Discussion:
The Staff game (AKA Crazy Tiny Players) - Discussing possible changes, November 2024
(too old to reply)
milivella
2024-11-24 03:52:55 UTC
Permalink
TL;DR: I plan to implement one of the following two changes:
X. Will and Pat offer the same tactic as Dan; Aggie is removed from the
Staff.
Y. You pick the tactic and the staff member to implement it, but you
have to use all 12 tactics every 12 matches.

Problem
-------

As I have already said, after the game started, I tried to make it have
two features:

A. At the level of individual choices: meaningful choices, i.e. it must
not be obvious which option to choose.

B. At a more general level: possibility of strategizing, i.e. of having
an effect on the non-immediate future.

The chronology of how I tried to have both characteristics is as follows:

1. To have A, in the XI choice turns, each character tries to optimize
an objective; in the market turns, you can only choose one action.

2. B emerged in the following way: you want to be offered a certain
tactic (3-4-3) in the XI choice turns, so in the market turns you make
choices that cause that tactic to be offered to you (by Dan).

3. This eliminated A, because (after you implemented the strategy) you
always chose Dan. 3-4-3 is a maximum; whether it is a local maximum or a
global maximum, a maximum in any case or only with this squad, a maximum
in reality or just in your opinion, it does not matter, because in fact
for you it is a maximum and you always choose it.

4. To solve this problem (no more A), I changed the algorithms of Will
and Pat, which always offer 3-4-3.

5. But this solution eliminated B, because you no longer need to
implement a strategy for 3-4-3 to be offered to you, since Will and Pat
will offer it to you in any case; moreover, once you have used it once,
it is likely that Aggie will offer it to you as well.

Solution
---------

How to solve the problem? I came up with two solutions:

X. Restore B to the way it emerged. To do this, I have to change Will
and Pat's algorithm so that they offer the same formation as Dan,
whatever it is; also, I have to eliminate Aggie. This way, if you want
to be offered a certain tactic, you have to make it happen.

Y. Restore B in a different way. Specifically: when choosing the XI, you
would be able to choose a tactic and a staff member to implement that
tactic according to their own criteria (which will need to be described
more clearly); every 12 games, you have to use all 12 tactics (a
different one for each game). Note that this also eliminates Aggie. This
way, when you choose the XI, you have to consider that, if you use a
tactic now, you will not be able to use for the next (up to 11) matches;
and if you want to use a tactic in a specific future match, you cannot
use it now.

Considerations:

- X is what I should have done in step 4 (see above), so if it seems to
me that it is the best thing to do, I will implement it without asking
if you agree.

- It seems easy for you to make it so that you are offered a certain
tactic, so X does not really give much strategic depth to the game.

- With Y, the game might be more varied than with X, because you would
have to use more tactics. You would also have to consider how effective
each player is in different tactics.

In any case, you need to have a full season to adapt to the change. So,
if the change is decided and announced in season S, it will be
implemented at the beginning of season S+2, so you have time, during
season S+1, to prepare the roster for the change.

[In the next days, I should be getting Fantasy Scout and The Staff
going, so I do not plan to discuss this topic for the time being. But if
you reply, I will at least read what you write and think about it.]

--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
2024-11-24 18:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Oh, dear...or, as that fellow used to say:

"The game world you’ve built is...unique. It takes a rare kind of
creativity to design something so convoluted that it feels more like a
punishment than an adventure. I mean, who else could so thoroughly test
the patience of their players while still managing to act like they’re
doing us a favor?"
Post by milivella
X. Will and Pat offer the same tactic as Dan; Aggie is removed from the
Staff.
Y. You pick the tactic and the staff member to implement it, but you
have to use all 12 tactics every 12 matches.
Yeah, I don't like either of them, especially Y. It doesn't encourage
any strategizing or anything, you might as well skip the whole lineup
stage and randomize the formation every week.
milivella
2024-11-25 03:15:32 UTC
Permalink
:D
Post by Futbolmetrix
Post by milivella
X. Will and Pat offer the same tactic as Dan; Aggie is removed from the
Staff.
Y. You pick the tactic and the staff member to implement it, but you
have to use all 12 tactics every 12 matches.
Yeah, I don't like either of them, especially Y. It doesn't encourage
any strategizing or anything, you might as well skip the whole lineup
stage and randomize the formation every week.
Thanks for the feedback.

