Recent Posts
18,548 posts(s) found
Listen, I’m new here, but I think people are being really pessimistic here. The game looks fine to me! In many aspects it is very realistic actually. For instance, the slow development of players. Starting at 16 and reaching their peak at around 25 is really good. Then dropping after 31.. I think that feature is very good!
I understand many people are questioning the transfer market. The economics of the game can get complicated indeed, but I couldn’t comment much without knowing how much money in the bank the CPU teams have at the moment. One thing that seems wrong to me is that CPU teams appear to be spending too much money buying old players. They can pay high prices for 34yo players, which doesn’t look right. But I imagine it must be quite hard to program the CPU teams to actually play the game as a human. We can’t really demand perfect AI. I think the fact that the game has been going on for so many seasons without huge problems is quite an accomplishment.
Yepp, when developing a game you have to ignore some of the “advice” and take some or simply do some trial and error, and most importantly learn what works and what not.
That’s why I mean if we (others than the developers) really want to help developing the best game after SoccerSim leaving a void in that category, we need to find out what works and what not. That’s why we do not need to pay attention to who moans about result and transfers by cpu teams but adapt and change code, test and change, test and change some more.
In real world you have a development team and you have the test team, they both work by the requirements someone made.
Never can a testing team make change requests. You need to set a requirement team to make sure you do not have insane requirements, developers sticking to that requirements and then testers testing if the implementations mirror the required features.
Why is THIS different here? Reset the game already..
BK
I’m now facing the money restrictions from the board and I find it very strange they wont allow me to buy good potential players for very small amounts, older players with great potential are very sub evaluated so the board wont let me spend 6M in a player when they now have more than 120M…
There should be a minimum limit for this restrictions, something like 7-10% the bank account… The way it is now its to much hard for new and poor managers…
The CPU crazy buyers was a mistake, it was easy to see this would happen and I believe the only reason this was done was because the pressure some managers putted on the developers, bad managers that continue to perform badly… In the end money worth less, you can’t find as good players in the transfer market, its harder to build a new team unless you can be online every 3 turns (because CPU are).
As I said before the only real solution for the game’s health is having more human managers playing, all the investment in the game should be for that purpose…
Cheers
Dimitri, we can have a chat/voice session and discuss, but it’s really alarming that there is not much more voices in here throwing theories and opinions.
To answer you quickly, all cpu team’s actions should be scripted and pre-calculated. “They” have an advantage over us, knowing the potential of a player and, if the transfer amounts are around 80M for a great player and they can afford it, and know that guy will become a greater and more valuable for the team than a 8M player, then they can go for him, else try to meet the requirements from the board, such as, stay in the division, title challenge, etc. On the other hand they could offer only what they think player is supposed to be worth, and that kind of levels can be added to a table in the database saying:
player with average 85 is 10-15M worth of value, 90 average is 15-25M, 95 is 25-40M, depending on:
- number of games at the highest level (country (where the player played) ranking in effect here)
- number of national games
- age (actually how many more productive years normally left, if player is not forced to quit/retire)
- stardom, like in Soccersim, silver stars and gold stars added value to player, added effect to merchandise
now, the money in the clubs have to be balanced and the formulas for generating money/costs have to be really closely monitored.
Now, if we had many human managers you wouldn’t need to script the actions of the CPU teams, the actions/transactions/fun would happen anyway. We have many cpu teams and we need to balance things or not at all, depends on what kind of game you want.
I guess there is not a quick and easy answer Dimitri.
/BK
Ok, let’s suppose we remove player value. A cpu team needs a MR. There is one on the market for 80M. Should the cpu team buy the player?
Dimitri, as I have been saying for years, player value is an evil thing to attach to a player. At least, it should be calculated in a different way.
When you base offers/transfer price on “player value” you make a way open for crazy things like you see happen in the game, crazy amounts of money paid by CPU teams, no “decent players” to buy unless offered crazy amounts of money. Cheaters will have easier to do “legit” transfers, pointing to the player value.
Some players have a value of 200-500 M, perfect for cheating and shuffling money around and very crazy at the same time.
All the logic that has been based on any calculation of the player value is very hard to do or dismiss. It’s not an easy task but if this is a real beta testing of the game then we should be open to changes really. I would have no problems dealing with players without any value attribute attached. I wouldn’t mind losing 90% of the money in the club, no use of having 300M anyway when no one is selling.
BK
The player value is based on actual transfers, right? But the cpu teams are paying twice or more the player value. Which means player values go up. Which means cpu teams will pay even higher prices, etc.
