Recent Posts
18,549 posts(s) found
Some players are asking for high wages currently. Some of them are even asking for absurd wages imo. Should there be a limit to it, and if so, what? 200k, 250k, 300k?
I agree Fabio, it would have to be a situation where the money offered would make a lot of difference to the club, so having a lot of money would also work as a “defense” against this kind of offer. I’m also thinking that of changing scenario “a” above (where the player and the board are satisfied with the offer), instead of automatically transfer listing the player the offer becomes a pre-contract with the player and he’ll be transfer listed when the contract is almost ending (maybe 12 turns before), so that the manager losing the player has some time to plan for a replacement if needed (especially important for goalkeepers). During this pre-contract period the offer cannot be withdrawn, the player contract cannot be renewed, other teams cannot bid for the player and the owner can decide to transfer list him earlier (for the price of the pre-contract offer, of course).
It would then be very similar to the way it is today, where you can still make a player from a managed team critical but he is not immediately transfer listed, just won’t renew contract. We need to be very clear about the rules, maybe a message on the offer screen when you’re trying to buy a non-listed player.
I think this would be a great improvement!
One thing to think hard about is that chance of acquiring a player that belongs to another human manager. This part is very debatable and would need to be done very carefully, with a lot of buy in from the community of managers….
Values entered into transfer price and wage fields are now properly formatted as you type. For example, if you type 12000000 you will actually see 12,000,000 on the screen. This should help avoid mistakes of entering one less or one extra 0.
I agree with you Fabio and my idea of how to change this is more aligned with option 1. I believe the status system is not adding much value at the moment and I’m considering replacing it completely with the player priority system just introduced. It is still one-dimensional but easily extensible in the future to allow players with multiple priorities if need be. In summary my draft proposal is:
1) Purge the player status system as it is
2) Limit the number of non-listed offers you can make in a given period
3) When you make an offer to a non-listed player, your offer is weighed individually against the player current situation in terms of wage and priority
4) The transfer amount of your offer is evaluated by the team’s board taking into account the club’s financial situation
There can be four outcomes:
a) Your offer satisfies the player (much better compared to his current wage and priority) and the board (the amount of transfer money will make the board happy): in this case the player the player goes to “critical” and is automatically transfer listed by the amount you offered, even for human managed teams. You cannot change your offer and other teams cannot make an offer.
b) Your offer satisfies the player, but not the board: CPU teams will renew the player’s contract, human managed teams will be alerted the player wants to renew or be transfer listed and will have x number of turns to action it, if they don’t the player won’t renew anymore and will either have to be sold or let go by the end of his contract
c) Your offer satisfies the board, but not the player: for CPU teams nothing will happen, for human managed teams the manager will be advised to transfer the player by the board, if he doesn’t action it in x turns his manager performance will be reduced by a given % amount, but nothing else will happen
d) Your offer does not satisfy the board nor the player: for CPU teams your offer will be rejected and for human managed teams it will just stay there for the manager’s knowledge, but will have no other effect
This is just a draft idea and needs deeper analysis and explanation. In addition to addressing the “friends bidding together” issue we want to make it possible for more managers to “steal” players by themselves, but without making it too easy. Happy to receive feedback, as always!
Don’t be afraid to inbox some managers for tips too! Im always happy to help.
I agree with Fabio, the game is very good now and if I offer big money for a player it usually gets accepted.
Keep up the good work.
It is starting to get annoying the number of transactions in which friends team up to bid for a player, making the player’s morale critical and sending him to the TL. I do not see much difference between this and creating 2 accounts to sell players from one to the other…
The higher price asked by CPU is a mitigating factor but is far from enough.
1) How about changing the rule so that the number of bids would not add up? What would matter for the player to decide to be transfer listed would be only the “highest” bid (not in amount, but in importance).
