Recent Posts
18,535 posts(s) found
The seats do get more expensive and take longer to build, but that happens every 10k seats. Here is the logic
Cost / Time to build 100 seats depending on the current stadium size:
0-10.000 = $100.000, 1 turrn
10.000-20.000 = $200.000, 2 turrns
20.000-30.000 = $300.000, 3 turrns
30.000-40.000 = $400.000, 4 turrns
40.000-50.000 = $500.000, 5 turrns
50.000-60.000 = $600.000, 6 turrns
60.000-70.000 = $700.000, 7 turrns
70.000-80.000 = $800.000, 8 turrns
80.000-90.000 = $900.000, 9 turrns
90.000-100.000 = $1.000.000, 10 turrns
If you make some calculations you’ll see that it takes around 550M for a team to go from a 1k stadium to a 100k stadium, and it won’t happen before 38 season of continuous stadium expansion. We may refine these in the future (like make the price and period different every 5k seats instead of 10k like it is now).
We know that the value you pay to increase the number of seats won’t be recovered so soon if you think of how much your ticket income will rise, but we plan to use the stadium size in the future for a few more purposes (it could influence the number of youths you have, sponsorship deals, how many coaches, physios, scouts you can have, and so on).
Cheers!
The only way a player improves their skills for now is playing matches. The more improved a player is more matches it takes for him to improve again, until he reaches their maximum potential (the only ways to know he reached the maximum potential is if he improved far more than usual after a match or if he doesn’t improve after playing a certain number of matches…we can’t tell you the exact number :-)
Cheers!
Wait a minute, you’re asking for a scout here! :-)
We’ll have scouts to help you searching for the player you want, of course the scout won’t do that for free. For now you’ll have to find them on your own, which is a fun part of the game.
Cheers!
You know, at first I decided not the make the wage cap based on the team’s available money in order to avoid big teams hiring all good players, but if you think of that individual wage cap is what makes more sense. If a team wants to give a player a crazy wage he can, as long as he can afford that for a certain period as Hugo mentioned. That way the richest teams would have a way to spend their money quicker if they want ;-)
Of course that we must implement bankruptcy accordingly, making the manager be fired and the team be recovered somehow.
Cheers!
Now that we have team ranking (even though it’s not displayed yet) we can use that as the third criteria (first being wage, second being contract length). Guys, believe me, the wage cap is working exactly as designed, the player that has a 200k wage would ask regularly for something around 20k, so here is the cap, 10x real estimate. Is it high? Yes, but as some people said, how would rich teams spend their money the way things are? ;-)
Cheers!
Hi. I would like to know from you guys what is the reason to add seats to the stadium!
Let’s make some calculations:
You pay 400.000 per 100 seats.
What do you gain?
If you have 20 games at home in one season, and if the stadium is always sold out, you gain 10€*100seats*20games = 20.000€ in one season
You will only start to gain some money in 20 seasons! I believe we will have a reset before that =)
I’ve added 100 seats to my stadium just to see if there would be any raise in the prices as the stadium gets bigger, but it doesn’t seem like it. I think it should, otherwise stadiums will just keep getting bigger and bigger until they get more people inside than some small towns do. If with 33k seaters we see wages of 200k, i can only imagine with 100k seaters… well, maybe with bankrupcy things could change a little, i don’t know.
Also, there isn’t any real advantage in building more than 100 seats. You pay the same per seat as you would if you’d built 1000, and you get them faster, therefore making ticket money faster.
Cheers.
Players should choose money, team importance, and the opportunity they will have to be a 1st team regular.
At least this is the way i see it in real life.
I will not even try to begin talking about the mythic wage cap, seeing as players went for 200k+ this season, if it exists it obviously isn’t working properly.
Is there anyway players get better? When they play do they improve their skills or is there a chnce that they improve their skills. Or do all the kills stay as they are?
yep, the big problem we are facing here is the beginning. the only quick solution would be a reset. but this discussion is an excellent help for us to fix the unfair situation.
one thing that we are planning to implement real soon is a deeper Board and the natural consequences of that.
you are right, i will add that to our list.
cheers
With player sides, some possibilities to search players instead of generating lists would be welcome! For example I am trying to find a left defender and this would easier the task a lot, with the advantage of not generating full lists!!!
Like search left defender minimum tackle 73…
Cheers.
There will not be extensive resell if loads of free players stop entering the market without a logic comprehension. Clubs loosing top players bacause they lack contract renewals is one example without logic! Also the amounts of certain transfers involving CPU teams… I have a previous post for that…
Total anarchy might be too much for the game, the existing regulation is very good, the problem still is the unbalanced begin, there is no short way back for that, unless you use unfair methods, and please don’t.
I wrote a post about a wagecap to negative clubs (mine was that way at the time), this measure could be extended to positive clubs but you will always have to set it by the club possessions! Unless you force clubs to have 100M at the bank account only spendable at stadium seats to be recovered in 3 seasons for a real top team!
