There's a danger i might be too stupid to play this game.
Auction Fantasy Draft
- Thread starter Annahnomoss
- Start date
Any places left?
lol, this has potential to be either a classic or a clusterfeck!
Annah, I agree with Aldo and Trippy. Let's do it round by round. Keeping track of 12 players (x16 teams) and bids constantly changing will be a nightmare for a manager, much more so for the organizer.
The other point is on deadlines. I predict that the last hour the auction closes will be the busiest, as everyone will wait till last moment to see the bid positions before throwing in their own or upping it up. So that last hour will be quite busy and needs nearly everyone to be online to manage their bids.
In this case, A suggestion would just be blind bids made public later. After R1 bidding (blind), make bids public and open it for R2 (blind again). End of R2 make it public again and announce winners. That way you know how bids are shaping up and should be able to make a realistic counter, rather than multiple and regular increase by single million amongst bidders
Don't think so, but you can choose a manager (preferable fro a different time zone) to partner with.
Annah, I agree with Aldo and Trippy. Let's do it round by round. Keeping track of 12 players (x16 teams) and bids constantly changing will be a nightmare for a manager, much more so for the organizer.
The other point is on deadlines. I predict that the last hour the auction closes will be the busiest, as everyone will wait till last moment to see the bid positions before throwing in their own or upping it up. So that last hour will be quite busy and needs nearly everyone to be online to manage their bids.
In this case, A suggestion would just be blind bids made public later. After R1 bidding (blind), make bids public and open it for R2 (blind again). End of R2 make it public again and announce winners. That way you know how bids are shaping up and should be able to make a realistic counter, rather than multiple and regular increase by single million amongst bidders
Don't think so, but you can choose a manager (preferable fro a different time zone) to partner with.
Last edited:
That'll be cool.
Any room left?
Edit: Ah, feck it.
Okay, I'll try for Assistant Manager instead.
Listen ye managers!
My time zone is GMT +5.30, so if you're from the US you might benefit from a night-time caretaker.
I'll also
- provide advice about the transfers if you need it
- do research on required players to see if we need him
- argue for your team's strengths in the games
- scout around for other teams weaknesses, and work out tactics to combat them
- take over when you need to go the loo
- and so on
Anyone interested?
Edit: Ah, feck it.
Okay, I'll try for Assistant Manager instead.
Listen ye managers!
My time zone is GMT +5.30, so if you're from the US you might benefit from a night-time caretaker.
I'll also
- provide advice about the transfers if you need it
- do research on required players to see if we need him
- argue for your team's strengths in the games
- scout around for other teams weaknesses, and work out tactics to combat them
- take over when you need to go the loo
- and so on
Anyone interested?
Last edited:
I'm from the US. Happy to get you involved if you want
In this kind of a draft, think its pretty much necessary for all managers to be online at the time of auction for it to work. Perhaps something like this?
Get the randomizer to set the participating players in order.
1st guy posts in the thread that he wants player X.
Organizers then set a base price for the player.
Bidding starts. Whoever bids the maximum gets the player. If no one bids but the 1st guy, he gets the player for the base price.
Then to the 2nd guy and so on.
As its necessary for managers to be online, set a time every day for a couple of hours when this will be done.
Get the randomizer to set the participating players in order.
1st guy posts in the thread that he wants player X.
Organizers then set a base price for the player.
Bidding starts. Whoever bids the maximum gets the player. If no one bids but the 1st guy, he gets the player for the base price.
Then to the 2nd guy and so on.
As its necessary for managers to be online, set a time every day for a couple of hours when this will be done.
The problem with that is all players will have inflated prices on average, and there's no scope for any manager to plan his team.
Why inflated prices? No one's gonna bump up the price unnecessarily because if the original bidder backs out, you're stuck with the player at a high price. The snake order is just for the bidding, it doesnt mean the 1st guy in the list gets the 1st player.
Good luck to Annah and Pol! This one seems a real bitch to run.
This seems the way forward to me. That, and limited bids from each manager, one per round per player, and four/five players per round.
1) The OP must divide all players into positional groups.
2) Conduct the bidding in rounds - four rounds to each positional group. Each round can last 12 hours.
3) In each round, managers get to bid for at max 5 players from that positional group.
4) Bidding must be in multiples of some base unit, say 2.5m. So you don't have noobs bidding 40m + 0.000001m for Suarez. It'll also help in lending some sense to bidding wars.
5) The OP must list out end-of-round highest bid for each player under their positional groups, and list out the names only in case it's a tie. Don't reveal who's bid for whom otherwise.
6) After checking the highest bid on the concerned player after the first round, managers can make a decision on their next set of bids in the second round.
7) The process is repeated for all the rounds, till a highest bidder is reached. In case of a tie on the fourth round, the OP might start a bidding war between them, which will be the only instance when the concerned managers need to be simultaneously online.
8) The process is repeated for all positional groups.