I don't particularly like Y, but let me play the devil's advocate.

Imagine the following scenario:
- You are 2nd in the table and your next two matches are (1) at home
against the team at the bottom of the table and (2) away against the
leaders.
- The remaining tactics for you to pick from are 3-4-3 and 4-4-2.

I argue that in the next match (match #1) you should pick 4-4-2, even if
it decreases your chances to win the match. You should do so because it
increases your chances to win both matches (i.e., it increases your
chances to win match #2 more than it decreases your chances to win match
#1).

And this is (a basic form of) strategy.

Where do you disagree?

--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
2024-11-25 03:05:04 UTC
Permalink
[I saw that Daniele has replied, but I am writing this post before
reading Daniele's reply.]
Post by milivella
5. But this solution eliminated B, because you no longer need to
implement a strategy for 3-4-3 to be offered to you, since Will and Pat
will offer it to you in any case
Or maybe this is not true. The point was that, assuming that you
automatically preferred Dan to Will and Pat, choosing between non-3-4-3
Dan and 3-4-3 Will (or Pat) in some rounds would be harder.

Let me try to provide an alternative (and better) account of what has
happened so far:

1. The game as it was conceived: in each round, you have to pick one
dimension (kind of skills, sum of skills, etc.).

2. You realized that (a) there is a XI that consistently yields good
results (3-4-3 with a great finisher as the centre-forward) and that (b)
there is a way to have one member of the Staff (Dan) offer that XI
(roughly said, buy and sell players until your forwards are better than
your midfielders, who are in turn better than your defenders). If this
realization is successful [1], you have won by "solving" the game.

3. Your realization at the previous step made the options offered in the
XI-picking rounds meaningless, because you made sure that you will be
offered your preferred option.

Now the question is: what should a gamemaster do?
- On one hand, you should be rewarded for solving the game. So nothing
should be changed... at least until you win something.
- On the other hand, the meaning and the challenge of the game should be
restored; i.e., you should be offered options from which it is hard for
you to choose (so that you have the _challenge_ to choose among
_meaning_ful options). So after you win something, the game should be
changed so that there is not a single option that is clearly the best.

How could this be done? Some ideas:
- (As suggested in my original post:) You have to pick the tactic, and
every 12 matches, you have to use all the 12 tactics.
- The XIs you are offered are: (a) all the best players bar the best
one; (b) all the best players bar the 2nd and 3rd one; (c) all the best
players bard the 4th, 5th and 6th one, and (d) so on. I don't like this
idea, as I find it artificial and lazy.

[1] Big assumption, considering that:
- You needed help in the form of "legal cheating" (reading the values of
the skills, healing injured players, etc.).
- You still haven't won anything.
- It could turn out that what works in the Finnish first division
doesn't work in another context.

--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
2024-11-25 03:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by milivella
Now the question is: what should a gamemaster do?
- On one hand, you should be rewarded for solving the game. So nothing
should be changed... at least until you win something.
- On the other hand, the meaning and the challenge of the game should be
restored; i.e., you should be offered options from which it is hard for
you to choose (so that you have the _challenge_ to choose among
_meaning_ful options). So after you win something, the game should be
changed so that there is not a single option that is clearly the best.
I see it as: congratulations, you beat level 1... let's move to level 2.

--
Cheers
milivella
Futbolmetrix
2024-11-25 11:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by milivella
Post by milivella
Now the question is: what should a gamemaster do?
- On one hand, you should be rewarded for solving the game. So nothing
should be changed... at least until you win something.
- On the other hand, the meaning and the challenge of the game should be
restored; i.e., you should be offered options from which it is hard for
you to choose (so that you have the _challenge_ to choose among
_meaning_ful options). So after you win something, the game should be
changed so that there is not a single option that is clearly the best.
I see it as: congratulations, you beat level 1... let's move to level 2.
But, as you said, we haven't really solved the game, because:

- You needed help in the form of "legal cheating" (reading the values of
the skills, healing injured players, etc.).
- You still haven't won anything.
- It could turn out that what works in the Finnish first division
doesn't work in another context.