2) Or perhaps a tougher punishment on players from human managers with critical morale: if a human-managed player has a critical morale due to bids for other players, he goes straight to the TL, and morale would not change for 4 ticks unless the bid(s) is (are) withdrawn. Then the manager helping out a friend would have a lot at stake…
3) Last suggestion – which I do not like, but would be a mitigating factor – is unifying the transfer lists. At least then newly listed players would be out in the open for everyone to see. I do not like this because (i) it is the least effective, and (ii) it would make the game easier (managers that want to excel should be able to differentiate themselves by putting extra effort, such as by going from TL to TL)…
Thanks Fabio for your nice words! I agree with most of what you’ve said and I’d like to add that we understand there are still some challenges for newcomers and especially for those not quite there yet. I’ve seen some decent managers trying hard to be part of the elite in some leagues and not being able to do so. Of course, this is part of the challenge and fun, but our job is to make sure the opportunities are there for them to grow and get there and not just keep being frustrated. On the other hand, it’s a real treat when I see someone who had some tough seasons in smaller leagues against CPU teams and now is able to compete internationally at the same level as the big clubs!
Too long, didn’t read: thanks for your words, if you’re reading this and you’re new or frustrated for not being a top manager yet don’t worry, we are planning ways to improve the game experience for you ;-)
Taking a look at the game and remembering how it was before, I just wanted to leave my congrats to Gabriel and Danilo for the significant improvement over the past months:
- There is no “one dominant team”. Winners of national league and international cups are, in most cases, changing from one season to the other. This shows a high level of competitiveness has been reached
- Transfer lists are lively. There are plenty of good players being sold (although prices are high) and money has become useful again. Unlike in the past, however, there are not too many good players lying around – it is just necessary for clubs to buy and sell players
- Small clubs have a chance. While it is unrealistic to think one will win an international cup within 5 or less seasons in a club, uprising teams have a shot of building reasonably decent squads fast enough so they challenge the more established ones
There is still plenty to do and is nice to see that GC/DC have been adding new features almost on a weekly basis, but wanted to leave this encouragement note here for now :-)
CPU teams will ask for higher values when transfer listing a player whose status became critical. This is the first of a series of initiatives that we know need to be done to make CPU teams a bit less dumb. We still want them to “help” managed teams a little bit, but their lack of planning is not good for the health of the game overall.
You can now postpone the retirement of your players using rubies by clicking the new icon beside the retirement icon in the player info screen. The cost increases the closer the player is to 40 years old: 1 ruby if he’s 36, 2 rubies if he’s 37, 3 rubies if he’s 38 and 4 rubies if he is 39. You cannot postpone the retirement when he is 40 years old.
When you postpone the retirement you are guaranteed the player will not retire at the end of the current season. During the next season tick, normal rules will apply in determining whether the player will announce his retirement again, if you’re lucky he may not do it. As usual the chances of announcing retirement are higher the closest the player is to 40 years old.
Newly generated goalkeepers will have 30% more training evolution steps on average than existing goalkeepers. We didn’t change the overall number of times a player can improve so that means that GKs will have less steps requiring them to play matches as a result. As things current stand it is difficult in many occasions to fully develop a GK without compromising some of your official matches, this change is hopefully assist in addressing that in a few seasons.
Happened again last match
While I keep on winning, please don’t correct the issue :-)
I’ve seen worse before (and I have a bug recorded to investigate) where a player played a national squad match without even being from that squad’s country :-(
Thanks for reporting anyway, I’ll add this on top of the existing bug so it’s clear the issue is not only about different nationalities.
Gabriel, in my latest national team match in Fast the match report shows that Anibal Ribeiro played (http://rubysoccer.com/match/report/5909366). However, he is no longer part of my squad and was not a part during that match (as you can see we are in the middle of the WC, I cannot change the squad). Weird…
You now have an option to choose whether or not a scout search should become inactive when no players are found on completion. The default behaviour is to make them inactive and therefore all existing searches have been marked as such. If you want them to continue running in this situation just uncheck the box that says “Inactivate if no player found?” when creating new ones or editing existing ones.
Thanks Alexander for the suggestion.
Ah, got it! I’ll add an option for that in the search itself, turned off by default.
That’s what i would like to change – i would like the scout to restart using the same criteria even if the search doesn’t yield any results this time (hopefully he will the next time or the time after that :-) )
Scout searches can now also be completed using rubies. Bear in mind that there is no guarantee a player will be found, it all still depends on your search criteria. Similar to coach reports, the lower the progress of your scout search the higher the price: 3 rubies if current progress is between 0% and 33%, 2 rubies between 34% and 66% and 1 ruby if higher than 66%.
They already do, they are only made inactive if no players are found (in which case you probably want to change the criteria).