Note:
-As AN has decided already, we must attach a base price to each player.
-There must be someone checking the net balance of all managers after each positional group is over, so you know they're not bidding over their budget. A separate post in the OP might help.
- We could increase the no. of players allowed per team to 16, so that there is flexibility in your team for draft wars later on. The moment you buy your 16th player, you're done. Your residual balance will have no value in the initial bidding after that.
Last edited:
Position wise bidding doesnt make sense imo. For instance, say we decide to pick CBs first. Why force me to pick 2 CBs first if my top priority is to get say a top striker?
Managers should get the freedom to build their squad whichever way/order they want to.
Managers should get the freedom to build their squad whichever way/order they want to.
True, but you DO need CBs, good or bad. Bid for the cheapest CBs then and save your money for the strikers. If you're clear in your priorities, you'll know how much to psend in which department.
Not really. It'd see quite a few unbalanced teams and might even see funds wasted. For instance, going by this method, say I save up 60mil to get Messi picking very average CBs and we go to strikers last. If other managers dont have that high a priority and dont save up enough, I might have wasted saving 60mil and might get Messi for say 40mil thus wasting 20mil of my funds. There's also the problem of different formations and styles. It wont be that big an issue while picking CBs but will change totally when it comes to CMs, wingers etc.
That'll be be YOUR miscalculation, no?
Agreed on this. But what your point actually does is determine the order of bidding.
CBs
FBs
STs
CMs
AMs
GKs
That's exactly the way how I have played this in the past but the issue is if we go player by player it would literally take ages. Which is why I suggested throwing in 20-30 names instead of one but in principal following the same method.
@Gandalf Greyhame limited bids would kill the fun a bit. Not only you wouldn't be able to change your bid in case you want to but also, bidding wars and intentional inflation involve a lot of bids.
Exactly, I'm really not in favour of division with respect to position.
Either divide randomly, or ask all managers to nominate 2 players per round and bid on all those or the two organizers can just "seed" the players at their own discretion and start from top to bottom. All of them work for me, but not position.
It doesnt. The 1st player might go for a striker, the 2nd for a winger, the 3rd for a CM and the 4th again for a CM etc.
EDIT: I dont agree its a simple case of miscalculation as it means a manager is fecked because other managers dont put as much emphasis on a spot which doesnt make sense. But even if it was, seeing it'd adversely affect the teams and their balance, it should be a no go anyways especially considering it looks like the 1st time most of us would play a draft like this.
Throwing in multiple names at a go is something I thought of but the problem is that it'd essentially mean creating a total player pool before the game starts. Which would be very cumbersome. Also, it'd be tough to decide the composition of the 20 players that go in every round. Still workable though so if everyone cant agree to committing couple of hours at a fixed time, this would be the next best alternative.
If people can commit to a fixed time for 2hrs, it'd move very fast.
Limited bids in an auction draft doesnt quite fit. Same with the idea of hidden bids and then the max one getting the player. Bidding wars is where its at.
Also, needless to say, am interested in this. I see the spots are taken up so would like to assist someone. Havent played a draft up here at all.
It doesn't cover all positions firstly. Sweepers, wingbacks, wing forwards, etc.
Also, what about versatile players? Say someone bids for Gullit in the CM round and plays him as an AM?
Anyhow, I don't agree that any manager should be forced to bid on one position before the other. That's for him to strategize.
You couldn't have picked a better time to return, this is like the age of draft revolution here.
I wouldn't mind teaming up with you but as usual I have plenty of time on me so if someone who's short on time and actually needs a partner it would be better if you team up with him. Otherwise I'm always there.
You couldn't have picked a better time to return, this is like the age of draft revolution here.
I wouldn't mind teaming up with you but as usual I have plenty of time on me so if someone who's short on time and actually needs a partner it would be better if you team up with him. Otherwise I'm always there.
Its not that am returning in any way as I've seen and followed drafts up here anyways. Its just that most of the drafts involve players way before my time
Its the acution aspect that makes me want to participate rather this time.
A warning though, if people are looking for an AM to assist them with players from decades back, I wont be of much help.
Hadn't considered that. True.
I actually meant YOUR order, but I get your point. Every order combo will be a disadvantage to one manager or the other. So positional priority has to be a no.
In what doesn't it make sense? Different managers will have different priorities, so each position will have its set of dedicated and not-so-bothered takers. And as to the following part, won't that be more entertaining? It actually brings your 'transfer acumen' into play, and it'll be a good way to learn.
The probability of all managers/AMs sitting down together is low.
And as for the 2hr window, when you'll be spending weeks defending your team, won't it make sense to spend at least a couple of days in building it?
That list was a mini-generalization for Varun.
Versatile players? Put them in whatever category you feel like. That's not a big issue.
Positional break-up won't work because of that part in bold, though.
I agree - positional division isn't going to work out.