If you want to set a wagecap set it by the club possibilities, a maximum total wage for a club to offer will not deplete the club bank account in n ticks, like forcing a reserve. How can a club spend 100M without paying at least 1-2M total wage?
To bring UEFA or FIFA real life competition rankings to Ruby is a mistake in my opinion, here there are no big cities to generate mass population in the game, and I mean money. All stadiums started with the same capacity and it can’t be more fair!
The best criteria for player transfer is already applied, money (wage)! And the limit is fine, is real big, but it is the only way to consume big clubs money. When many teams offer maximum wage and 3 seasons I think you should consider other criteria yes, but not the weakest team!!!
Good second criteria would be competitions participation, who is where, a team in the champions should be prefered to a team in the UEFA, and these teams to other less positioned team, because those are the games players want to play. It’s not difficult, team in international competition (by competition importance), team in first league, team in second league! And the clubs able to get to final competitions will be prefered to all others in the end of international competitions, they deserve it too, I think.
Third good criteria would be random, I believe it is quite fair too :) but odds should be powered, first to make an offer, number of seasons, club history titles (in ruby), also league points in last and present season, should all count to give more or less chances to clubs, as this would be the final untie!
Cheers!
You beat me Carlos, you’re right about having too much money, you must spend it somehow :-)
I like the random ideia…the player could even go to a team that was not the best offer (of course with much less probability) :-)
We can arrange the game. :)
But I guess Liverpool has a better UEFA ranking than Leixões, not because of me, but for its history.
I think this was the way old ManagerSim worked. And like in real world, as you said, better teams become even better while small teams have great difficulties in progressing.
I guess it’s a tough call…who should have priority in getting the players…
It’s yet to be proven that your team is stronger than mine, we’ve never played against each other :)
Though my initial squad was weaker than yours, as Portugal was on the tail of the ranks on day 0…
True…
So players would prefer to go to Liverpool instead of going to Leixões. :P
The problem isn’t about paying 1.600.000. I have, right now, enough money to pay those wages for two seasons even if I make absolutely no income on that period. That is the real problem.
I think you should focus – like Hugo Celso has been saying – on fixing the details that allow us to have way much more money than we need. Because if we have the money, there’s no logic reason to forbidden us to spend it…
Market should be always free. If you’re able to generate more income, it’s only natural that you can spend more…
That criteria will penalize the best managers. In real world, players want to be on the strongest clubs, not on the weakest :)
Gabriel, I don’t agree with that criteria. Why should weakest teams be chosen? That doesn’t make any sense, you’re trying to balance the game but it is unfair for the “biggest” teams, because the game will be a lot less fun to play. The player should pick a random team, that would be fair!
I have a different opinion…I prefer total anarchy! :)
But if the club runs out of money the manager should be immediately sacked.
Thank you very much for your reply, Samir!
Cheers and good luck!
Philipp, the current wage cap is too high (10 times the real estimate for the player), we can certainly reduce that to something around 3.
thorpedo’s suggestion is good, it’s an option to a previsou suggestion I gave where the board would define how much you could spend on new wages in the current season.
I know we have a lot to do on this subject, just keep in mind that even after a few changes the game may remain unbalanced for a long time due to all the teams that have benefited from the lack of control we had in the beginning (unless we reset the game, of course). Thanks for the suggestions and keep them coming ;-)
Cheers!
We’ll soon change that to make the third criteria be “who has the weakest team”, to give the weakest a chance to improve ;-)
Cheers!
Hi
The criteria when more then one offer was done is:
1) Wage
2) Number of seasons (higher is better)
3) Who made the offer first
Because there is a wage cap right now, deppending on the value of the player, I lost more than once to teams that offered the exact same value I did. But every time they made the original offer before I did. So, if you offer the max wage possible for three seasons, if you were not the first one to make an offer, you can lose the player.
[]
I suggest a maximum total wage amount for all your players. So you can’t have a total of wages above this amount.
For example: max amount 450k every 3 turns
If you have already wages for 410k, you can’t give a wage above 40 k
Then managers are free to determine their wages, but there is a protection against insane wages.
You can give one player a 100 k wage every 3 turns as long as the maximum wage amount is not exceeded.
I think a 15 k wage for each player (so 30 players in total) , what makes 450 k in total , is a good total wagecap.
You always have players with a wage of 5K so you can use the diffirence (15K – 5K = 10K) for wages higher than 15k.
What do you think?
When several teams offer the same contract value for one player is there another criteria considered?
I’ve just “lost” 3 players like this, and 2 of them for the same team…
There is already a wage cap?
i doubt it:
Leixões in FastTicker
pays his players 1.600.000 !!! on wages weekly – 5 player above 100k, one above 200k …