I still don’t understand why it isn’t possible to have a middle way between cpu teams hardly buying players, and cpu teams spending too much money…
The title says it all. I play in mediumticker and the last 4-5 season it’s almost impossible to buy star players on the market. The only ones there are overpriced 33-34 year olds.
Let’s say you put a players on transfer list. The cpu evaluates him at 18$ million, and you put a price at 15$ million. Automatically, you will have cpu teams making you an offer for him. I think this caused a big flow of cash to go to everybody controlling a team since selling players was never this easy. So with everybody having money, nobody wants to sell anymore, hence the money is losing it’s value.
contract clauses is a really good idea but there will be some good players on the free market and managers will offer incredible wages to have these players…
one more idea: for now when you sign a player this is for ever. Imagine if you sign a player for x years and after these years, he has the choice to resign and get free to sign for a better team. If a player do not want a new contract the manager will have to sell him at a “good” price. The market will be more liquid. And some excelent players will not be playing in Columbian 2nd division…
Some suggestions:
a)I agree with the idea of putting contract clauses (example: relegation release clause; minimun mumber of official games).
b)The estimated value of the players should not be so inflated. There was a recent inflation in the estimated value of the players in Medium Ticker. In my opinion, before this the estimated value was acceptable.
c)The board of the club that is buying should block transfers amounts above 2 or 3 times the estimated value.
d)CPU teams: should not spend more then half (or 1/3) of their bank balance in one single transfer.
e)I don’t agree with the “reset” in the finance of the clubs (remove the last 0)
DE
Dimitri, in my opinion, No, the player value attribute kills the game, it would be interesting to see how people would rate/value players if it was to be removed. I agree there should be some kind of value to represent the “value” of the player but it could be one of two things:
a) the transfer price of the players last transfer OR when missing (as the player could be a “home grown” player)
b) a valuation of your board/club/assistant manager or something like that. Something like:
“Noé Delage is valued somewhere between 3-5M.” in stead of “$44,073,674”
It’s too late with just stopping the cpu teams from spending the money, as many clubs now have several hundreds of millions.
I think most fair thing would be to remove the last 0 from each value in the game.
Meaning if you had 300M in the club account it should now hold 30M and if a player was worth 150M, it will now be 15M. That would temporarily “help” but a more aggressive approach is needed. Logic has to prevent this from happening and a suggestion of players having attitude would help. Also in most management games you have a max skill for each skill. That has to be redone. And I would “lose” about 250M myself but it’s worth it, as this is beta-testing, no?!
In reality we have many great players but that is known from a SET of 265M people playing football/soccer. It’s not too difficult to find 100 great players for several countries, but percentage of great players in the game from the number of available players is WAY TOO BIG. Not good. It creates an unnatural balance of talent, and when the cpu teams can afford a promising player they will make a move to get him. That is a great feature.
Developers (and/or anyone interested in data statistics of football, read this:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/bcoffsurv/emaga_9384_10704.pdf
When you have a good talent model you will see how great and enjoyable the game is, and I can not stress this enough about how important this is. You REALLY have to be paranoid about your data when making such games. Period.
BK
If CPU teams don’t pay more than the estimated value for players, would that make the market better?
Yes. You can check it for yourself: each 15 friendly matches there should be skill improvements for your players (with coaching level 10).
Sorry to bother you guys with another question.
I understand that a player should play at least 35min to be able to improve his skills on a given match. What I was wondering now is whether the chance of improvement is exactly the same for a player who played the whole 90min to the one who played 35min of the match?
Thanks
Another question about correlations ;)
Is there any relationship between the wage paid to a player and his performance during matches?
Thanks
Thanks!
There’s no correlation between stamina and improvement. It is quite common to have young players at 3 stamina (by letting them play all friendlies).
However, if you want to loan a player out, it is better to have them at high stamina (assuming that cpu teams take this factor in account for player selection)
Hi
Most of the people use their young players on friendly to make them improve their skills. I was just wondering if a player that starts the game with 100 stamina points has the same chance of improving than if the player was starting the game with 50 stamina points.
Thanks for the help.
Well, I too have no problems making money in the club and last season I had something around there, and spent some of it, probably around 200M but it’s a bit silly. It is not about being able to make money, as all the seasoned managers know how to do that, but a new manager would have some problems entering the game and having a nice game experience. Now if you want to make a great team, your only chance is having 20 000 M or build your own team from free transferred youths, it would take 10 seasons but it can be done. The problem is you do not have that kind of money and while building your own team you have to take risks of getting bad results and getting fired on the process, and there you hand over a few seasons labor to someone else, and that for me is a game killer.
I think all the money would be just fine if every price/amount lost one 0. Mind that it costs still same amount of money to build stadiums, hire coaches, scouting etc. Is that right?
