Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,201 posts(s) found
Yeah, it’s not very useful unless you generate two youth star keepers :-)
The odds for a new youth to be a keeper are low enough, something around 10%, not sure if it’s worth adding such a validation, we’d be also reducing the number of keepers in the game.
Cheers!
Hugo, we tried not to lose much time in the CPU teams “intelligence” and focus on human users features, that’s why we designed it this way. And in the average it’s not that bad, cause usually a team will have a balanced squad, not crap attackers and great defenders and midfielders. But we can change the logic to use at least 1 player per zone (D, M and A), maybe that would be a little bit more realistic :-)
Cheers!
I’m glad you mentioned it, I’ve added this limitation today, but the number is 14, considering only non-loaned and non-youth players that are part of your squad. The team must also have at least one goalkeeper. There are a few tweaks to enforce this in all situations, but it should work for all cases in practice.
Cheers!
I’ve just realized that the 3 tick rule is not enough to prevent some kinds of cheating, so unfortunately we’ll have to keep the same network/ip rule :-(
Cheers!
We had an error and it didn’t complete, now it is running again.
Cheers!
We’ll let you know if we find anything strange. Don’t get me wrong for explaining about the cards, I did that cause I know we are missing some help screens and making the game rules and behaviour clear is always good. :-)
Cheers!
We’ll definitely check Stramazi. When you look at the cards icons in the players skills screen or in the formations screen keep in mind that they refer to your next match, so if your next match is a friendly for instance you won’t see any card icon. To check the cards for specific competitions go to your players screen and click in the Cards option.
Cheers!
After investigating your last match against Nautico I saw that Adao Branco and Germano Medeiros were suspended for that match, so Paolo Rosi and Fausto Ruiz Del Mora replaced them. Everything looks fine. Please let us know if you notice anything different.
Cheers!
Ok, sounds like a bug then :-(
Cheers!
I’ll talk to Danilo about that JD, we may be able to remove that and trust the 3 tick rule.
Cheers!
The player value can decrease if he was bought for a price higher than his estimated value, that would be the most common case. Even if that’s not the case, the value could decrease a little when improving, as the new value is recalculated and is not 100% deterministic.
Cheers!
Is it possible you had a suspended player that was automatically replaced by Paolo Rosi?
Cheers!
If you think of a method we’d definitely appreciate, the allowed amount is supposed to be used very carefully and it allows the team to survive for a little more than the number of turns you said ;-)
Cheers!
I’ve just checked in the database, if Cesar Avalo had stamina 100 when he played his first match this season (turn 8) he would be with 91 on turn 21, and he is. Everything is fine, don’t worry :-)
Cheers!
Two announcements:
1) Stadium construction can now be cancelled. The amount of money you’ll receive back is proportional to how long the construction would take to be finished.
2) We’ve decided that wage caps should be per team, not per player. It makes more sense when you think of it, as each team has its particular financial situation. Everybody should be aware that this value can be way too high, so be very careful when giving high wages.
Cheers!
Did you have a suspended midfielder for this match? If so the CPU will not complete your squad necessarily with a player in the same position. We have a bug for that already. Sorry about that :-(
Cheers.
Alright, I put the laziness aside and created one for myself :-D
There is a simple explanation for that, Varzim’s best attacker has shooting 72 and he has at least 5 defenders with tackle greater than 72 and 5 midfielders with passing greater than 72. But I see your point, maybe at least one attacker should have been selected :-)
Cheers!
Unfortunately not, but I think it’s among the highest priority tasks now.
Cheers!
No, currently age doesn’t affect that. The only thing that affects the speed a player improves is how experienced he is in terms of number of matches played. Age will have some effect in the future, but that will be properly announced when the time comes.
Cheers!
I see your point Gamboa, the thing is, we don’t clearly have in mind at which point we will need a reset. If more countries were added, that would be a good moment for a reset, but that’s not gonna happen so soon, as it would only increase the number of CPU teams. We could do a reset right away to “solve” the rich teams/crazy wages dilemma, but we still wouldn’t have that new features associated with the stadium size. To sum up, a reset will be done as soon as we or the users feel the time is right to do that, even though there will always be some that will be unhappy about that :-)
Sorry I wasn’t able to precisely answer your question.
Cheers!
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!
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) :-)
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!