Hi guys
Would it be an idea to add an option to have scout searches run continuously, e.g. restart automatic after completion?
You can now use rubies to immediately complete coach reports: 2 rubies if the report progress is less than 50%, 1 ruby otherwise. As said before we don’t want RubySoccer to become pay-to-win. While early completion of coach reports provide you quicker insight on your players we do not deem it to be fundamental and decisive enough so that those not paying for it are unable to compete against those that are paying.
Ok :)
It just didn’t make sense as he was a young player sitting on the transfer list, I’ll just leave him behind on my bid for glory lol
He’s an explorer! He wants to get to know people from other countries, travel the world! I know, it may sound silly if you think about real life, but these restrictions are there to add something different to the transfer market. RubySoccer has many things that do not resemble real life. For example, we don’t have restrictions on number of foreigners in the squad, south american clubs would never have that many europeans playing in their squads.
I have “lost” a couple players due to the new rules as well. One of them wanted to play in a high ranked country and there was Paraguayan club bidding who was able to hire him with a lower salary. The other one wanted a lower ranked manager, so a smaller club with a new manager got him.
Anyway, it’s a recent change and we should give it a time to see whether or not it is a good one :-)
Hahahaha makes sense
Hi, I’m trying to buy a certain player but he won’t join as I’ve too many Spanish players in my team, I think this is silly as my team is Athletico Madrid! It’s a Spanish team and he’s a Spanish player so he shouldn’t have an issue?
Thanks for the detailed suggestions, it sounds really interesting! I’ll definitely consider all that is being discussed here as one of the next big changes :-D
Regarding the youth development ‘issue’, wouldn’t it be an idea to go for an additional investment area called ‘youth’?
In the first levels it could increase the effect of the investment in ‘coaching’ for younger players. Similar to what already has been mentioned as one of the options in this topic. This effect could increase until a maximum level that will be reached in level 4 for example. One of the questions here is if you should limit the effect to the age when players will reach their full potential (x% of potential reached) or to a fixed maximum age (21yr?).
From, for example, level 5 you could think of having a satellite club (similar to what many clubs have in real life) to stall some players.
From level 5 to 7 you’re bound to choose a second division club from an inactive country (then these leagues have also a function) where you can install 1, 2 or 3 players depending on your investment level. This player will then be placed here for a full season and cannot be used at all by your own team. The club of your choice can be selected in the first couple of turns of every new season (because of promotion/ relegation the clubs you can choose from will change each year). I like the idea of a payment per match, so the bigger clubs will bring money to these clubs, which enables them to become stronger as well. Depending on the coaching level of the satellite club, it might be more or less money that you’ll need to pay per match.
For all other youngster that stay at your squad, the effect of the investment will stay similar to what has been reached with level 4.
From level 8 to 10 you could think of having a first division club from an inactive country as a satellite club that will not play International matches. And again, from level 8 to 10 you could limit the number of players per level from 1 to max 3 players per year.
The interesting part here is that depending on the type and number of youngsters with potential in your squad and their need for development, you can play around with your investment level.
This solution secures us all that a least three potential players will have the option to develop to first division degree. At that time they’ll probably be interesting enough for many clubs for loan period for further improvements.
And for all other less talented players there’s still the option for a loan/ being sub from time to time or just training to develop themselves….
Still it makes sense that it takes time to develop talents and it can last several seasons before a player reaches his full potential.
To my opinion such an investment area should only have an additional a coaching effect on players until they’ve reached 90/95% of their full potential or are max. 25yr. Then the coaching investment should take take over.
(To make the solution more future proof, you could also think of a system where you can select a satellite club from countries that are ranked at least 5 places lower than your club’s country. In this case even active managers of less developed teams could send out a request to become a satellite club, when they are in need of money and some talented players.)
Agree about goalkeepers, maybe just for them I could extend the amount of improvement provided by training and reduce the amount provided by match experience.
I think a youth league would be a bad idea, sounds like a lot of extra effort for me.
The problem here is you don’t want to make developing players too easy. I have no problem developing them now, it take time but I’m fine with the current system apart from goalkeepers. They are difficult to improve as you don’t want to concede serious amounts of goals in official matches!
All you really have to do is sub on a young player with 30minutes remaining until he is good enough to loan out, simple.