The power of the £3m defence (FISODAS rules/tactics discussion)

[forestfan]

I wonder why it is, that people really don’t want to commit more money than that to their defence?

I’ve tried to compress the pricing a bit this season, with 0.5m increments and sometimes a lower ceiling, but still half the field goes for the least scary of the £3m options each week...

[Zimmerman]

I notice 28/50 gone for them this week (wasn't it a similar number for West Brom last week)?

Maybe its not specifically the price point.

I personally don't really look at the price (not initially anyway).
I tend to start at the bottom and work my way up the list till i find one i like.
Ergo find the cheapest defence I dare trust.

e.g.

Mentally i go through a process akin to this

Leicester - away to City. No chance, Next
Saints - home to Liverpool. Next
Newcastle - home to United. Next
Huddersfield - at home to bournemouth. Maybe.
Swansea - home to Burnley. Maybe.

and so on.

So its only if I don't fancy ANY of the cheaper defences to keep a clean would i reach the heights of looking at a City or United defence.

Then compare those "maybes". Swansea or Huddersfield.
Similarly, Stoke could well be a good bet for a clean sheet... but in my head i think Swansea + £1m is a better option.

[Smurphy Paw]

Just seen this. As you ask, I think there's something in the following:

It used to be easier to consider a high value defence. When I first joined FISODAS (a few seasons in, not sure when) I remember that:
- Typical attacker limit was around £5 - £5.5m. Now it is often high-£6's to £7m.
- Bottom limit for attackers was often £0.1m, £0.2m rarely above £1m. Now it is regularly £1.5m, £1.6m baseline.
Obviously each week was different. As it is, with players up to c.£7M and the bottom limit creeping up without the budget keeping track (inflation without a new TV deal?) it is always a compromise. Perhaps it is the defence that pays for it or else getting a Captain who will score is nigh on impossible. It's the higher baseline that is the killer that cuts down variation of approach - not necessarily successful, but one used to be able to go for a top-ish end defence, three of the bigger attackers and a couple of throw aways. I think this fared badly against someone who'd downgrade one of the bigger attackers and upgraded A4. Whatever the respective merits, through my rose tinted specs I do remember a wider variety of approaches to playing.

Personally I preferred it when there was a bit more flexibility. It's still a level playing field and sorts the wheat from the chaff and still the best side game on FISO, so only really offering this up because you asked.

SP

[forestfan]

What I’ve aimed to do in my seasons so far is stop more than half the field picking the top priced striker (more important in this era of Kane et al, than it has been since perhaps Henry’s heyday...) and also prevent everyone from picking the same “throwaway” cheapo. I felt in my early days, and the later days before I took over, it often became pretty much a three-man game. So I’ve addressed that through raising the ceiling and also having a broader base to the pricing structure.

One thing I have found tricky, possibly as a consequence, is defence pricing - maybe the answer is just having a narrower range? As you say though, the existence of the captain lends itself to a “three high and two low” strategy and given what I’ve described above, increasingly restricts the budget available for the defence. I know it’s been around since the very early seasons so would be a pretty radical move, but I’ve wondered for a while if scrapping the double-scoring captain, or changing it in some other way, would lead to more flexibility in approaches.

[Smurphy Paw]

I don't envy you the task!
With double game weeks approaching there was a discussion in the FPL pages this past fortnight about whether it was better to play (say) Salah once or someone like Walcott twice. baganboy did a comparison of a few players by way of example. In FISODAS we have to weigh that up every week, the Captain being a really important aspect of the game. What I suspect is that if you do away with it a lot of us would be much more likely to pick Kane/Salah and downgrade A3, unless there are players with a really good chance of scoring in the mid-price range.

Which tells us what? There's always a cause and effect. FISODAS continues to be a challenge and that's why we play. We appreciate the thought you put in to it. A bit of all of these, especially the last one?
Cheers, SP

[Dennisthemenace]

It may be just because of the times were are in. It's now the Kane era, but all that might change if he goes to Madrid, gets injured etc. City are dominant under Pep and that will probably keep going that way but at present there's no dominant defence that you can rely on.

