Recent Posts
18,557 posts(s) found
In some cases when player classes changed we noticed the estimated value was taking to long to catch up with the new class value range. That sometimes caused confusion and made it harder to make accurate forced transfer offers. We have now changed the logic so that the estimated value immediately catches up to a more reasonable value aligned to the new player class.
@Will you are not a moron! This tells me we need to make the way multi-position and multi-side works more evident.
@Joseppi and Dirk: maybe we can start with side only and allow a change from single side to single side or from multi-side to multi-side. In other words, if your player is L he can be trained to be C or R, but not LC or LR. If the payer is LR, you could train him to LC or RC. Does that make sense?
In the future the same approach could be done to player positions, and also maybe taking into account the the main skill for the new position must be no more than 5 points less than the current’s position main skill. For example, a D with 90 tackle, 85 passing and 82 shooting could be trained to become M, but not A.
First off: I’m a moron.
Secondly: Thanks for listening!
Selling Muller and Stefan West!
West – pas 98, sho 87, avg 87, dutch national
Muller – sho 95, avg 90 (!!!), brazilian national
Ouch!
I rather prefer the option to train players from L to LR or LRC.
For me players with a double position like DM or AM have more value in the game. They have to be rare to find. If everyone can change players to a double position a key aspect of the game gets lost.
One exception could be if a player has a secondary skill of an other position (def, pas, sho) that’s higher than his primary skill he should be able to be trained to a new position.
F.e. A defender with D85 and M 94 could become a M or DM afer serious training.
That sounds like a good enough idea, I personally would just like to be make players from say MR into MC or ML. The problem with changing position toDM or AM is teams would have no players that are just standard positions
Will, I think you are incorrectly reading the way sides and positions work. Let’s consider each “row” in the field has 5 sides, let’s call them L, LC, C, RC and R. A player with L side can play both on L and LC positions with no penalties. A player with LC side can play in all positions except R, without penalties. So a player having multiple sides is actually a good thing, as it gives him more options. The same is true for multi-position players (DM, MD, DA, AD, MA, AM), they can play in both positions with no penalties. There is a topic in our game manual about setting up the formation that mentions this.
That said, I still agree it is a good idea to be able to “train” a player into a new position or side. Maybe that makes sense only if the player is not already multi-side or multi-position? For example you could train a D into a DM or DA, but if he was already DM you could not change it. What do you guys think?
I’ve made sure this task was moved higher up in our priority list so we evaluate it sooner rather than later.
I’ve mentioned this before and I agree. It would be a good way for the game developers to make more income too.
The unrealistic nature of not being able to train (or pay a few rubies) to add a new position to a player is becoming increasingly frustrating. If it requires a certain amount of matches, or whatever it may be, I’ve had some players in their “unnatural” positions for years. I feel like by now they’d be comfortable in their new role and make it their primary and preferred position.
Being able to change a players side (LC to C – RC to C – L to LC) would vastly improve the transfer market too. People would be willing to SPEND some of the money they seem to horde since they know w player might soon be useful ion a new role, rather than being saddled with an LC when they really need an L or a C.
I don’t think moving a player from an L to an R is a good idea, as this is kind of a major change to their playstyle, even in real life.
But:
LC -> L
LC -> C
Those would make sense.
Could even make C players be able to go LC or RC, but note on their profile they are originally C players, and therefore cannot be changed to L or R after they have been trained in LC or RC. Same with LC or RC who have been changed to C; they’d be unable to go LC -> C and then over to RC.
Give players sides (L or R) and let them train (or pay) or play a certain number of matches in a C LC/RC or L/R role so they can be 100% proficient in their new position.
Just getting a bit frustrated with buying or training up players who refuse to play a couple yards outside their comfort zone after years of training.
Team classes can now be seen in the league table and team matches screen. We can easily add that info to more screens in the future, if it proves to be useful.
Goalkeeper (a) leaves the field (not possible to replace)
Ouch
Scout searches can now be configured to look only for multi-position (MA, DM, DA, etc) and/or multi-side (LC, RC, LR) players. If you do not check this option the search will work as before, looking for all types. For example, if you search for D with multi-position checked the search will only find DM, DA, MD or AD; without mutli-position checked it will also find D players.
Cheers
With the number of very rich clubs increasing, should we introduce some kind of tax over their transfers or profit in order to control the inflation? Do not worry about specific rules yet, they will be discussed if this goes ahead.
15% – Yes, a tax paid when the club sells a player (in some specific conditions to be determined) is a good idea
24% – Yes, a tax over club profits at season end (if they exceed a certain threshold) is a good idea
13% – Yes, both taxes are a good idea
43% – No, keep the game as is, free of taxes
5% – No Answer
Even though the majority (52%) is in favour of some kind of tax we are not going to introduce any changes. With such close results it is not worth spending the time and effort, we will look into other ideas to better control the amount of money in the game.
