Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,164 posts(s) found
It works the same way as non-human managed teams, except that the amount required to successfully force the transfer is doubled. The manager has no say in it, which may indeed make some people angry. We only had two instances (I think) of forced transfers involving a human managed team as the target.
What is the general opinion, should we block this option altogether so that you can’t target a player from a human managed team? Should we allow it but change the rules for it? Or leave it as is?
Please like our new Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/goalfcteam
Your coach reports for potential and next step will now be more specific when your player has already reached his potential. There is no pointing in hiding this information or making it subjective.
After the last league match, the following will happen to a team which has been relegated from the bottom league of a country:
- Any friendlies scheduled for the remainder of the season will get cancelled
- The manager will be fired
- The team will not accept any job applications
- All players will be transfer listed with a waiting period of 6 turns for the transfer to be concluded
The last item is the real change here. Currently the players from inactive teams are released for free throughout the season, which became an easy source of money for the already richer teams. By selling the players instead of making them available for free we reduce this advantage. Any players not sold before the season tick will still be released for free at some point in the following season.
Interesting, so it’s something specific to your Firefox…have you noticed whether or not you have https in the address? Like this: https://goalfc.net
That’s really bad! What still puzzles me is that nobody else has reported this, and we have other users in the region. I’m in Australia and constantly in touch with people from Brazil who play the game and I’m sure we’ve accessed the game at the corresponding time in our time zones without any issues.
We’ll see if there is anything more we can find out about this, please keep us posted if anything changes for you, good or bad.
Wow, surprised to hear that too! You’re the first one reporting such instability, the game has been up as usual since the change, the only instability reported was on the first day of the migration.
I second Joseppi’s question, which browser are you using? Which OS? What time of day you’re having issues? Do you get any errors or just can’t access the page?
Since mid-May no new players will have that profile, it is indeed a bit frustrating. On a positive note usually the last few improvements will give less points than the initial ones, so you should have your player in a reasonably good shape before his 30s.
Fixed!
Sure thing, thanks for letting us know. Hopefully it is similar to the issue we had on the squad positioning screen.
The fix for this is going live in 5 minutes.
Thanks Charles, we’ll look into it.
This should now be fixed, please let us know otherwise.
Apologies for the bad timing Bronson, I think we were too excited to do this change and didn’t want to wait any longer. It may look like a small thing but hopefully it’s just the first of many steps to take RubyS…I mean Goal FC to greatness.
Interesting, it shouldn’t be the case as the code and database structure is the same regardless of using mobile or not, but we will have to investigate.
Really? Nothing has changed in that area since then…weird. The only updates were to underlying software and infrastructure, nothing recent in the game code.
I assume you are talking about forced transfers, right? The behaviour you described has been there since the inception of this feature. Every time a forced transfer attempt fails the player contract gets renewed.
This is done to avoid multiple attempts to the same player with an increasingly higher offer until the right price is found. I know each manager has to wait 6 turns for a new attempt, but you could easily team up with others to force transfer players together, and that’s what we are trying to prevent.
Definitely in our plans to add more leagues, but first we will set up the game for growth. We have more ambitious plans this year, let’s see how much we can accomplish!
Fabio got the numbers right, I just wanted to add that if you play an attacker at M+1 and give him instructions to move forward when with/without the ball he’ll be effectively playing as A-1, and while he is there there will be no penalties. For example if you only tell him move forward when with the ball he will be penalised only when the opponent has the ball.
When you are trying to hire players from the market you will not get the “not interested” messages anymore, they will always listen to your offer first. Similarly we have removed the exclusive negotiation (priority indicator) when one or some teams had exclusive offer evaluation by some players and could sometimes win disputes with very low salaries.
Both these things were based on the player negotiation priority profile, which is still in place and will have a weight in the player decision, but now we have removed the two extremes where the player either completely ignores a team/manager or gives him exclusivity.
Yep, I have done the same in the past and I agree it is not good for the game. I mean, financially it is kind of ok but the behaviour itself is not exactly how we intend the player market to work. Wage disputes and a better control of the amount of money in the hands of managed teams are two topics that I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.
