The effective level should be reflective of players in decline.
Currently, the effective level shows an increase based on player build. However, it is not reflective in a negative aspect regarding players in decline.
Not only should the effective level show an increase in levels if a player is better than their real level, but it should also decrease based on a players "loss of SP" when they hit decline.
As an example, if I have a player who is level 57 but is playing like he is level 60 then of course the player would show up as follows:
Joe Player - Level 57 (Effective: 60)
Now, we all know how that works. But, if I have a player who is level 71 and is in serious decline and is only playing like he is level 55 then the effective level should reflect that.
Joe Player - Level 71 (Effective: 55)
The effective level should work both ways, not just one.
Originally posted by Dr. Showtime
the easy way should be to just subtract the decline penalties kinda like ALG instead of showing them and it would automatically calculate the effective level and SP worth
This makes great sense. Would be a very easy way to implement it.
Originally posted by Chysil
but then you would effect the cost of raising the skill. If someone holds onto SPs waiting for decline, or trades in BTs you could alllow them to buy back the skill for a lower rate etc
You could just add in a script that when your player hits 440 days old it locks in the current cost of SP's....
Originally posted by naraic
If they bring in effective level caps for leagues instead of actual level caps then declining players could go back into capped leagues under this system.
Is that a good or bad thing.
Discuss.
I think that aspect would be a good thing as someone could hold onto a declining player longer increasing the player pool. I don't know how many teams would be willing to do that however because of the fact that while the rest of the team would increase in levels throughout the season a declining player would be dropping levels.
It could be used as a stop gap for teams who couldn't field enough players.
I wouldn't see any issues with it.
Currently, the effective level shows an increase based on player build. However, it is not reflective in a negative aspect regarding players in decline.
Not only should the effective level show an increase in levels if a player is better than their real level, but it should also decrease based on a players "loss of SP" when they hit decline.
As an example, if I have a player who is level 57 but is playing like he is level 60 then of course the player would show up as follows:
Joe Player - Level 57 (Effective: 60)
Now, we all know how that works. But, if I have a player who is level 71 and is in serious decline and is only playing like he is level 55 then the effective level should reflect that.
Joe Player - Level 71 (Effective: 55)
The effective level should work both ways, not just one.
Originally posted by Dr. Showtime
the easy way should be to just subtract the decline penalties kinda like ALG instead of showing them and it would automatically calculate the effective level and SP worth
This makes great sense. Would be a very easy way to implement it.
Originally posted by Chysil
but then you would effect the cost of raising the skill. If someone holds onto SPs waiting for decline, or trades in BTs you could alllow them to buy back the skill for a lower rate etc
You could just add in a script that when your player hits 440 days old it locks in the current cost of SP's....
Originally posted by naraic
If they bring in effective level caps for leagues instead of actual level caps then declining players could go back into capped leagues under this system.
Is that a good or bad thing.
Discuss.
I think that aspect would be a good thing as someone could hold onto a declining player longer increasing the player pool. I don't know how many teams would be willing to do that however because of the fact that while the rest of the team would increase in levels throughout the season a declining player would be dropping levels.
It could be used as a stop gap for teams who couldn't field enough players.
I wouldn't see any issues with it.
Edited by BigCowboysFan on Jun 22, 2010 18:25:50
Edited by BigCowboysFan on Jun 18, 2010 10:32:30