The game is about getting a +6 from what I can see. If you view the opposition will defensively get a -1 then you have to get a +6 and that should be enough if the opposition gets a +6 and minus the -1 to get a +5.

So a defence that scores 0, a captain that scores 2, a top price that scores 2 and then any 2 from 3 to get the other 2 goals. In effect, the top striker should be worth double the price of any of the other strikers

Striker A - 6 (2 goals)
Striker B - 3 ( maybe 1 goal)
Captain - 2.9 (1 goal = 2 goals)
Striker D - 2.8 (maybe 1 goal)
Striker E - 2 (maybe 1 goal)

Leaves 3m for a defence, maybe as high as 3.5 if you can find another 0.2m (probably from the lowest striker). I think it's easier to find a clean sheet from a 3m defence than it is to find a 3m scoring striker who isn't your captain.

I like the captain puzzle, the name of the game is to find one 3m striker who will score you double. It's not easy and it affects how you pick everything else. The captain is always my starting point, followed by the top price striker, followed by the defence. I think it would be a mistake to change the captain and just make him an ordinary striker.

The bonuses are always fun but three is definitely enough. If anything 'different' was done to the game, maybe having another two bonuses to choose from would be good, so any three from five that wouldn't tie you to CB, SOF, DS. I think keeping those three should continue but having something like a KC or assist bonus might add something different. Midfield General! Who scores one point for two assists or a Penalty King who scores two for each penalty scored etc. So if you fancied De Bruyne to provide a load of assists versus Palace at 4m, is that better than an Aguero SOF at 7m. Likewise, if you fancy Leicester vs Stoke to be a rough old game would Vardy be good value at 5m with a PK bonus.

[forestfan]

Bringing in assists would just be too complicated, as there’s no definitive way of determining them, and I can’t afford to employ a team reviewing all the goal footage

I remember Shrews thinking of adding more bonuses way back in the day, and the majority view being that it would just make it too complicated, and we’ve stuck at the familiar three ever since. Still, he was conducting a combination of a fantasy game experiment (which started with the legendary Fantasy FISO Posters!) and an attempt to design a national online game, and ended up creating a niche forum game that has lasted 12 years and counting...

[morganb]

if you are looking for tweaks for the game then one option would be to play with either a extra striker but within the 20 budget, or alternatively one less striker so you play 4 v 5 but still within the 20 budget? Would 4 slightly more expensive strikers be better or would having 6 more average players do the trick. I only suggest this as most of the other things you could vary are already catered for (more budget, extra captain [SOF], improved defence) - I love the game how it is and this is not a suggestion that change is needed.

[Zimmerman]

Interesting to read the comments on the captains. My captain NEVER enters my consideration.

There’s too many things to coordinate getting a decent player in at #3.

I completely think about defence and #1 and #2 (if I’m lucky/brave. The other three slots is a case of balancing the books and getting the best trio possible. If it means I end up with choupo-moting or hazard as captain, so be it.

[forestfan]

if you are looking for tweaks for the game then one option would be to play with either a extra striker but within the 20 budget, or alternatively one less striker so you play 4 v 5 but still within the 20 budget? Would 4 slightly more expensive strikers be better or would having 6 more average players do the trick. I only suggest this as most of the other things you could vary are already catered for (more budget, extra captain [SOF], improved defence) - I love the game how it is and this is not a suggestion that change is needed.

I don't think Rob would thank me for introducing variable team size, in terms of widget coding - would be enough hassle for me to change the spreadsheet for it!

As I've considered before though, near zero-priced players with almost no chance of scoring could achieve similar, in terms of the option to have a "four man team". Of course, those with long FISODAS memories will remember one long serving player picking a "sacrificial lamb" top priced striker to deliberately go over budget, thereby ending up with a four man team with the second most expensive remaining striker as captain. That's how the rule about losing your captain's double score in the case of a rule infringement came about!

[forestfan]

Anyway, think I did better with the defence pricing this week - 13 different defences picked, and none of them by more than 9 people.