In any case, if you really want to make Level 2 harder, you could do a
variety of things that aren't as heavyhanded and boneheaded as Y. Some
Possibilities:

- You have a quota on the number of times that you can use any formation
(a quota that is higher than N-11).
- When the laid off ladies offer you their intervention, instead of
skipping the market round, you are forced to play a suboptimal
formation.
- You lay off the ladies altogether, or at least some of them.
- I'm sure there are more.

I can't believe I'm negotiating with the Evil One...
milivella
2024-11-26 02:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by milivella
Post by milivella
Post by milivella
Now the question is: what should a gamemaster do?
- On one hand, you should be rewarded for solving the game. So nothing
should be changed... at least until you win something.
- On the other hand, the meaning and the challenge of the game should be
restored; i.e., you should be offered options from which it is hard for
you to choose (so that you have the _challenge_ to choose among
_meaning_ful options). So after you win something, the game should be
changed so that there is not a single option that is clearly the best.
I see it as: congratulations, you beat level 1... let's move to level 2.
- You needed help in the form of "legal cheating" (reading the values of
the skills, healing injured players, etc.).
- You still haven't won anything.
"after you win something"... I am seriously starting to think you should
read my posts more carefully. :D
Post by milivella
In any case, if you really want to make Level 2 harder
While I admit that the image of a "level 2" naturally makes one think of
something harder, I explicitly wrote what I want... (read more
carefully, Futbolmetrix, more carefully!) I want to make:
- the options more meaningful
- the game more challenging
than they are now.

Just to play a bit with you, I'll note that "making the game more
challenging than it is now" is *not* the same as "making Level 2 harder
[than Level 1]". For example:
- Imagine that Level 1 is proving the Poincaré Conjecture, Level 2 is
finding a method to predict the international career of football player
that does not predict a minimum of 100 caps for Camarda.
- Level 1 is arguably harder than level 2.
- But if the game was about beating level 1, now that the PC has been
proved, the game is not challenging. If the game changes and becomes
about beating Level 2 (something that has not been done yet), it
automatically becomes more challenging.

Anyway, what really matters (even if ackchyuallying you is always
fun...) is that, while all your ideas make the game harder:
- Not all of them make the choices more meaningful (of course you may
not care about choices being meaningful---it is a right of yours; but I
care).
- _If_ (big if!) "3-4-3 with the best finishing center-forward you can
afford" really is the optimal strategy, some of your ideas don't make
the game intellectually more challenging, because you have already found
the optimal strategy and you cannot do better than this.

[This is just my spur-of-the-moment reaction to your post, written to
push the first thoughts it provoked out of my mind and focus on...
(*bleep*, it is late, so no work on the Fantasy Scout update for today.
I should not read this thread anymore until I finish the update and the
new Staff round!) There may be some strong argument in your post that I
cannot see right now---hopefully I will come back to it. And, in any
case, thanks for the feedback. Really!]
Post by milivella
you could do a
variety of things that aren't as heavyhanded and boneheaded as Y. Some
- You have a quota on the number of times that you can use any formation
(a quota that is higher than N-11).
- When the laid off ladies offer you their intervention, instead of
skipping the market round, you are forced to play a suboptimal
formation.
- You lay off the ladies altogether, or at least some of them.
- I'm sure there are more.
I can't believe I'm negotiating with the Evil One...


--
Mark
2024-11-27 16:31:35 UTC
Permalink
I don't like the idea of having to change tactics every match. It's very
unrealistic. Once a coach has found the optimal tactical system for his
team, he's going to want to use it all the time (or at least the vast
majority of the time).
Futbolmetrix
2024-11-27 16:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
I don't like the idea of having to change tactics every match. It's very
unrealistic. Once a coach has found the optimal tactical system for his
team, he's going to want to use it all the time (or at least the vast
majority of the time).
Hear, hear!

