Hi there!!!

Man, you don’t know how happy I come when I saw the logo in my screen!!! I started yelling out loud!!! =D
That’s really great!!!

Wow, I’ve just finished reviewing ALL team info screens and you guys have already posted positive opinions here. That’s great, sounds like it was worth the effort! :-)

About the size Alexandre, I know they pretty small, but believe me, larger than that would not look good in our design, specially when most icons are 20×20.

Anyway, let us know what you think about this new addition and of course, let us know if any logo is wrong.

Cheers!

Mail check boxes: for my taste the boxes are now a bit too small (activation area) – it’s harder to activate them

I must agree with you Philipp, even though the L&F is better it is now worse to use them, specially on high resolution screens.

the checkbox is now an image. will see if i can find a better free icon out there. if someone has a suggestion (the best size would be larger or equal than 16×16), please contact me.

cheers

Very close to release new stuff for you lads to have fun. Just a message to wake up the guys here in the forum :).

cheers

=D

It is important to notice that the new strategies are always applied on a position of the field (for events, if you leave the “from” fields empty the game will assume that you want to apply the strategy to the “victim” of the event). During the match, the game engine will try to fetch the player that is on the position you pointed in your strategy. If no player is found, the strategy is skipped. In future, I plan to add a “validation” button on the tab, just to tip the managers about what strategies are probably useless (will not find any player during the match and will be skipped).
Well , lets hear your feedback :)

cheers

i think that now that you will launch the away home advantage feature, you should create a more intelligent planned fixtures.

one game away, one game home, one game away one game home… perhaps sometimes 2 games home or 2 games away but merely as an exception!

cheers

could there be players with LR and LCR, all around players? i think it would be nice to find players that could play many positions!

cheers

I was wondering whether or not we should add LR, LC, RC and LCR players, sounds ok to add them so far, let’s see :-)

About balancing home and away matches, we have that on our list, need to find a good way to do that.

Cheers!

About the improvement related to player’s positions/sides… I’d like to express my opinion, and expose my situation too.

Looking at my squad, I see the following distribution:

13 L players
5 C
3 R

Making things worse, especially concerning defense and midfield, my first squad looks like this:

4 defenders, all of them L
4 midfielders (3 L + 1 C)
2 forwards (1 L + 1 R, nothing to worry about here)

This means that I have half season to rebuild almost entirely my squad… I suppose sides were randomly assigned for all the players on the database, but that’s a solution which leads to unfair situations – some managers have well balanced squads, while others will have to sell 1/2 of their squad and replace it.

My opinion is that all teams should have their player’s sides assigned in some way which would assure that every squad has the same balance between right, left and centre players. The way things are right now – and I repeat that I’m assuming that it is 100% random – means that pure luck decides who will have to spend several millions and who won’t have to change a thing, because until today everybody signed players without guessing that one season (or less) later they could be useless.

Thanks for reading such a long post (for one minute I thought I was Celso :D).

You’re right about sides being randomly assigned Carlos. All players always had the side attribute, it was hidden before. The only change I’ve made for newly generated players is increasing the odds of a player being C side over L or R, as C players play ok in 3 different positions (LC, C and RC) while L and R play ok in 2 different positions (L and LC or R and RC).

Anyway, I see a few possibilities here, let’s see what the majority prefers:

1) Let things the way they are
2) Postpone the influence of the sides in the match for one more season
3) Try to balance the sides per zone for all teams (not considering players quality)
4) Simply regenerate all sides with the new generation odds I’ve mentioned

What do you say guys?

Thanks for your reply, Gabriel, and for the openness that you and Daniel always show to discuss the logic behind the game :)

Following my previous post, it’s no surprise that I’m going to pick possibility 3), because IMHO it’s the most fair – or the least penalizing for the ones who had bad luck on their player’s sides.

