Recent Posts
18,535 posts(s) found
If you only observe one match the random.factor.is important, if you observe 100 the randomness is lost. And your conclusions are much stronger.
Just an observation, its the first time i read this descriptions Dimitri posted. Yet, not one is new to me… Useful for new managers sure, but you figure that anyway, they are logical and based in the most simple soccer knoladge.
Your Barcelona argument Works against you Dimitri, by that logic there would Be no chance for.smaller teams to beat stonger ones. That Said we would calculate wich team had the best players.and give them the title, no need to play the matches. A better understanding of the game and using of that knowladge is what makes possible to weaker teams to compete.with richer ones.
Ps: sorry for the bad writting and pontuation. Not used to.this smartphones keyboard
You can almost throw away the random factor if they have proven themselfs over and over again to be a good manager.
And you don’t think that the results from your experiments could have been explained by the random factor?
I agree with Rui on this one. Gabriel already explained to much about the game. I think the rest should just be kept a secret and you should figure it out for yourself. I learned everything I know just by experimenting and writing stuff down. This took time, effort and dedication. Now I woulf find it unfair if all this “work” I did was for nothing if all of a suddeon Gabriel just simply explains all the game’s ‘secrets’.
http://www.rubysoccer.com/mediawiki/index.php/Formations
“The match field on RubySoccer is 81×45 “squares”. "
Does this mean A0 is about 14 squares from the goal? This is important for shooting distance.
“Tackling Intensity: the intensity of your players tackles influence how often their tackles will be successful but also how often they will commit fouls”
This just says there is an influence, but not what the influence is. I guess:
Easy → Lower chance on a succesful tackle, lower chance on a foul, higher chance on a failed tackle.
Normal → Default
Hard → Higher chance on a succesful tackle, higher chance on a foul, lower chance on a failed tackle.
“Passing Frequency: players decision to pass the ball or run with it is influenced by this tactic. There is no way to tell the exact probability as there are other factors in place, but in rough number we have 30% chance of passing if you choose “rare”, 50% if you choose “normal” and 70% if you choose “often”. Defenders tend to pass more frequently while attackers and wingers less frequently."
Does the last sentence say that defenders pass more frequently than midfielders? If so, why is it mentioned here and not in the description of passing skills?
“Passing Style: “short” means your players will look for teammates within a 20 “squares” range when passing the ball, if you choose “medium” the range is 35, and “long” range is 50."
In real life, the longer the pass, the higher the chance it fails. I suppose it’s the same in RS? Is pass accuracy just influenced by passing or also by tackling skill of the opponent? And in long range, someone playing DR, does he have the same chance passing to DL/ML and AR or would he prefer AR?
“Passing Priority: picking a “mixed” strategy will give you a 50% chance of passing to wingers and 50% to passing to central players, supposing both are within passing range. Choosing “along sides” will raise the chance of passing to a winger to 70%, while “center” reduces this probability to 30%."
L and R are wingers, C is a central player. Do RC and LC also counts as central? Or would ‘Along sides’ means RC/LC will get more passes than C?
“Shooting Distance: “short” range is 10 “squares”, “medium” is 15 “squares” and “long” is 20 “squares”. Whenever a players has the ball and is within this strategy’s range he will shoot. The only exception is for headers, for which the range is always 10."
He will always shoot, even when there are a lot of defenders blocking the shot? I suppose the further away, the more chance of failing?
Rui, why would it suck? Imagine that in real life Sunderland uses the same tactics as Barcelona, would they suddenly start to win much more? No, cause they have different players. And I don’t think that in RS copying the formation/tactics of whichever team won the world cup will be likely more succesful than copying the formation/tactics of the bottom team. You should play in whatever works for your players. But to try to solve the puzzle, it should be clear what the numbers of your players mean, imo.
