Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,201 posts(s) found
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!
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.