Regarding the CPU teams role in making and receiving offers for non-listed players

82% – CPU should both make and receive offers for non-listed players
08% – CPU should receive and deal with the offers but not make them
06% – CPU should only make the offers, not receive them
04% – No Answer
00% – Offers for non-listed players should be made and received only by human managed teams

I’m glad we were already heading in the direction the majority has chosen :-)

Next feature poll

31% – Better player match rating calculation
31% – Coaching: Evolution Stage report should provide a ball park figure on points left to improve instead of a vague text
19% – Star system change: players become stars gradually and remain as such for longer
11% – Something else
8% – Foreign players adaptation period: performance penalty until they’re fully adapted

We had the exact same number of votes for the top two options above, so we’re doing them both next. I’ll probably work on the coach report change first as it should be quicker.

Team name change poll results

34% – Yes, go for it.
30% – No, new teams should be introduced only when we have new dimensions, countries or divisions.
28% – Yes, but if the team is managed the manager has to agree.
08% – Yes, but all managers in the team’s country have to agree.

Grouping all the “Yes” options we have 70% against 30% of “No” answers. Grouping the ones who want some kind of control on the renaming it’s 36% against 34% who just want it done regardless. As a result the name change will happen but we will always consult the team’s manager (if it’s a managed team) or all the managers in the team’s country, when deemed relevant.

Thanks for your participation! A new poll will come soon about how detailed should the Evolution Stage coach report be.

Evolution Stage report changes: what to show in the report results

39% – An estimated range for the final value of the player’s main skill (e.g 90-92 tackle)
25% – An estimated range for the final value of the player’s currently worse skill (e.g. 79-83 control)
21% – An estimated range of points the player will increase in each skill (e.g. 9-10 from the example above)
15% – An estimated range of total points the player will increase among all his skills (e.g. 63-70 points for a non-GK means 9-10 points in each skill assuming points are distributed uniformly)

I’m happy with this result, it means the report will be more useful but without revealing too much :-)

It looks like the transfer budget investment area is going away…

62% – Not be an investment area and calculated based on total money balance and wage expenses, as it was in the past
27% – Remain exactly as is, calculated based on the investment level
11% – Still be calculated based on the investment level, but with more generous values especially for lower levels

Should we have a single smaller dimension (game world) with 3 to 6 countries initially in order to have more teams with managers overall? Do not worry about additional details of the new dimension (tick frequency, transition from existing ones, etc), just give your opinion about creating it for now.

35% – Yes, but also keep the two we currently have
33% – No, keep the two we currently have
19% – Yes, and you should inactivate the two we currently have
6% – No, just inactivate one of the existing ones after agreeing on a tick frequency for the one kept active

7% – No answer

Very close, I suppose we’ll need a follow up poll. When grouping answers we can say 68% don’t want the existing dimensions inactivated and 54% want a new dimension. I’ll create a new poll without options to inactivate existing dimensions but giving a different view on the new dimension. Bear in mind that, even if the new dimension option wins, it will not be a high priority work, new features and enhancements are still higher priority.

Thanks!

New small dimension poll results:

Would you like a new smaller dimension (game world) with 3 to 6 countries and a frequency of 4 ticks per day (to be confirmed)?

42% – No
38% – Yes
15% – Yes, but you can only play in the new dimension if you have a team in FastTicker and/or MediumTicker as well
5% – No answer

Things will stay as they are. Even though you could argue that the majority (53%) would like a new dimension it’s too close for us to spend the time doing it with the risk of having greater spread of managers across dimensions. Thanks for voting!

It looks like investment points will go away (not necessarily next season, it will take some time):

55% – Yes, I’d like to use money to manage the club investments
41% – No, I prefer to keep the point system
04% – No Answer

Psychology Investment Area

Would you like to have an investment area for Psychology? It would influence your player’s pressure handling and probability of receiving cards in a match. Do not worry about cost yet, just consider if you would like it or not.

55% Yes
12% Yes but I would prefer it to have a different role
33% No

Let’s get the work started!

How should we update club names to match real life first divisions?

44% – Relegate the last placed clubs in bottom divisions of each country to an invisible division replacing them by new clubs
36% – Continue renaming clubs as you’ve been doing
20% – Do not update, leave them as is in RubySoccer

It looks like we have some fun work to do creating “invisible” divisions and adding new clubs to the game. We will most likely create a couple follow up polls to gather your opinion on what should happen to a manager that is relegated to an invisible division and what should happen to the players of relegated clubs.

Now that we’ll have the new club rotation system, should we rename clubs back to their original names?

35% – Yes for CPU managed clubs, for human managed clubs you should ask the manager
31% – Yes, it will be good to have old names linked to the history
27% – No, what is done is done, let old clubs come back via the new system
07% – No answer

Thanks for answering the poll. I’ll start renaming clubs back either today or early next week. You can expect to see relegation spots in the second divisions of Brazil, England, Spain and Italy still in the current season.

50% of the managers who voted in our poll decided that we should have a suggested value for the forced transfers based on the Negotiations level. In order to be fair, once this is done, you will spend your forced transfer offer as soon as you are shown the suggested value, so if you decide to not go ahead with an offer for the player you will have to wait another 6 turns to try another one. This will avoid managers going around and trying different players just to check the suggestions before deciding which one to buy.

Thanks for voting!

The last poll results are in:

24% – keep inactive players frozen in their inactive teams
76% – randomly free transfer inactive players throughout the season

Thanks for voting!

The last poll is now closed. We had 87% of participation and, believe it or not, the exact same number of votes for each of the two options. That means we are not going to change the negotiation system for the time being.

Thanks for voting!

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!

And once again our managers proved to have very different opinions amongst themselves:

30% – Keep forced transfers as they are
43% – Do not allow for players in human managed teams
26% – Allow it but change the rules
01% – No Answer

If we look only at the winning option, we could go ahead and implement it, but when you think about the big picture you can say 56% is actually in favour of having forced transfers for players in human managed teams, so it doesn’t really make sense to remove it.

We were only going to take immediate action if there was a strong preference for a change, but given we have higher priorities at the moment we’ll leave it unchanged. Thanks for voting!

After three polls where the results were inconclusive we finally had one with a clear preference. When asked if the exact bonus/penalty of player traits should be revealed 78% of the managers voted for “Yes” and 18% voted for “No”. The remaining 4% have not provided an answer.

Thanks for voting

Another very close poll about player wage reduction, these are the results:

38% – Do not allow wage reduction
26% – Lower the amount that can be reduced on renewal
32% – No change
4% – No answer

It will take some time for any rule changes to take effect as we need to make sure CPU teams are not adversely impacted as well as managers who “inherit” big wages when joining a club.

Thanks for voting in our poll, here are the results:

1) Mobile app
2) Rating based substitutions
3) Show last player improvement
4) Smooth estimated value transition between classes

Work has started for the app but given the results above we’ll try to focus on it a bit more to get it ready sooner. We’ll post some updates on Facebook as we have them.