With regards to wage disputes in player negotiations, currently the base factor for the player decision is how much you are offering compared to how much he would like to receive. From there we apply all the other factors, such as the player negotiation priority bonus, star player bonus, etc. So for example, if the player wants 30k and your offer is 45k, you start with a 1.5 “strength” to your offer. One of the crazy ideas I had was to change the base factor to be the amount you offered compared to the maximum your board allows you to offer. For example, if you offered 50k and your board allowed 100k, your “strength” is 0.5, whereas if another club offers 30k and the board only allowed 45k it already starts at 0.75, ahead of you! Of course, this is assuming 30k is acceptable for the player. I know, very controversial but it takes into the account the “sacrifice” a smaller team could be making to have the player, and also a bigger team would usually have more bonuses on top of the base strength, so even in the example of 0.5 × 0.75 after all the bonuses the first offer could still prevail.
Regarding controlling the amount of money in the game (with managed teams) we have some very interesting ideas where CPU teams could start selling decent players for large sums if there are too many clubs with a lot of money (meaning they have nowhere to spend) or they could start looking at buying players from less rich managed teams first (if they can find suitable options, of course). This is just the tip of the iceberg on these ideas because I don’t want to say too much on how this would work.
All this is going to take some time, I’m taking some time off very soon and won’t be doing any changes to the game for a few weeks :-)
Really? I thought you’d like this one :-D
I’ll add an option, no worries!
Updated player evolution profiles so that:
- no new players will be generated with “reaches potential on his 30s”
- introduced new “reaches potential very young”
- adjusted age for “reaches potential while still young”
- adjusted number of available improvements per season to be smoother and always have a minimum of 2
- removed the scenario where a player had no improvements available in a given season even before reaching potential
- reduced some differences in number of improvements for different profiles
- players can start losing skills at 30, 31, 32 or 33 depending on profile (the older he is capable of reaching the potential the older he will start losing skills)
The main goal here is to improve the number of world class younger players, currently players over 30 dominate the top player lists all over the world. This should also make it faster to renew your squad when the time comes. These changes are effective for newly generated players only, existing players will retain their current profiles.
Not at all. Each different club class (when CPU controlled) will prioritise loans, first team players and future players in different orders. B clubs if I’m not mistaken would prioritise future players, then loans, then first team players. E and F should be prioritising loans.
Some time ago I was thinking of using the Negotiations level to provide a forced transfer price suggestion when attempting to do a forced transfer, similar to the way we have the suggested wage. In this case, however, as soon as you see the suggestion for a given player you would need to wait another 6 turns to see the suggestion again. How does that sound?
In some cases when player classes changed we noticed the estimated value was taking to long to catch up with the new class value range. That sometimes caused confusion and made it harder to make accurate forced transfer offers. We have now changed the logic so that the estimated value immediately catches up to a more reasonable value aligned to the new player class.
@Will you are not a moron! This tells me we need to make the way multi-position and multi-side works more evident.
@Joseppi and Dirk: maybe we can start with side only and allow a change from single side to single side or from multi-side to multi-side. In other words, if your player is L he can be trained to be C or R, but not LC or LR. If the payer is LR, you could train him to LC or RC. Does that make sense?
In the future the same approach could be done to player positions, and also maybe taking into account the the main skill for the new position must be no more than 5 points less than the current’s position main skill. For example, a D with 90 tackle, 85 passing and 82 shooting could be trained to become M, but not A.
Will, I think you are incorrectly reading the way sides and positions work. Let’s consider each “row” in the field has 5 sides, let’s call them L, LC, C, RC and R. A player with L side can play both on L and LC positions with no penalties. A player with LC side can play in all positions except R, without penalties. So a player having multiple sides is actually a good thing, as it gives him more options. The same is true for multi-position players (DM, MD, DA, AD, MA, AM), they can play in both positions with no penalties. There is a topic in our game manual about setting up the formation that mentions this.
That said, I still agree it is a good idea to be able to “train” a player into a new position or side. Maybe that makes sense only if the player is not already multi-side or multi-position? For example you could train a D into a DM or DA, but if he was already DM you could not change it. What do you guys think?
I’ve made sure this task was moved higher up in our priority list so we evaluate it sooner rather than later.
Team classes can now be seen in the league table and team matches screen. We can easily add that info to more screens in the future, if it proves to be useful.
Scout searches can now be configured to look only for multi-position (MA, DM, DA, etc) and/or multi-side (LC, RC, LR) players. If you do not check this option the search will work as before, looking for all types. For example, if you search for D with multi-position checked the search will only find DM, DA, MD or AD; without mutli-position checked it will also find D players.
Cheers
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!