Thanks for voting!
In some cases it can. Basically the game calculates a factor based on how much you offered and how much the player wants. For example, if he wants 50k and you offer 100k this factor is 2. Then this factor is modified by the player priority (which can add or subtract 1 from it) and also by the hiring bonus star, which has no limit at the moment (we simply add up all bonuses).
Sometimes I think we need to do something to benefit smaller teams to try and give a chance to everyone and also pose a challenge to the top managers.
Thanks Gabriel. This explains a lot. I didn’t know the impact is that big.
Another example:
“Nórton Nobre has rejected your contract proposal (wage: $227,000). He was hired by KV Oostende (wage: $114,160).”
Can a hiring bonus overrule a difference of more than 100k? Makes it almost impossible for small teams to hire players of the free transferlist.
I already regret I sold my key players. :-)
There is also the “hiring bonus” star players that can add up to it pretty nicely. Some people disregard these types of star players but I’ve seen what they can do multiple times in the past when people asked about why they’ve lost the bid for a particular player. I haven’t check in your case Dirk but I’d bet it is related to that as well.
I know but I have a C class team now. I do think Inter is way better at the moment and has better strikers.
Because main priority for the players is chance for play in the first squad, wage is the next one priority.
So teams with poor squad and low money have big chance to recruit good players for free.
Seriously…. :-/
“Thiago Guerra has rejected your contract proposal (wage: $210,000). He was hired by Inter (wage: $144,886).”
Hello
Could someone please explain me the negotiation rules of (free) listed players again.
I did a bit on this player with no specific priority. My bid seemed to be higher but he went to Marseille. How is this possible?
“From: Assistant
Subject: Negotiation failed
Maximino Cantina has rejected your contract proposal (wage: $77,335). He was hired by Marseille (wage: $65,000)."
If he had a priority I would understand.
Does someone has an explanation?
Dirk
Some good players for sale in Goias:
Josue (M): tac 91, pas 88
Kevin McDonnell (M): pas 94, sho 89
Grafite (A): Sho 98, great secondaries (all > 80)
Check them out!
Vota no vasco para ele voltar dos inativos. Acabei de votar lá pra ajudar. Se soubesse, tinha votado antes e ele já tinha voltado nessa temporada…
I no need to ask they Dimitri.
First of all they manage clubs in top4 the best and richest leagues in RubySoccer. They play regulary in international cups too so they have huge incomes for invest in club or players. But relax man, I changed top English club NFFC (after won championship title) on Danish Brøndby becouse I like challenges. I try to do my best but I need a little more time to earn some money and invest them in the new club and good players :)
Rivals are strong and experienced but no one sayed that’ll be easy job ;)
Good Luck everyone and see ya on stadiums!
Regards,
Luke “Bronson”
Gabriel coloca o vasco de volta no brasileirão, tem muitos times que não tem apelo popular.
Bronson, both Gremio and Boca Juniors just paid 115M for a player (see the newspaper). That shows that at least some clubs have plenty of money. If you have problems with getting money yourself, perhaps just ask the managers of those clubs how they got so rich?
I agree that computer players are paying too much in some cases, maybe we should change them to pay no more than the calculated “base price” which should be somewhat close to the estimated value. We can also change such values so that age players a bigger role, decreasing the values more than it currently does.
An important point is that the estimated value calculation is tied to the amount of money clubs have, so if you feel the high player classes are having too high values that means there is more and more money in the game, therefore introducing more money is not how we should solve this. I’ve been checking every season in FastTicker the sum of all the money in the clubs and that amount has been increasing at around 5% every season. The key is that the difference in cash balance between big earners and smaller clubs is increasing.
Apart from the first couple changes mentioned I’ll think a bit more about other ways we can bring this back to realistic levels, any further observations are more than welcome as usual.
I agree with you guys. The prices for all computer players on transfer lists are insane. Regardless of the player class – computer usually wants 2 or 3 times more than his value.
How We or I can earn that kind of money when for Championship title in Denmark I earned 6M? In my opinion computer clubs destroying transfer market!
Maybe that is a perfect time to thinking about putting some sponsors in the game or adding some other tools to help earn money for the human clubs? Because without that in big part we are convicted to hunting free transfer players only :(
Regards,
Luke “Bronson”
Probably the wrong place but I agree, some players that are 36 but S class sell for 60+ million.
And i forgot to mention, very low skills and abilities. A and B classes, crazy prizes. It,s a joke, yes?
I say, Yes