Implemented Increase the Number of Required Subs in SPL

[MANNAT]

SPL is going to have 12 slots this year, so let's up the required subs from 2 to 4. Two subs aren't sufficient for a 12-slot tournament.

Increasing subs from 2 to 4 in SPL aligns with the philosophy supporting 4 SV and addresses potential activity issues in a 12-slot tour, making a practical adjustment without a significant impact on the overall tour dynamics.

The benefits of ensuring smoother tour activity should outweigh any negative side effects with regards to roster budgeting.

Edit: 3 subs is fine too!

 

[Aberforth]

This would make retains far more powerful than they would be by using the same format as last tour (which had the same starting format as this one does). Nobody is stopped from picking up extra subs if they want to, having extra subs be mandatory just benefits teams with better retains as they will take up less of the budget.

 

[MANNAT]

This would make retains far more powerful than they would be by using the same format as last tour (which had the same starting format as this one does). Nobody is stopped from picking up extra subs if they want to, having extra subs be mandatory just benefits teams with better retains as they will take up less of the budget.

The budget would be unchanged in this scenario.

 

[Kingler]

why would a manager want this? isn't this more restrictive on their drafting, preventing them from spending more money on the players they want because they need to hit 14 players? i feel like running out of subs is your problem if you didn't draft enough, and 2 might not be enough but you're obviously allowed to draft more. if i were managing i wouldn't mind this but i don't see any reason to make this mandatory; this puts an unnecessary restriction based on a problem the manager could account for by just choosing to draft more players. if they aren't sure about someone as a sub in the main draft and end up thinking they might get him in midseason, this also eliminates that option

i guess these situations falling apart might be an issue for the TD team running it which is why it's being brought up? but i think the team suffering for drafting poorly feels like a natural consequence they should avoid

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Why does a manager get any input? They are inherently self-interested, not aligned with the TD interest of the health of the tournament. If the OP has merit about additional subs increasing the health of the tournament (for people who aren't retired to decide) than the manager's opinion is irrelevant.

Even if it were relevant, increasing the number of subs is a blanket application that affects all teams, no team is "unable to spend what they want because of subs" without other teams being similarly constrained. The case where this differs is when high value low cost retainers increase the marginal disparity in available funds between teams, a feature that has always been a part of SPL since retains have existed.

One can easily make the argument that additional sub slots further increases the skill influence of the managers by incentivizing positive outcomes for identifying low cost talent while building more well rounded teams with a wider roster. In my two years as a manager I stuck firmly to the build philosophy of making every dollar count on a minimum roster count, one year team chemistry was great and everyone performed as expected, the other year chemistry disappeared and there was no subs available to reconfigure the team. Both cases are reflective of my influence as a manager, and adding additional subs further emphasizes that component of managing.

 

[Kingler]

they're probably the biggest stakeholder as far as a team is concerned and in charge of all of the drafting, and mannat was FV's assman last spl i just felt it needed to be added... like we're saying these changes are good for the team but the issue remains that this is something you can just do anyway. the biggest draft decisions are usually the player you're spending the most on and the cap does lower a little with this change, like the way this affects your first round of drafting is not insignificant. sure the changes are for everyone (which is why i wouldn't REALLY mind it like i said, i just don't prefer it) and good drafting means finding cheaper talent. I managed one spl and didn't do amazing or whatever but almost made playoffs and it's very hard to draft effectively in some tiers if you're not able to bid higher on the best players in the top-heavy metas.

using your own example you are free to draft more subs and save midseason funds for that purpose. i think that it's nice we have midseason so teams can adjust and i feel like this just defeats the purpose of that. you also mentioned the retains issue and to be honest now that it's mentioned I would go further and say this creates a bigger disparity between teams that have an amazing retain or two and teams that don't, like Aberforth brought up in his post

 

[MANNAT]

mannat was FV's assman last spl i just felt it needed to be added

I will point out that increasing the number of sub slots reducing the value of retains is actually harmful to my team specifically given our roster from last year, this suggestion is more for the efficacy of the tour rather than any competitive advantage.

Also the new midseason makes saving funds for it basically useless short of players getting sold back or banned, I don’t really think it’s this great rebuilding tool you’re painting it as.

 

[Ruft]

Can I ask why the only proposed options are 2 subs or 4 subs? What's wrong with 3 required subs as a happy medium? I'd argue a minimum total of 15 players, with 1 sub for every 4 slots, is plenty "clean". You could even go further and look at it as 1 sub for the 4 SV slots and 2 subs for the 8 older gen slots if you wanted to.

 

[Theia]

Good morning everyone, after hearing arguments from this thread and the stours server, we will be increasing the number of required subs to 3 while keeping the number of credits the same (140k).

Thank you everyone for your input!