Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,164 posts(s) found
In some cases it can. Basically the game calculates a factor based on how much you offered and how much the player wants. For example, if he wants 50k and you offer 100k this factor is 2. Then this factor is modified by the player priority (which can add or subtract 1 from it) and also by the hiring bonus star, which has no limit at the moment (we simply add up all bonuses).
Sometimes I think we need to do something to benefit smaller teams to try and give a chance to everyone and also pose a challenge to the top managers.
There is also the “hiring bonus” star players that can add up to it pretty nicely. Some people disregard these types of star players but I’ve seen what they can do multiple times in the past when people asked about why they’ve lost the bid for a particular player. I haven’t check in your case Dirk but I’d bet it is related to that as well.
I agree that computer players are paying too much in some cases, maybe we should change them to pay no more than the calculated “base price” which should be somewhat close to the estimated value. We can also change such values so that age players a bigger role, decreasing the values more than it currently does.
An important point is that the estimated value calculation is tied to the amount of money clubs have, so if you feel the high player classes are having too high values that means there is more and more money in the game, therefore introducing more money is not how we should solve this. I’ve been checking every season in FastTicker the sum of all the money in the clubs and that amount has been increasing at around 5% every season. The key is that the difference in cash balance between big earners and smaller clubs is increasing.
Apart from the first couple changes mentioned I’ll think a bit more about other ways we can bring this back to realistic levels, any further observations are more than welcome as usual.
The last poll is now closed. We had 87% of participation and, believe it or not, the exact same number of votes for each of the two options. That means we are not going to change the negotiation system for the time being.
Thanks for voting!
The game newspaper now has a section with the latest press releases written by the dimension managers.
This is now fixed.
You must have realised you cannot see any matches if you navigate to older seasons in your team matches screen or even national/international cups screens. We have existing history for all matches but unfortunately they were missing some key information about the competition they belong to and in which turn they took place. These things will be included in the match history from now on so we can use that history to display older matches in the aforementioned screens.
For now, if you navigate to older seasons in your team matches screen you should be able to see the list of matches that took place in those seasons, but you won’t have information about the turn and competition. In 2-3 seasons time when you navigate back to the current season that information should be there.
Unfortunately we don’t have that for players, when they’re gone…they’re gone! We need to start saving some key info when a particularly good player retires in order to build their hall of fame.
User friendly interfaces are not our strength, but we’ll see what can be done :-)
At least I’ll put it in our list as an enhancement.
Thanks!
The merchandise bonus star type will be retired, meaning no new players will get it. We found out that it is the star type with less impact, partially due to the fact that some of its benefits are reduced due to the higher wage demanded by star players. As a replacement we have a much more exciting star type: improved youth players.
The new star type will have two main effects: improve the base skills used when generating new youth players (up to what is used in a top ranked country) and immediately increase player skills one or more times as soon as he joins the club. The first effect means that lower ranked countries with such star players would be able to generate better quality youths as if they were better ranked, whereas the second effect means it will be possible to generate players that have already skipped a few steps on their evolution, potentially even reducing the age they will reach their potential. All these details can be found in the game manual page for star players.
I suppose this could be one of the features of a future “youth academy” investment area. The higher your level on this more players would be available for selection as your next youth once you promote/release one of your current ones.
This is a really nice idea! We have plenty of statistics yet to be recorded for teams, leagues and players, this is definitely one of them. I still like the idea of having some stats for the “top” players retained somewhere upon retirement, we just need to be careful on the criteria to make sure we don’t store too many!
You are correct, the next match’s competition is taken into account when displaying the message for any of your formations, even the ones not selected for the next match. We can definitely enhance that, I’ll add to our list, I don’t think it’s there.
He could’ve been suspended or injured, in which case it wouldn’t count as a missed match.
We have an item in our backlog to improve scout searching, I’ve just added this option to it.
Nice catch! I’ve never noticed that “Team has the ball” and “Opponent has the ball” tactics were lost, I’ll raise a bug for us to fix this.
Thanks!
The logic associated to penalty kick taking and saving has been simplified in order to better align with reality. We’ve noticed there were too many misses and saves during penalty kick, with the new logic in place should increase the number of goals scored in these situations. In addition to that the goalkeeper trait for “good at penalty kicks” and “bad at penalty kicks” will have a slightly higher impact.
Nice suggestion Bronson, I’ve added this to our list.
Thanks!
I agree we need some improvements for the scouting functionality without going back to the easy way we had before (where a specific player report was provided immediately). I like both suggestions above and believe they will add value to the scouting investment. Once we do this we need to come up with a smart way to balance that with the existing scouting logic, so that it would slow down in case you’re scouting specific players or only allow one or the other to be active, not sure.
Do you mean allowing only teams of a given class range to loan your players?
Happy to hear other opinions about this. For now the frequency of each of the different traits is exactly the same. Probably that trait is one of the most annoying ones, but I have had (and still have) quite a few players in the squad with that trait and it is still manageable (if you have reasonable subs). Other traits could have a bigger impact without people realising. For example, if you’re an A team in a league full of lower class teams a trait saying “Player worse against teams with a class lower than his team class” will give him between 1 and 3 points penalty in every skills against most of your league opponents.
You may not even have noticed, but since the introduction of the player shirts in the match report screen we were not displaying the * beside the man of the match player’s name. This is now fixed.
How are things in the new FastTicker season? It seems to me the free transfer frenzy has diminished (as expected). Is it still worth to worry about restrictions?
The player class is re-evaluated every time the player skills change (increase or decrease). I think it is also re-evaluated every time the value is updated…if not every season tick, for sure.
We didn’t go ahead with the class-based restrictions. We displayed the proposed limits for some time in “The Board” screen but ended up never using it.
Maybe restrict to one free transfer offer at a time? Or maybe forbid free transfer offers for a number of turns after you successfully hire someone from it?
It’s important to notice the number of players in this situation next season will be much smaller given only the teams becoming inactive this season will have any players to be released to the free transfer. Total money in the clubs has increased about 5% in FastTicker since last season. Still under control but at the same time it’s a high enough number to justify adding some type of fee to be paid on free players, at least the ones coming from inactive teams.
Two minor improvements: transfer prices and wages now have proper formatting when displayed in the team and player history ($n,nnn,nnn); negotiation failed messages now include the wage accepted by the player.
Cheers
I like the options, we definitely need to introduce team/league class in players’ priorities!
We need to evaluate it carefully and see the effects in the game. It would mean priorities would have to make sense to the players’ age, and nowadays of course age is not taken into account. When would it make sense to prefer a smaller or larger squad? Ok, maybe never in real life, but in the game context it adds something different to the mix.
The exact number of players that triggers this behaviour is determined in a funny way. When the player is generated with this priority (prefers less teammates from the same country as him) the game looks at all managed clubs in the dimension and checks how many players of that country are part of each of them. The player should then be marked to reject or demand a higher salary from at most 10% (I may be wrong on the exact percentage) of the human managed teams, if he was part of them by that time.
Practical example. In your example you have only 2 greeks, so we can assume that by the time the player was generated 90% of managed clubs had 1 or 0 greeks in the squad, and 10% had 2 or more. That means having 2 or more is within the player’s rejection / high salary threshold.
Hopefully I’m not being too technical and it makes sense! This particular priority will always have weird number for smaller countries, especially when we don’t have managers in those countries.