For Captain Lust
- Thread starter Scar
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
i would legit like to play in the tournament. 10 Managers, $500,000,000 Moneys to spend. Seriously do it.
The interesting thing about it is that you'd have to consider who would be committed as well because I think a lot of players would sign up to see how they'd be valued, but they might go inactive for whatever reason in the tournament. This must be resolved through the pure capitalism of the system.
I like Watly's bidding idea as well.
I like Watly's bidding idea as well.
Although idea is great,in reality however it would take some "sacrifices" from the players that are signing up.
Lot of egos would have to be put aside,especially if certain player ends up in a team of the captain he is not so fond of.
Would he follow his command?
Would he troll in matches?
If you could make some kind of contract that every player must sign before being put on Free Agents list then I guess it could work out quite well actually.
Lot of egos would have to be put aside,especially if certain player ends up in a team of the captain he is not so fond of.
Would he follow his command?
Would he troll in matches?
If you could make some kind of contract that every player must sign before being put on Free Agents list then I guess it could work out quite well actually.
I think this is part of the challenge. For example when a manager buys somebody like Fernando Torres, they know he can be a real stroppy loser or a brilliant player but that will depend on conditions and certain treatment as well as factors beyond control.Erminas said:
So yeah I could splash big budget on Cleric Johnson but he might be hungover for matches, or out drinking in the bog. It's a difficult choice to make and captains will have to make careful purchases of players that will work well together and be reliable, then do their best to motivate them into producing results.
No more than 2 players from same clan. Every player available should have to play at least 1 set per match to ensure everyone can participate, also means the "managers" have to spend well beyond their first 8 players.
Doing bidding for that many players would take too long. Could put the bulk into cost tiers then have bidding for the top 2 tiers or something. That way you save work bidding on lesser known players without giving offensively low prices.
Doing bidding for that many players would take too long. Could put the bulk into cost tiers then have bidding for the top 2 tiers or something. That way you save work bidding on lesser known players without giving offensively low prices.
Dr4g0nkn1ght
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Razer' said:The price of a player should be the amount of BP's he has
So you get half of competitive warband for free?
Killfacer said:
Aye, if we do this, we should determine the values of players through a council by vote (which will cost a lot of time, but is quite amusing otherwise.) This is to prevent, for example, over-valuation of AE players or Russian players or any other players.
We should also loosely define what the votes are based on in that case. For example with archer players: aiming, positioning, self-defence and improv. More than 4-5 categories would be a waste of time in my opinion.
The question also remains: how do we determine the best candidates for that captaincy position? Maybe hold an application stage and if more sign-up have the final 10 decided by vote?
I like the idea.
I'd say, 4 team captains, voted by a poll in the thread. After that there should be a 'pick night' and the captains can pick the players they want, 1 by 1. Than Team A vs Team C and Team B vs Team D. After that Winners match A vs Winners match B, same for the Losers match.
Maybe open a thread with signups? The moderators of this event can rate the signed up players by their own knowledge about the players.Dr4g0nkn1ght said:So you get half of competitive warband for free?
I'd say, 4 team captains, voted by a poll in the thread. After that there should be a 'pick night' and the captains can pick the players they want, 1 by 1. Than Team A vs Team C and Team B vs Team D. After that Winners match A vs Winners match B, same for the Losers match.
The idea sounds sick if it's done in the right format. I'm not sure if people want the players from each team to actually play vs each other, or if people just want a hypothetical match between the two bought teams.
Personally I think a format where players actually played against each other would be better, perhaps done in a way that allows anyone to start a team with a set amount of money (say $10,000) and they have to put together a team. Through this way, good players will have to be cheap at the beginning so that it can get going and prices will rise as matches are played and teams win more money (kind of like in FIFA Ultimate Team). I also think having sponsors would be a fun addition. Say, a player can choose to be a sponsor rather than a purchasable player - a sponsor could receive a set income per week (eg. $5000), this would make it necessary for teams to secure sponsors so that they could buy players. Sponsor deals could be made (an example: Team A secures sponsorship from sponsor X. Sponsor X provides a regular $3000 per week to team A in exchange for 40% of all match winnings). This idea means that small teams will benefit more from a sponsorship, as they will receive more money than they are forced to pay out. A sponsor may wish to tactically choose how he makes his deals so that while he may end up losing money at the start, by supporting a team (which may later become very strong), the sponsor will then be able to make considerable money if he invests correctly. A player may choose to be a sponsor as the money they make could then be put into creating their own team.
Just a few ideas I think would make this really interesting and exciting. Of course it will depend on what whoever actually ends up making it prefers, but I think in this kind of way it will give everyone something to do and can allow players to make money without playing for a team and then perhaps use this to form their own team.
Personally I think a format where players actually played against each other would be better, perhaps done in a way that allows anyone to start a team with a set amount of money (say $10,000) and they have to put together a team. Through this way, good players will have to be cheap at the beginning so that it can get going and prices will rise as matches are played and teams win more money (kind of like in FIFA Ultimate Team). I also think having sponsors would be a fun addition. Say, a player can choose to be a sponsor rather than a purchasable player - a sponsor could receive a set income per week (eg. $5000), this would make it necessary for teams to secure sponsors so that they could buy players. Sponsor deals could be made (an example: Team A secures sponsorship from sponsor X. Sponsor X provides a regular $3000 per week to team A in exchange for 40% of all match winnings). This idea means that small teams will benefit more from a sponsorship, as they will receive more money than they are forced to pay out. A sponsor may wish to tactically choose how he makes his deals so that while he may end up losing money at the start, by supporting a team (which may later become very strong), the sponsor will then be able to make considerable money if he invests correctly. A player may choose to be a sponsor as the money they make could then be put into creating their own team.
Just a few ideas I think would make this really interesting and exciting. Of course it will depend on what whoever actually ends up making it prefers, but I think in this kind of way it will give everyone something to do and can allow players to make money without playing for a team and then perhaps use this to form their own team.