And what about the meaningful choice of picking Yeremenko or Halonen?
Werner Pichler
2024-11-28 14:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Futbolmetrix
Post by Mark
I don't like the idea of having to change tactics every match. It's very
unrealistic. Once a coach has found the optimal tactical system for his
team, he's going to want to use it all the time (or at least the vast
majority of the time).
Hear, hear!
And what about the meaningful choice of picking Yeremenko or Halonen?
There could be something like a fatigue mechanic
where your starting XI begins running out of steam if
it’s deployed the same way game after game after
game.

But I can’t think of a way to implement that (or am
too lazy to try).


Ciao,
Werner
milivella
2024-11-29 02:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner Pichler
Post by Futbolmetrix
Post by Mark
I don't like the idea of having to change tactics every match. It's very
unrealistic. Once a coach has found the optimal tactical system for his
team, he's going to want to use it all the time (or at least the vast
majority of the time).
Hear, hear!
And what about the meaningful choice of picking Yeremenko or Halonen?
There could be something like a fatigue mechanic
where your starting XI begins running out of steam if
it’s deployed the same way game after game after
game.
Interesting idea!
Post by Werner Pichler
But I can’t think of a way to implement that (or am
too lazy to try).
Off the top of my head: every N consecutive games you use the same
tactic, your best remaining player is "banned". (and every N consecutive
games you do _not_ use a given tactic, your worst banned player is
"unbanned" for that tactic). But I already hear Futbolmetrix saying
"boneheaded" in the distance...

(also, you talked about the "starting XI" running out of steam, while
this implements tactics running out of as steam, not XIs as sums of
tactic+players)

T
Futbolmetrix
2024-11-29 19:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by milivella
Post by Werner Pichler
There could be something like a fatigue mechanic
where your starting XI begins running out of steam if
it’s deployed the same way game after game after
game.
Interesting idea!
But it's already there in the probability of getting injured or knocked.
Post by milivella
Post by Werner Pichler
But I can’t think of a way to implement that (or am
too lazy to try).
Off the top of my head: every N consecutive games you use the same
tactic, your best remaining player is "banned". (and every N consecutive
games you do _not_ use a given tactic, your worst banned player is
"unbanned" for that tactic). But I already hear Futbolmetrix saying
"boneheaded" in the distance...
No, I feel nice today. But you are fixating on this idea that the only
"meaningful" choice in the game is the formation choice, and... one can
disagree about this.

If you bring back Pat in his unrestricted version and fire Helen (so no
more medical doping), you would get a few more meaningful choices: play
3-4-3 with da Bull knocked, or 4-4-2 but give da Bull time to heal?
milivella
2024-12-20 03:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Futbolmetrix
Post by milivella
Post by Werner Pichler
There could be something like a fatigue mechanic
where your starting XI begins running out of steam if
it’s deployed the same way game after game after
game.
Interesting idea!
But it's already there in the probability of getting injured or knocked.
Player fatigue: yes, it's already there.
Formation fatigue: no, it isn't already there.
Post by Futbolmetrix
Post by milivella
Post by Werner Pichler
But I can’t think of a way to implement that (or am
too lazy to try).
Off the top of my head: every N consecutive games you use the same
tactic, your best remaining player is "banned". (and every N consecutive
games you do _not_ use a given tactic, your worst banned player is
"unbanned" for that tactic). But I already hear Futbolmetrix saying
"boneheaded" in the distance...
No, I feel nice today. But you are fixating on this idea that the only
"meaningful" choice in the game is the formation choice, and... one can
disagree about this.
If you bring back Pat in his unrestricted version and fire Helen (so no
more medical doping), you would get a few more meaningful choices: play
3-4-3 with da Bull knocked, or 4-4-2 but give da Bull time to heal?
I argue that if you do _not_ bring back Pat in his unrestricted version,
you get a _more_ meaningul choice:
- Dan: 3-4-3 with da Bull knocked
- Pat: 3-4-3 but give da Bull time to heal
In other words, I think you would prefer 3-4-3 Pat to 4-4-2 Pat. Tell me
if I'm wrong.
--
Ch
milivella
2024-11-29 02:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
I don't like the idea of having to change tactics every match. It's very
unrealistic. Once a coach has found the optimal tactical system for his
team, he's going to want to use it all the time (or at least the vast
majority of the time).
This makes sense. I think I put "realism" below "having meaningful
choices" in my priorities of how this game should be, but (after
launching the game) it's no longer my decision to make.

