to be a mixture of ideas, since i still want to see some market economy develop, like you mentioned.

Concerning your other point: Of course teams can be rearranged before new every game. You are free to with them what you want.

Oh my .... just dont read my mistakes, since there is no edit function ;)

i presumed you were going to have a mix of game types?
(1) best player 1v1 games (you'd like to buy 1 great player for this)
(2) 2v2 games (oh, here i want 2 good players)
(3) 4v4 games (here i need 4 players who are all ok)
(4) 1v1 games, in sets of eg 4 - so your 4 best 1v1 players all have to play games (the better players cannot help the weaker ones, like they can in the 4v4 games) (here, i need 4 decent players, NOT 1 great player and 3 poor ones)

the mix of game types forces the manager to do a tradeoff between buying 1 expensive player vs getting 4 or more decent squad players.

and if you are really worried that 1 good player will tell the others exactly what to do, then make the games real-time - that will reduce this effect.

i like unknonwsoldier idea

each match up best of 5 games. 1 game 1v1, 1 game 2v2, 2 games 3v3 and 1 game 4v4.
This way you will have to think through a lot, and you may have to considering weekening one team to make the other strongers. 1v1 players should be more expensive, since their ratio is 1 player/game.


Other idea, some sort of auction for better players, who are willing to pay more and stuff.

Other thing, are the managers allowed to talk/teach/combine with players about the templates outside the matches?

|> The players will get all auctioned off, leading to teams in which the best players possible will play. All the not so good players will never see any action.

I don't understand. How is this avoidable? How else is the manager going to decide who plays and who doesn't?

the way dunga described it, you meed a minimum of 10 men in a squad.
if there were eg 6 teams in the league, then that would be 60+ players :/

i would say there are about 20 top players in WL. and maybe 100 or so rather good ones. so i would say that any reasonably good player is likely to be used by a manager.

ok, really bad players will not get picked. but that was never the idea, was it?

sounds fun, i'd like to be a player if possible

maybe the player can be hired to more than one type of game so we wouldn't need that much players.

when will this start i hope i become a manager if not then player

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