Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,177 posts(s) found
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!
We have wage cap and a minimum period of 72 turns before being able to sell a player in order to reduce cow trades. As always, we are open to more suggestions to help on that :-)
Cheers!
It makes sense Samir, but in a first moment we will treat all non-friendly matches the same way.
Cheers!
It’s in our plans to have prizes Zoirde. I saw you almost won Libertadores on FastTicker last season. Congratulations for that and for the Argentina League championship!
Cheers!
Team managers are displayed on match report screen. It’s important to notice the managers displayed are not necessarily the current managers, but those who managed the team at the time the match happened. All past matches will display “No Manager” as we had no logic to store the managers in the matches so far.
I’ll work on that, so please those who know the criteria on each country (England, Spain, Germany, Portugal, France, Italy and Argentina) let us know.
Brazil (used worldwide in RS now): number of victories, goals scored – goals conceded, goals scored, direct confront (to be added)
Cheers!
I agree, will work on that as soon as possible.
Cheers!
The stadium expansion logic is finished and will be added to the game on next season start. I’ve done some research on the average spent by all managed teams with their players wages on each dimension in order to come up with a reasonable size for the stadiums after the reduction. The numbers I ended up with were 33200 seats for FastTicker stadiums and 22800 seats for MediumTicker stadiums.
Some people may complain that they will have financial problems, some may say that rich teams will benefit from that as they will be able to continuously increase their stadiums and have an advantage over the other teams. These are valid points and I feel I’ll have financial problems in FastTicker as well. What can we do? Let’s try to sell or fire some players, be careful when offering high wages. Hopefully most of us will be able to live with that or recover from any financial problems or squad quality reduction.
Keep in mind that the most adequate solution for stadium reduction would be resetting the dimensions, and I’m pretty sure that’s not what most of us want (if I’m wrong please let me know :-))
Cheers!
I’m sorry to hear that spartacus, hope that at least the rebalance helped you have a better squad :-)
Cheers!
Each country is free to define its own criteria. It’s good to see you care so much about your team, that’s the level of attachment we want our users to have. What you don’t seem to care about is game development and the fact that the developers (me and Danilo) don’t have as much time as we’d like to improve this game, make it bigger, better and fun for everybody but despite of that the game is improving relatively fast.
I really hope you can change your mind and stay with us, no matter the result of your league.
Cheers!
Player sides have been rebalanced per zone for all teams and will start affecting the match performance on next season start.
Prizes are something everybody asked since the beginning. I’ll add that to our list.
Cheers!
We’ll have money from TV in the future, as well as sponsorship. Sponsorship is supposed to increase with team’s success, merchandise increases if you have better players in your squad.
Cheers!
Not yet Sly. As you can see, our game still has a lot to improve, but it’s becoming better and more complex relatively fast, if I may say so ;-)
Hope you’re enjoying and stay with us to help RubySoccer grow!
Cheers!
Looks like you’re right Torres, so we’d better start working on the logic which will make option 3 possible.
Cheers!
Nice suggestions Hugo, we can probably add all of them and some are already planned (make CPU teams play friendlies, limit the amount they will pay for a player). We’ll announce new behaviours as they are implemented. Thanks!
Cheers.
I agree Hugo, we’ll have to fix that for CPU teams.
Cheers.
Could be, the only problem would be England second division which ends on turn 141 I guess. Shouldn’t be a big deal, I’ll let everything prepared.
Cheers.
The guy who is selling this player is a co-worker. :-D
I agree with most of what you’ve said. Soon we’ll go back to these transfers and wages regulations, I’ve worked on them for a while and them went back to other features (players side, home team advantage, stadium reduction and increasing the number of seats), as soon as I’m done with these (maybe board expectations for next season also) I’ll add some new rules to transfers, hopefully for the best.
Cheers!
Not many people voted about what to do regarding the players side feature but honestly I think there is not much to worry about. Even though the most voted option was to balance the sides per zone I think that would still make some people unhappy, as a team may end up with the worst attackers as the center ones for instance, and if the difference between the best attackers and the worst is not small, it is better to use a good one in the wrong side.
Anyway, sides will remain the way they are, some will complain, but they’ll see their teams won’t play much worse because of that and they’ll be able to balance the sides in a relatively short period, what is also good for the market.
Just to review the penalties for playing in the wrong side (remember these affects all attributes):
L LC C RC R
L 0 0 -1 -2 -3
C -3 0 0 0 -3
R -3 -2 -1 0 0
Rows represent the player side and the columns represent the side they are playing.
These will start on next season on both dimension. I’m sure this is an interesting feature for the game despite this initial discussion it caused :-)
p.s.: multi-sided player will probably be added in the future (LC, RC, LR and LCR)
Wouldn’t that also be unfair to some people? Besides, some teams hve huge stadiums in real life while some don’t even have a stadium!
Cheers.
I’m planning stadium reduction on next season’s start. Not a big reduction as I intended to do, but to something around 40000 seats. Ideally smaller teams should have a smaller stadium, but at this point we had lots of promotions/relegations, specially on FastTicker, and some teams which were smaller in the beginning had improved a lot, so it could be unfair to some of them. Another option would be resizing all stadiums based on teams’ quality (bigger for the best), but this also would lead to a lot of discussion and unhappy managers. To sum up, without resetting the dimensions the best way to do that seems to be everybody with same size stadiums, 40000.
We’ll still discuss the logic to increase the number of seats and will let you know as soon as we have something in mind. Let’s wait for the side discussion to end before we start another one :-)
Cheers!
As some of you may have noticed FastTicker got stuck 5 hours ago. It will tick in 2 minutes. I’m thinking of postponing or anticipating the following ticks in order to rearrange the competitions in their usual time.
Cheers!
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!
Yeah, I’m pretty sure scouts and coaches feedback will help a lot on that. Maybe in the future we could make the initial improvement phase be faster than it is now. We’ll see.
Cheers!