Recent Posts
18,554 posts(s) found
Is there not more pressure playing at home in front of a large amount of dedicated fans screaming for the win, rather than playing away from home in a potentially smaller stadium with much fewer fans baying for your blood if you don’t perform? Is this not slightly backwards in implementation, or am I just being picky?
That’s probably related to the new pressure handling feature that replaced stadium size in calculating the penalty received by the visitor team. CPU teams’ stadiums are usually much smaller than human managed teams’ stadiums, therefore in the past they didn’t penalize visitor teams much. All existing players when the feature was introduced received a pressure handling rating of Poor, which is the worst possible. As you replace old players with fresh ones you’ll have a better mix in your squad and sometimes can even use specific players to play away matches. The difference is not huge, but if you have two players that are very similar the pressure handling may decide who you put on the field as a visitor.
Next Enhancement
With little more than 80% of manager participation we already know the option that came first:
55% Allow contract offers to players that are not transfer listed
22% Better player match rating calculation
12% Something else
8% Money replacing investment points to improve and maintain club facilities
3% No Answer
Already started on it, but it will obviously take some time to be done properly. I may start a forum topic to discuss it or if anyone else has something to add about it feel free to create one.
As Joseppi said “I can’t win away from home” I also sort of find this, especially against CPU teams. Not sure 100% why this is, whether it’s because I suck, or whether it has something to do with CPU teams not being affected by morale?
@Joseppi: I gave a lot of thought about it and my intention is to move away from investment points and back to using money to improve (and maintain) the different club areas. It was clearly a mistake back then when we removed the money altogether. Truth be told we were not focused on the game when we did that and this was just an easy escape instead of putting real measure to deal with inflation.
@Dimitri: I completely agree that the ones that left would add a lot of value to this conversation. I tried to directly contact a few of the most “famous” managers to get some insight, but they didn’t leave because they didn’t like the game, they just didn’t have enough time to play due to family/work commitments. I’ll see who I can find on Facebook.
@Tukmans: thanks for the long post, it goes pretty well with our plans to allow bids to non-listed players. Hotlisting as you suggest could represent an expression of interest and an offer is a more direct approach. We just need to make sure that if you make offers or express interest in too many players it could have a negative impact on your squad as well, as they might think you’re going to the market to replace them! I’ll like your post into our planned feature regarding this.
I think the new model could work and attract new active managers, if a transfer model would be added that enables managers to show interest in potentially good players.
Now, a scout search gives managers some insight in the potential of players, but now it’s hard to acquire these players, because these players are hardly put on the transfer list. This potential (although not completely reliable) gives us the chance to know a bit about the reach of a player. The coach reports doesn’t unfortunately. To adapt to the new evolution model quickly and to build a new squad, I would like to get hold of a mix of some interesting potentials and some developed players.
What if I could show interest (for example by putting a player to my hotlist), and that based on a mix of variables:
- country ranking;
- club ranking;
- manager ranking;
- star players in my or existing squad;
- likelihood to play (compared to other players my squad);
- likelihood to leave club;
the players’ morale is affected. If a big club shows interest, it might be that the morale drops in a few rounds. If a low ranked club with few star players shows interest, it might be that it takes quite a long time to lower the morale of a player (let’s say 70 to 100 rounds).
The interesting part is that in the last case, it’s up to the manager to decide to wait for this player, or not. In the meantime a bigger club might perform a scout search and show interest as well. This could affect the morale drastically, which causes the player to have himself put on the transferlist rather quickly. Both clubs can put a bid and it’s still the player that decides where to go. Maybe he would still choose the low ranked club, because the chances to get playing time are higher. Off course the big club can still add this player to the hotlist again, but then the variable ‘likelihood to leave club’ could do it’s job. Because this could be reset after a transfer, and might be increased during the contract. After one or two seasons the player might be willing to go to this bigger club after all, if the player is still on the hotlist.
