![[DEV] ISFL Forums](http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/images/emerald/logo.png "[DEV] ISFL Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Media (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: *DSFL GMing: Points of Concern (/showthread.php?tid=31010)
RE: DSFL GMing: Points of Concern - Jimi64 - 03-23-2021
(03-23-2021, 11:25 AM)Swanty Wrote: There should be a concerted effort to heavily discourage DSFL lifers.
I agree as long we're talking about users who hit 250 as fast as possible and stop earning, with the express intention of avoiding a callup. Users whose earning pace only allows them to earn a small amount of TPE per season but still enjoy themselves are likely never going to see an ISFL snap. But if they are active, engaged and happy with that arrangement, they shouldn't feel like they're pressured to not recreate when their DSFL eligibility runs out.
This is precisely what I mean
RE: DSFL GMing: Points of Concern - j00 - 03-24-2021
(03-23-2021, 01:12 PM)Jimi64 Wrote:(03-23-2021, 11:25 AM)Swanty Wrote: There should be a concerted effort to heavily discourage DSFL lifers.
I agree as long we're talking about users who hit 250 as fast as possible and stop earning, with the express intention of avoiding a callup. Users whose earning pace only allows them to earn a small amount of TPE per season but still enjoy themselves are likely never going to see an ISFL snap. But if they are active, engaged and happy with that arrangement, they shouldn't feel like they're pressured to not recreate when their DSFL eligibility runs out.
This is precisely what I mean
What would you propose as some potential disincentives? Because I was actually planning to do this with my next recreate, lol. Reasoning:
1. DSFL seems to pay more per season than ISFL.
2. DSFL allows one to max earn for a single season and then chill for the next 3. Max earning can be quite stressful, and personally it does not seem fun to hang out at the bottom of the ISFL, especially if you are seeing significant playing time, as it'd probably just feel like you're letting your team down on every play that you get beat, or that the team/league is just giving you a pity roster spot until they can draft/sign your replacement.
I've entertained the thought of greatly increasing ISFL contract values (think double the current salary cap or even more), but I don't know enough about the ramifications. Some people were saying that players would still take low money contracts so that GMs can purchase better bots for a better team. I probably can't fully say until I have a season or two of GM experience under my belt, or at least be halfway through my ISFL career.
Currently with Juno, I put a lot of effort and pride into my media articles, but I can easily see myself caring less and less, especially on recreates, where I'm just making low quality content for the sake of needing money. I don't want to do that, which is why a max-earning player is likely not in my immediate future when Juno retires. One needs about $21.5 million or so to cover T6 equipment + weekly trainings every season. Perhaps it should be rebalanced in a way where teams can cover most or even all of a player's equipment/weekly training costs for some of their players. This might create an interesting dynamic where a team might offer a 3 year, $60mil contract to someone (which effectively allows them to not have to earn money for 3 seasons) in an attempt to keep them active. Or incentive-based contracts, like $5m base pay, +$10mil if they earn at least 100TPE over a season, another +$5mil if they earn at least 150TPE. I see these clauses in some contracts, but with a higher salary cap, the payouts would be much more worth it. I can see this causing strife on some teams, though, so I totally get it if people are against this.
Also, people can pay for each other's equipment and training costs, right? I didn't see a rule specifically against this. If I choose to pay for another user's weekly training with my own money, I can do that, right?
The other way would be to raise the floor of TPE, which I've suggested a few times before, but again I am too new for it to be a real suggestion. The goal is still the same: to make the league more friendly towards casuals. A casual player already doesn't want to commit hard to the league. Balancing TPE so that their player is effectively an <OVR 60 player is sure to disincentivize them from committing. A full career is more than a year long in real time. It's really dependent on what you decide is the "correct" amount of effort one should be spending in these sim leagues. I also don't play in any other sim leagues, so I'll again admit that my perspective is limited.
But ultimately it is no fun for either party to either have to draft a player that quickly goes inactive, and/or for a casual player to create a player and then realize how incredibly ineffective they are if they aren't willing to put in the baseline level of work, especially when it takes a few seasons before you can start seeing your player pay dividends in the ISFL (of which this post says is the main focus of the league, not the DSFL).
RE: DSFL GMing: Points of Concern - 37thchamber - 03-24-2021
(03-24-2021, 03:43 AM)j00 Wrote: What would you propose as some potential disincentives?Complicated question. People's motives and situations will vary. I don't think it needs to be disincentivised though.
Like I don't think anyone is saying that it should never happen at all, or that it's inherently bad. If you're a semi-casual player who is happy and enjoying their experience in the DSFL, it probably doesn't matter to you whether you get called up, in which case I don't see an issue with being a DSFL lifer. If you're a veteran who wants a break, similar logic applies -- I mean, I just didn't recreate immediately; but this is just as valid -- you can still be part of the community and it's no big deal if you don't want to be called up.