Danilo! :)

And you are welcome :). I will discuss that with Gabriel but, in the meanwhile, we are opened to hear everybody´s opinion/suggestions.

cheers

For my team in mediumticker I can live with the situation, but in fastticker it’s not so good.

Fastticker

My team is balanced with 8 R, 8C and 9L.

But when I look to my A-squad it’s not that good.

3 Defenders → ok with some replacements
4 Midfielders → 3x L and 1x R (no single C player)
3 Strikers → 3x L

I’m especially worried about my forwards. 7 forwards in total (2 are loaned) and 2x R, 1x C and 4x L

So I will choose for option 3

Maybe we can’t place our players at the place they had before but then we have some alternatives when a player is injuried or suspended.

It never can be good for everyone but if the sides of the players are well balanced per zone no one can complain.

Regards

If it is possible one solution for this kind of problems would be adding the LR, LC, RC and LCR sides. I think it would be more realistic and we would have some more options to change our current squad.

Cheers

I Completely agree with Filipe, it seems a very good solution

Well, we’ll probably have multiple sided players in the future, but only for new generated ones. You know, this kind of player will have a greater value, so doing it now would instantly make some players more valuable.

Let’s see which option has more votes and then we can decide exactly what to do.

Cheers!

I think option 3 is the best (devide equally for each position without checking quality). Also, the option to have a player with multiple positions should be added only for youth. And yes, it should have a bonus in the value of the player. Also, when you guys will give penalties for wrong position, like an atacker playing as a defender?

[]

We probably won’t have this kind of penalty Samir, if an attacker has greater tackle than shooting you can use him as a defender :-)

Anyway, let’s focus on the side thing here. Just to let everybody know the penalties applied to players in the wrong side are the following:

side L – play ok in L and LC, -1 penalty on C, -2 on RC and -3 on R
side R – play ok in R and RC, -1 penalty on C, -2 on LC and -3 on L
side C – play ok in LC, C and RC, -3 penalty on L and R

These penalties are applied to ALL player attributes during the match. I know it’s not realistic, but it’s pratical and the best thing to do for our logic.

Now that we are clear on what will happen if you put a player in the wrong side let’s go back to votes :-D

Cheers!

I think I prefer the option 3 as well
My both teams in medium and fast tick are having real few R players

I also choose option 3.

I have to leave. I’ll explain my point later.

Cheers!

Well, I think managers should accept the current situation and start looking for options in the market. It would boost the commerce in both servers if everybody turned to look the market as an answer to this problem. For example: my two best attackers are R sided, so I put one of them to sell so I can buy a good L sided attacker to replace him.

Also the way it is now gives the game an aditional challenge to the managers who had to rethink their tatics and positioning.

I vote for 1.

Lobba

I see option 3 is winning so far even though I agree with Fabrizio for 3 reasons:

1) The ones he alredy stated, it would boost the commerce and be a challenge
2) If you have a good team, a few players in the wrong side won’t affect your results that much, you’ll have enough time to find better players in the right sides
3) Balancing the things as stated in option 3 will only give you a chance to have players for all sides, but you may end up with your best players on a specific position playing in the same side, which is not that different from the random situation we have now.

That’s my two cents. Seasons are approaching their end so we’d better decide what to do soon :-)

Cheers!

i am thinking about building a survey mini-app to help us with those decisions …

I kind of agree with Fabrizio on his point, but what I find really unfair is that some managers have to start thinking in solutions and others don’t (and only the luck is what has made this huge difference between them, not their managing skills)

That’s why I prefer option three. As Gabriel said, luck will also play an important role in option 3, but not as big as in the current situation.

I hope you’ll agree with me guys.

Cheers!

Hi mates!

The season is about to finish and we still don’t know what option is going to be chosen.

I hope that it will be option 3 (and I think that most people have the same opinion)

Cheers!

Looks like you’re right Torres, so we’d better start working on the logic which will make option 3 possible.

Cheers!

Thanks guys.

I really think this readjustment was good for the game.

Cheers!