It also forces me as a manager to do something with my talented players, because the chance that someone else (CPU or active player) shows interest is always around. If they don’t play that much, the likelihood to leave variable is probably high, even though morale could be okay.
I would love to have such a transfer function in the game. Not just because it’s more realistic, also because it enables me to follow a certain strategy and adapt to the new evolution model more quickly:
- do you go for a squad with completely developed players
- do you choose to grow a squad and try to develop all potentials
- do you go for a mix, and follow a strategy to grow and still be competitive
Besides it would be great if the CPU controlled teams like my potentially good players as well. So they’re hired for loan or the CPU team shows interest (following my suggestion). So it’s not just about the current skills of a player. This is especially relevant for youngsters, that have a lot of potential, but where the coach report states that they will reach their potential at an older age.
It shouldn’t be too hard to add this to the game, since most variables are in place. Only likelihood to leave / play should be added. These could be hidden variables.
Even without this suggestion, the game is still fun to play. Keep up the good work.
I play these games of games differently than most people, I think. I like building up a team by developing young players. Tactics etc. I mostly ignore.
It was easier to play my way before, I think; but as I said, maybe I need to get used to the new player development system.
But though we can tell what we like and dislike about the game, it would be more informative to hear from the managers that quit. Not much chance to hear from them I’m afraid, but perhaps some are still in the Facebook group and wanting to share their opinion?
I think I liked the game more last year BUT I see the new ideas and that’s why I’m waiting to see how the new improvements bed in. At the moment I can’t really win away from home! I understand that this will change in a few seasons will players coping under pressure etc.
It would be nice to bring back one big bank balance, realistically I can give far too high wages out and still not look at my overall balance. I remember years ago I always checked my weekly profits / loses to make sure my team always made money. Bring back stadium improvements too!
I really like this topic, thanks for creating it Dimitri! We’ve been monitoring the number of users for the last 3 months and I can confirm we’ve lost quite a few. I would like to hear from managers that are still playing what are the things they don’t like, if they ever thought about leaving (and why) and what they think would bring more users to the game.
I think the reasons you guys already stated are valid ones, at least to some extent. The morale change is still a controversial one but it was made much easier than when it was introduced, and changes like the player evolution model is something that takes SEASONS to really kick in due to the nature of the game, which is something we may have to consider when making future changes. The investments model is something I really thought could work out but I am recognise we haven’t approached it correctly, especially in the beginning when we got rid of money altogether.
Anyway, we’ve been trying to attract more users but it’s been tough to find the time to do it properly. In the past we relied on existing users inviting friends to play and that worked out pretty well, but with the reduced number of users we have now this has ceased to happen. Not to worry though, we’re not giving up :-)
I would suggest that since morale was introduced the game has become harder, which is possibly why people have left, the majority don’t want something that is hard to play, they want the easy option. If you look at how computer games are made now, they are made so that on the 3rd attempt you can complete the section, things have been dumbed down to suit the laziness of the masses.
Personally I think the game is improving, maybe too slowly for some people’s liking, but that is how software development works. There is also the revival of managersim which may be playing a part in it. Some managers who have left here are active there.
I think it’s hard to pin down exactly what makes people stop doing things and even harder to ask them once they’ve left.
Personally, I would like to see more financial control introduced to the game, I’m not a fan of the season investment thing. There was a time when you could sell players for silly money, as it stands now there is very little financial reason to do such a thing. I don’t remember the last time I actually bought a player in the game, I just sign players on free transfers. This doesn’t replicate the football world at all. It’s all about buying and selling players these days, which seems to be something severeley lacking in this game.
I noticed that Fast Ticker has 47 active managers now. If I remember correctly, there were much more one year ago. I wonder why.
It could be bad luck, or just a general trend for these types of games. Just something Danilo and Gabriel have little influence on.
Another possibility is that people like the game less, or at least the people that stopped playing. That they prefer the game how it was before.
I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s an important question. As for me, I think I liked the game more before. I do appreciate the work of Danilo and Gabriel, and I would rather be positive about it. Also it could be that I still have to get used to the new player development model. But it is as it is.