But the idea of bidding after 30-40 players at once, or one player at a time randomly , is also fraught with an equal share of complications that might really spoil the game.
We need to think of something else.
But the idea of bidding after 30-40 players at once, or one player at a time randomly , is also fraught with an equal share of complications that might really spoil the game.
We need to think of something else.
I feel the same, too.Its not that am returning in any way as I've seen and followed drafts up here anyways. Its just that most of the drafts involve players way before my time
Everyone nominates 2 players, but you can't pick your own nominations? If more than one person nominates the same player, @Annahnomoss would add another player of equal quality to the nominations list.
It would be 32 players in total to bid from in one round, which is more than enough depth in terms of quality and positions.
It would be 32 players in total to bid from in one round, which is more than enough depth in terms of quality and positions.
Why? That would mean everyone could just nominate shit players throughout? Nominating two players is great, imo, but managers should be allowed to bid for their own nominations, gives way more room for team building strategies. It also gives the other managers an idea of his plans, which could lead to funny bidding wars.
I also don't think Annah should add players to the list, if he's playing himself, that makes no sense. Why not just leave the reduced number of players then? Make 10 rounds, max 2 players each round, which means the squad could be 20 players in the end. But don't fill up the list, if players are nominated more than once. Again bidding wars then, a manager could end up without a player in one of the rounds, but it doesn't matter, because he can still get 18 players in the other rounds. It would also give the option to opt for a bigger squad instead of bigger names to have more versatility. Might make the games more interesting, if someone fields a galactico team with no useful squad while the opponent can go for perfect tactics because of more players available and exploit weaknesses perfectly.
You should be able to bid on your own nominations as well. The nominations just makes a 32 player pool that has been contributed by every manager and then we bid.
There needs to be a restriction to avoid people nominating complete crap.
We'd be nominating out here in the open, no? Just use random generator to draw an order and everyone nominates two players in that order, no repeats.
Oh, okay. Though blind nominations and open bidding sounds fun
. And I really like the possibility of a bigger squad here to add a few versatile players in the end, if you spent less money than others on the big names early on.Actually no, no need to find a way to restrict shit nominations. Because if no bids are made on a nominated player, the one who nominated it would get him for the base price so all is cool.
I'd expect nobody to be a douche and nominate crap players.
Having to rely on what others nominate would in theory make it more difficult and confusing, which would probably lead to more interesting results. Otherwise you would only go for the players you nominate, which is something I personally would do.
I forgot Annah was playing, I thought he was managing the draft.
But here's a revised version of the idea:
Everyone nominates two players, but whoever publishes the list (Polaroid?) doesn't say who nominated who. Then it's basically a free for all to get what you want. Or to make it more interesting, you can only nominate one player, so nobody has the "safety net" on their second nomination. But that would be completely reliant on everyone nominating good players and not bad ones.
See my last post. Crap nominations won't be there.
How many players can you buy in each round by the way? Only 2? Or 5 and someone could end up with none?
Don't think there should be a limit on that. Every player on which you have the highest bid is yours. And when you reach 12 players in your squad you are out of the process.
Thanks everybody for getting involved so much! Going for the positional one seems to make sense then.
It would mean that we'd at least see the comparable value between say Mata and Iniesta and Maradona. Which is part of the interesting thing about the draft.
First round: Strikers
Second round: AM's
Third round: Left wingers
We would then nominate the group for each position, but you can still bid for another random player if he is a favorite winger of yours and you want him.
You can of course purchase Mata, and play him out right anyhow. This way it'll be rounds, but still allow the bids/bid-wars to be a key component to it.
It would mean that we'd at least see the comparable value between say Mata and Iniesta and Maradona. Which is part of the interesting thing about the draft.
First round: Strikers
Second round: AM's
Third round: Left wingers
We would then nominate the group for each position, but you can still bid for another random player if he is a favorite winger of yours and you want him.
You can of course purchase Mata, and play him out right anyhow. This way it'll be rounds, but still allow the bids/bid-wars to be a key component to it.
Oh, okay. Though blind nominations and open bidding sounds fun
Voters tend to get swayed by big names though. Why not simply end participation when one has say 12-13 players?
Round One Strikers:
List of available strikers
1. Messi (AldoPaine 90 mill)
2. Suarez (Crappy 60 mill)
3. Ibrahimovic (Pippa 40 mill)
4. Rooney(Balu 25 mill)
25. Benzema
Would be simple enough to follow, you'd just name the bid you want to make and if you want to bid on Rooney we simply remove Balu's bid on Rooney and tell him about it.
List of available strikers
1. Messi (AldoPaine 90 mill)
2. Suarez (Crappy 60 mill)
3. Ibrahimovic (Pippa 40 mill)
4. Rooney(Balu 25 mill)
25. Benzema
Would be simple enough to follow, you'd just name the bid you want to make and if you want to bid on Rooney we simply remove Balu's bid on Rooney and tell him about it.