Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,164 posts(s) found
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!
I totally agree about player stats. And manager stats, well, we do need more info for the manager history, will see. Thanks for your suggestions!
Cheers!
Yeah, I’m aware of these mistakes in the pt-br translation (and also lots of things not translated). Let us know if you see anything else.
About the formation, it records the one you end the game with, that shouldn’t be hard to change. I’ll add a bug for us.
Cheers!
Haven’t though about perfectionists. Maybe the ranking should be enough :-D
Another important thing to notice is that friendlies are not displayed in the players history (some people asked for that, but we’re not sure if whether or not we should include friendlies in history). Other than that it is basically what Danilo wrote.
Answering your 2 last questions directly:
-a player can reach 85+ with main skill in high 60s or low 70s, but most of them won’t (I had both good surprises and great disappointments with some youths I had)
-the number of matches needed for a new improvement increases as a player evolves, so it is perfectly reasonable that a player which has not developed after 5 matches still has a lot to improve
After improving a certain number of times the player is considered to be fully developed, and this last improvement can increase his skills more than usual, if the player still had a lot of potential. To sum up, looking at the current skills and history is a good hint to guess whether or not you should get a player, but there is no magic recipe you have to take some risks :-)
p.s.: scouts in the future will help you evaluating players, of course they won’t be 100% precise
p.s.2: we do need a help for some features, don’t we? :-D
Yeah, we have a lot to do regarding manager history! The only info you have now is team change, ending position in the league, cup titles and runner-ups. Statistics are always interesting! :-)
Cheers!
Well, we’d have to add a previous and next for each team in the report or just add links if you’re looking at a report from your team.
Well, in the first 4 examples looks like the team was more effective when it has the ball, but as he missed more passes and suffered more effective tackles it had less possession :-)
The player being used twice is already fixed I guess.
Thanks for supplying us with these not so typical reports, they will help when we make improvements to the match logic.
Cheers!
Currently it is the brazilian logic: number of points > number of victories > goal difference > goal scored
We have a bug to add country specific sorting.
Cheers!
I’ll try to avoid that in the first round of international competitions only.
We already have a bug for that JD.
Cheers!
Speedy tick: thanks Danilo, he did a great job lately :-)
RLC: I’d rather give one more season or balancing the existing squads than making a temp screen
Major bug fixed: players who didn’t run a lot during the match were able to run above the maximum allowed as time passed; after fixing that we had less shots (we had way too much in some cases) and less goals from defenders (some people asked me in the past “what the hell was my -1 defender doing in the attack to score a goal?”)
Cheers!
Makes sense when reducing wages, I’ll create a bug for that.
Cheers!
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!