Any thoughts by others?
Starting next season you will be able to configure player tactics in your formations. That means you can give your players specific orders with regards to Passing Style, Passing Distance, Passing Priority, Shooting Distance and Tackle Intensity, or let them use the corresponding team orders that are already available today. This should bring an extra level of control to managers and improve the tactical aspect of the game.
That’s right, friendlies do not help players improve, they are now merely a way to play against other managers for fun or using the match to test something in your formation or tactics. Players will only improve by training (early in the career) or playing official matches (initially only training will do it). The “Next Step” coach report will tell you more specific requirements associated to playing matches, if any.
As I learnt, the players will not improve anymore when playing matches.
Are friendlies helping with skills more than having 100% stamina?
Accepting friendly matches again, need to get my youth teams skills up! Send your invites to Reading.
Yeah, ideally we should keep a historical record of retired players so that these odd things don’t happen. It would be also interesting for statistical purposes such as best goalscorer of all time, best avg rating, etc.
Ok I worked it out. He has retired so he doesn’t show up on old match reports, does seem odd though…
http://rubysoccer.com/game/match_report/5325315 Fast ticker, I look at the match report and only have 10 players, NO GK, what happened? I see the opposition has 10 players and a gk that I can see, but my report shows no GK for me.
Thanks mate :)
@Joseppi: yes, you still get emails for player improvement
@Roberto: in the old system all players developed in the same way, faster when in the youth academy (on average 8 times per season) and slower after that (on average 4 times per season) until they reached their peak, which usually happened between 23 and 25 years old. It was very predictable and not very realistic. In the new system players will reach their peak at different ages, some even on their 30s, but the number of times they improve during their career is still roughly the same so it means on average they will improve less times per season than before. The player Evolution Profile tells you when you can expect the player to improve faster or slower and the Full Potential report tells you whether the player reaches his peak younger or older. This should give you an idea on what to expect in terms of number of improvements per season. If your evolution stage tells you the player has a lot to improve check what the Next Step report says. It may tell you the player will not improve again this season, no matter what you do, or it may tell you that the player still benefits from training, so no need to play him in official matches…it may even tell you the player needs to play international matches, so no need to use him in league matches if you don’t want as he won’t benefit from it in terms of evolution.
All in all I believe the new system makes developing players more interesting, but of course we can tweak it if needed. It will take some time for managers to get a real feel of the new system effects because most of the existing players had already reached their peak when it was introduced, that’s why we reduced players skills by 5 to try and speed up this process.
Please feel free to shoot us more questions or suggestions.
Adding a question in here too, do we still get mails for player skill improvement?
Hi all!
I’m a bit disappointed with the new system after reasonable ticks have passed. One of key points of this game was your ability to identify and develop young players… and now I have a lot of young players who didn’t improve even playing official matches after having messages like “has a lot potential left”.
I think something is wrong with the new system, or at least, something need to be adjusted…
Thanks all!!
Coaching screen now has a column indicating the report “age”. This should help you in analyzing your existing reports and deciding which ones to request again.
Goto Players, click the name and there will appear the player’s particularities. Have a look at the right upper side of the page. There is a coach report link. Click onto it and go ahead … Maybe you will need the coaching ability activated via the Investments.
How do we request a coach report?
Thanks
When modifying a scout search there was a bug that prevented you from blanking out the value of a field. This has been fixed.
Cheers
You will not receive messages about bad morale players anymore, only when the morale becomes critical or goes out of critical. We’ve realized these message only clutter manager’s inboxes and are not very useful as the manager can easily check morale status from the formation screen when deciding which players to use.
Maybe I don’t know how to work the new search function! Lol let me test it out some more first
Maybe I could increase the progression speed of the searches instead and we see if that works better? I mean, it’s not exactly what you’re asking for as it would potentially give you more than 1 suggestion albeit from different searches, but the end goal of receiving more suggestions would be reached (unless of course you have only one search configured).