Содржина: Suggestions

This idea is suitable for ice hockey and football:

You can train player's preferred side (L/R) to universal (U). To gain U-side, you have to play him 50 games on wrong side. Sounds too easy? Therefore there would be downside in this training. It will deduct 50% from your last practice.

Numbers are just example.

Here goes for the second attempt.

First I must confess to having sandbagged (not that I knew of the term) in the past after essentially losing a season following promotion to the top flight. I didn't see it as anything sinister, just managing for the long term rather than the short term.

First I think that the prize money is set incorrectly. In my league finishing top currently gets you more than finishing 5th in the legue above - far too high, should be more like 16th/17th.

Also though the increase from 5th to top is also too great almost double. So smaller gaps within leagues and bigger gaps between leagues.

Second I think that OCR increases should be based on your maximum capable team strength versus opposition team strength on the day not OCR and that increases should be based so that winning say 15 games for a below average team strength side in a higher league should be the equivalent of winning all the games in a lower league where your team strength is higher than average.

This way you encourage people to promote because the threshold to not lose ground on lower leagues is not as high and the benefit of staying in the lower league is also reduced while also not handing yet more dominance to the teams alreaady at the top of the 1st division. Presumably their team strength is higher so their seasonal OCR increase would only match the increase of an over-performing (team strength-wise) mid table side.

You would also need to introduce a calculation of maximum capable team strength (at 100% energy) for each team and show what it is (would be interesting in itself) as you need to ensure top teams don't just play understrength sides that are just a little better than the opposition to ensure good OCR increases and warp their team strength.

If this is too difficult to achieve you could use the end of season OCR cut to achieve it. If you promote you get no cut in OCR, but if you have a capable team strength of 50% above average for your league and don't promote the cut is 40% or whatever figure balances it out.

Likewise if you have a capable team strength well below average and don't get relegated or hit mid-table (ie out-perform) your cut is reduced.

To be effective I think the sponsor renewals would need to occur after the seasonal OCR cut.

Capable team strength would still need to be calculated though.

Also youth pulls should not be effected by current performance in matches or what league you're in. Should be purely down to facilities and staff and a bit of random.

I have suggestion too. Cancel OTR and put in some new variables because OTR is main reason why are people sandbagging

"If you promote you get no cut in OCR"

so basically, some team is 5 seasons in II league with no wish to get in I league, gaining OTR every season, getting nice sponsor offers etc. And now all of sudden you you get this rule that if someone goes up there is no OTR cut. And what happens? He is rewarded for 5 years in II league... ON example: My OTR of 450 in I.1 league gets cut to 315, his OTR of 400 (he gained it in II league in last 5-6 seasons) - stays 400... I would stop playing PPM immediately... and I am not only one...

In the future the situation wouldn't arise as any team with excessive team strength for the lower division would be getting big cuts when not promoting.

If there's a concern on the one-off introduction of it you could have a carve out for if the team strength of the team going up is sufficently high.

You'd be assessing team strength on the division they are ending up in when deciding on the cut level. If they don't promote they would get clobberred if they do it would be an average cut.

They'd still be better off promoting but wouldn't benefit as much for the last 5-6 seasons.

Why not cancel reduced salaries for players/staff in lower leagues? Every league level has 5% discount comparing to 1st league.

I meant every next level has 5% more discount. 1st league is 100%, 2nd is 95%, 3rd is 90%...

What you're suggesting is that the player and staff salary correspond to the approx / average weekly returns from sponsorship and ticket prices.

That actually makes sense. I mean, if you look at the most pro leagues, regardless of sport, the lower the league the less people and staff are paid. Those lower leagues also make less money from sponsors and tickets.

So PPM already has the money side of things fairly accurate, now they just need to tweak the salaries

I suggest we introduce a 8th facility - legal department. This department lowers the salary of players and staff. For example Atty1 is Player Salary Negotiation and Atty2 is Staff Salary Negotiation. The member running that department is a "Lawyer". The only issue I see with this is that the Lawyer would effectively negotiate lowering his own salary

I would like to see a line matching option. so, for example, we can choose to have our 2nd line match up with the opponents 1st line, or similar.

That will allow teams to train specific checking lines who's job is not to score, but to stop the other teams top lines.

But only at home right...

No, all games.

Do you think NHL teams match lines only at home?

LOL

You have last change at home. When you are the visiting team you can only match lines if you change on the fly since you have to send your lines out for a faceoff first. Don't get me started on line matching... see it all the time, especially in playoffs. Know all the mind games etc.

True. If only home games, then so be it. But a line matching option would make for a great game

Indeed. May be hard to implement seeing as different time on ice etc.