I don’t know about you guys but for me it has become a new type of game, just bank as much as possible while avoiding getting fired over the bad results. A new type of simulation, I stopped looking at the match results, or caring should I say.
BK
:(
I agree with Charles. There are only a few 90+ avr players left. In the old days you had 95 primary skill players with 95+ secondary skills. Now you it’s very tough to find such a player. The 100 primary skill players are also more scarce then before. It makes the game more realistic.
I think the stale marked is a result of this new skill balance. People don’t want to sell there good players because they can’t find a replacement. When you are able to convince them, you have to play way too much money. A problem created by the cpu transfers i think. They give unrealistic high amount of money for average players.
I think the admins must find a way to create a flow in players moving from one team to another. Contract clauses could be a start. Players who want to play games in stead of sitting on the bench; Players who want to play in another competition;… Managers would be forced to sell and buy players.
I have to agree with BK. It’s been nice that the CPU team starting buying players again but all it really did was drive up the market for players that aren’t all that great.
It’s still pretty tough to find that 90average player BK and consider this; prior to the changes made by the admins, there were a lot of 91+ average players. Now it seems to be less and less and generally speaking, players won’t develop past an average rating of perhaps 91 or 92? Back in teh day it was silly to see guys with 100average or 96 or 97 averages. So in that aspect, i think the admins have done a good job of trying to balance out top end talent. I also like the fact that there seems to be more of a random factor when it comes to player progression. Previously, the best players always came from the top 2-3 countries in the world based on their UEFA rankings. But as the admins have pointed out, there is a chance that a great player can be developed from one of the lower countries.
Personally, i think that the transfer market is back to becoming what it was… stale. And although i still appreciate being able to sell some young guys for a few million, it is becoming increasingly difficult to buy a good player at a good price. As of now, i think spending 100mil on an 87 average player is too much, but unfortunately that is the state the game is in right now. smaller teams don’t really have a chance to compete with that. I’m lucky enough that i’ve always been able to find a way of making money but only because i’ve stayed in higher ranked countries. If i were to take over a country with low ranking and low stadium, it would become a much tougher task to accomplish.
As BK said, the game does have its flaws, but it also has its strong points. I still enjoy finding players and developing them (even better if they come from my youth squad) but generally speaking, the game is still definitely linear.
Whats so tough to accomplish for the admins is finding a balance between maknig the transfer market enticing and fun, balanced with having a non linear player progression while making sure that small teams don’t get lost in the shuffle.
Definitely a tough task at and.
charles
Portuguese?
=P
Hi
This is not a bug but a setup. Go to settings and choose Show recent results on home screen?
the game is in a limbo state, and people would rather care making 500M on faulty logic in the game rather than play the game as it was supposed to be played?
Do you even remember what it was like playing such games?
Sure some of it was winning titles and competing with friends and some rivalry was interesting aspect of playing together. I would like to also think that some of the playing itself was being a good guy/friend/player/manager that would help a newbie and the community around the game play was as fun as playing the game itself. It used to be fun to talk about the game, no matter what the game was.
When I see all the fantasy transactions, people refusing to sell a player because they believe they can never find an equal replacement, I think this thing is doomed.
There are several major flaws in the game, other than that the game is amazing.
My suggestions would be:
- fix the economics or die, as simple as that, the game will lose it’s users if economics is not fixed. Period.
- get rid of all the thousands of the superstars, it’s not realistic/good for anything
- get rid of all the cheaters, allow logging in with facebook only or a validation routine validating that the player is a real one. If need be – get a payment for the validation routine.
You guys are thinking that all the fake and fictive millions in your club will make you great or give you some kind of edge in whatever you are pursuing but it will result in only one thing – killing the game.
Just my 2 cents..
Berhan
Hi
Fisrt, I have to say that I’m new to RubySoccer. I’ve just been hired in a team in the Fast Tick Dimension.
It seems that there is a bug in my team→info page. More specifically in the table outlining my team’s last matches. My team is Valencia. The results show like this: Levante ?x? Valencia; Valencia ?x? Cordoba; etc.
I’ve tried to login with a couple of different browsers (chrome and IE) and the problem remains. It doesn’t bother me, as I can still see all the match results if I specifically click on ‘Matches’. The bug is just in this outline of the last matches’ results. I just thought I should let you guys know.
Cheers.
Weird…have you tried cleaning the browser cache? You can send a screenshot to admins@rubysoccer.com so we can investigate
I thought about that when I designed the national team matches…can’t remember why I decided not to prevent injuries on those matches. Maybe we should change that, if there are no positive effects there shouldn’t be any negative effects either.
ill sell you bolt but you have to pay a shit load were taling 200m