Thanks for the feedback.

--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
2024-12-20 03:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by milivella
X. Will and Pat offer the same tactic as Dan; Aggie is removed from the
Staff.
Official: I will implement this change starting from the 2001-02 season
(you are now playing the 1999-2000 season).

This could change if we find a better solution to the "automatic XI
choice" problem.
Post by milivella
Y. You pick the tactic and the staff member to implement it, but you
have to use all 12 tactics every 12 matches.
I guess that, even if we remove the "but you have to use all 12 tactics
every 12 matches" bit, it could be better than the current situation:
assuming that you find a way to always be offered your preferred
formation by Dan, most of the times you will have to choose between
three choices (Dan, Will and Pat---see above). But if you pick the
formation, we can add Ben and Scott to the mix (Noah and Olly would be
retired, and realistically Fredd will never be active again). Moving
from 3 to 5 meaningful options would be good.

So I propose two more (alternative) reforms:
- You pick the formation and the staff member to implement it (among
Ben, Dan, Pat, Scott, Will).
- Ben, Pat, Scott, and Will all offer the same formation as Dan. Noah
and Olly remain.

I am about to post a summary of all the proposals discussed in this thread.

--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
2024-12-20 03:51:15 UTC
Permalink
My summary of the discussion so far. Feel free to correct me.

Problem
-------

John has practically no doubt about the best XI (3-4-3 as provided by
Dan thanks to John's market moves).

Solution #1
-----------

First version, wrong: Will and Pat will always use 3-4-3 (and then apply
their own criteria).

Second version: Will and Pat will always use the same formation as Dan
(and then apply their own criteria); Aggie will be retired.

Solution #2 - Proposals
-----------------------

Solution: You pick the tactic and the staff member to implement it, but
you have to use all 12 tactics every 12 matches.
Proposed by: milivella.
Rejected by:
- Futbolmetrix. Why: "It doesn't encourage any strategizing or anything."
- Mark. Why: "It's very unrealistic."

Solution: The XIs you are offered are: (a) all the best players bar the
best one; (b) all the best players bar the 2nd and 3rd one; (c) all the
best players bard the 4th, 5th and 6th one, and (d) so on.
Proposed by: milivella.

Solution: You have a quota on the number of times that you can use any
formation (a quota that is higher than N-11).
Proposed by: Futbolmetrix.
Rejected by: Mark. Why: "It's very unrealistic."

Solution: When the laid off ladies offer you their intervention, instead
of skipping the market round, you are forced to play a suboptimal
formation.
Proposed by: Futbolmetrix.
Rejected (as solution to the problem currently discussed) by: milivella.
Why: "It does not make the choices more meaningful."

Solution: You lay off the ladies altogether, or at least some of them.
Proposed by: Futbolmetrix.
Rejected (as solution to the problem currently discussed) by: milivella.
Why: "It does not make the choices more meaningful."

Solution: Something like a fatigue mechanic where your starting XI
begins running out of steam if it's deployed the same way game after
game after game.
Proposed by: Werner.
Rejected (in this form) by: Werner. Why: "I can't think of a way to
implement that."

Solution: Every N consecutive games you use the same formation, your
best remaining player is "banned".
Proposed by: milivella.

Solution: Bring back Pat in his unrestricted version and fire Helen (so
no more medical doping).
Proposed by: Futbolmetrix.
Rejected by: milivella: Why: "if you do _not_ bring back Pat in his
unrestricted version, you get a _more_ meaningul choice".

Solution: You pick the formation and the staff member to implement it
(among Ben, Dan, Pat, Scott, Will).
Proposed by: milivella.

Solution: Ben, Pat, Scott, and Will all offer the same formation as Dan.
Noah and Olly remain.
Proposed by: milivella.

--
Cheers
milivella

Loading...