Pretty sure the thrust of that point (and Jimi can correct me if I'm misreading this) was more to do with new users (who are, after all, the focus of the DSFL) coming in and being active enough to have their player be viable in the ISFL... but feeling a sense of loyalty to their DSFL team to the point that they don't want to be called up. That should probably be discouraged.
(03-24-2021, 03:43 AM)j00 Wrote: Perhaps it should be rebalanced in a way where teams can cover most or even all of a player's equipment/weekly training costs for some of their players. This might create an interesting dynamic where a team might offer a 3 year, $60mil contract to someone (which effectively allows them to not have to earn money for 3 seasons) in an attempt to keep them active.Part of the reason this doesn't happen is because the fewer things you have to do each week, the more likely it is you become less active.
By creating a situation in which users who want a successful player feel the need to earn league cash to pay for equipment and training, we implicitly encourage the creation of gfx/media/podcasts, or doing league jobs etc. These things largely then contribute to overall activity by encouraging engagement in the league community as a whole.
There is some balance to be had here, obviously, but generally speaking, the higher contract amounts are more likely go to the people who have already put in the work (and thus proven they are worth the investment) ... which is a self-defeating argument for doing this in the first place, because those users are more likely to have the time and/or bank to not need subsidising via contract.
This is part of a whole other discussion around contracts, imo, and it's very easy to go off on a tangent here so I'll cut it short. But the TL;DR is "giving players more money doesn't really help with activity"
(03-24-2021, 03:43 AM)j00 Wrote: Also, people can pay for each other's equipment and training costs, right? I didn't see a rule specifically against this. If I choose to pay for another user's weekly training with my own money, I can do that, right?No. That would fall under transferring funds, since there is no provision for allowing another user to buy equipment or pay for training that does not apply to their own player.
This should probably be clarified in the rulebook though, so ... well done for pointing it out.
(03-24-2021, 03:43 AM)j00 Wrote: But ultimately it is no fun for either party to either have to draft a player that quickly goes inactive, and/or for a casual player to create a player and then realize how incredibly ineffective they are if they aren't willing to put in the baseline level of work, especially when it takes a few seasons before you can start seeing your player pay dividends in the ISFL (of which this post says is the main focus of the league, not the DSFL).The casual player in this example isn't what Jimi is talking about, to be fair. He did clarify this in response to Swanty.
RE: DSFL GMing: Points of Concern - C9Van - 03-24-2021
kekw
RE: DSFL GMing: Points of Concern - Memento Mori - 03-24-2021
I agree with the overall themes here and think it comes from a great place. On DSFL lifers, I've recently joined SHL where there are a lot of intentional development league lifers. IMO it happens there because you need like 800+ TPE to be called up. I don't think it's really been an issue in this league until very recently, with the sim switch being somewhat responsible for it. It used to be the case that max earners were usually called up immediately, but ever since the S22 draft class transformed the league we've seen an increasing number of max earners sent down, and we're seeing average earners often spend two seasons sent down. The lack of space on ISFL rosters created the conditions for this, but because the sim is brutal for lower TPE players we're starting to see more players say they don't want to be called up.
I think the problem here is more structural than cultural. No one signs up to a sim league and aims to have Bennie Logan's career, I think it's perfectly understandable for someone to choose to be a DSFL lifer currently. If you rebalance the sim to make it kinder to lower TPE players you remove the incentive (but anger the max earners who want their efforts to bear fruit on the field), or if you expand at the ISFL level these players will actually be needed and they'll feel important/GMs will be trying to court them.
Kotasa and Jimi already expanded on this, but I wanted to draw attention to a specific example of DSFL winning mattering. The S21 Ultimini-winning Myrtle Beach Buccaneers drafted myself, Billybolo, Troen, NTG, Thor, Colabear and Gwdjohnson, and picked up tMuse, gbfn, Naosu and hotdog on waivers. That's eleven 1000+ TPE players, and current/former HO, GMs, department heads, RMs, graders, auditors, etc.
This is probably a unique case because of the size of the draft class, but I imagine other iconic DSFL teams like the Tijuana teams from ~10 seasons ago can boast comparatively impactful classes. It's obviously not just because of the fact we won, though, everyone who was around at the time is aware of the LR environment that Frost and Cory cultivated. I think there's a real value to taking the game sims seriously, and wanting to win inspired several of us to help out with testing and generally get even more involved with the league. You're right that competitiveness can sometimes lead to toxicity, so it's definitely important to get the right role models in those positions.
RE: DSFL GMing: Points of Concern - manicmav36 - 03-24-2021
Fantastic article!
So happy to see DSFL GMs with the correct attitude. The "win at all costs" frame of mind that some DSFL GMs have/had is/was downright toxic for the league and creating a ton of problems.
RE: DSFL GMing: Points of Concern - BOOM™ - 03-24-2021
As an upcoming draftee, it's interesting to see your thoughts on position switches. It will be interesting to see what my DSFL GM, whoever that may be, has to say about it.
Excellent article.