Gabriel, yes, a clearer description like that would help. I talked about skills, but also the descriptions of formations is unclear, I will explain that in the next posting.
with all the respect Dimitri, this topic as no logic at all, in my point of view. there isn’t any strategy football game that explains 100% how it works. that would be too boring.
if everyone start playing with the same “principles”, it would suck. there are already managers copying tactics from others, so now you want that everyone play according to the same pattern?
i played SS/MS for years, i now play RS for 6 years and i still didn’t figure out 100% how it works, i’m still learning and i would like to keep it that way. the day i figured out everything, as you suggest, i would just quit. cause it would lost all the fun.
i think Gabriel and Danilo already explained more then they should…
and yes, we have to experiment…
Dont see the need to do that, everyone knows what the skills are and intuitively can figure how the game uses them…
Dimitri of course a 85 avg can be better than a 87, if he has the right skills for the right position… How you can know that? No one besides the developers really know it completely but I can guess… Defenders probably dont need so much shooting, or control… Mids probably dont need that much heading… Strikers dont need that much tackle or passing… I use this in my teams (with some few exceptions) and it works pretty fine usually.
Davison, not that anyone cares much for what you say but, again, completely wrong… Just because you dont understand what, they do mean something, they are the only thing that means something when choosing players
Well, excluding goalkeepers and the keeping atrributte, all other positions use all attribute depending on what the player is doing during the match. I think we can add more to the wiki for each skill, but there is not much more to add really. What we can do is be a little more specific about when each skill is used, something like “tackle is used to determine if the player was successful when trying to take the ball for an opponent” or
“passing is used when the player tries to pass the ball, make a cross, take a corner or throw-in to determine how accurate he was in the attempt”, but anything else would require revealing formulas, probabilities and other details of the match engine.
The likelihood of a player in a position using a particular skill really depends on how often he performs whatever action requires that skill. For example, defenders are less likely to use the shooting skill because they’re usually far from the goal. The example you gave about a player on A -1 using tackling more than on A 0 is intuitively true because A -1 exposes the player more to the mid sector of the field than A 0, so he’ll probably have more opportunities to tackle the opponents.
Does it make sense? Is there any particular point you think I’m missing or you just would like to see things like what I’ve just explained added to the Wiki?
YES attributes should mean something. seems they dont mean shit right now i brought this up years ago
There is a big flaw in the game. At least in my opinion, though I have noticed it’s not a popular discussion subject. But I can explain it.
This game is all about numbers. Managers try to build a team with good players, and numbers are used to decide on how good a player is. But what do the numbers say? Is a 90 keeping 20 shooting keeper better than a 89 keeping 30 shooting keeper, all things being equal? Yes it is, according to the guide: “Shooting: ability to shoot; not used by goalkeepers” Well, that helps. But how important are the different stats for other positions? That is unclear. A 85 avg player can be better than a 87 avg player, but when is that the case? Are main skills (tackling for defenders for example) more important then secondary skills, or not? I guess a lot of people would like to know, still http://www.rubysoccer.com/mediawiki/index.php/Players_Skills give limited info. Why not add more information there?
The admins have said something about it before. It is afaik an official policy not to tell everything they could tell. Why is this? One could argue “by not telling some things, we give managers a chance to find out those things for themselves.” However, there is no – scientifically valid – way to find out. One would have to experiment with all things being equal, or with a lot of data input, and this is not possible, and even then, it’s not so clear how to interpret the data. So I don’t think this is a good reason. Another reason for the policy could be that it’s more fun if you don’t know everything. I think though that a game in general is more fun if you understand it better. It’s better if you know that your actions make sense, than that if you know that you might as well use a coin flip to make decisions.
A more or less valid reason for not explaining more about the skills is that it’s difficult to explain. All players use all skills, it depends on the situation what skill is being used. There’s no golden formula to really value how good a player is. I can understand that. But I’m sure there is more to say then the wiki currently says. For example, I think I’ve seen mentioned that a player on A -1 uses tackling more than on A 0. If this is the case, why is it not in the guide? I also can make an educated guess that heading is being used more on AC than on MR/ML, so the value of heading depends on the position. Would it really hurt to add to the wiki on which positions heading is the most and the less important? To explain passing distance, when you should use short, when long, etc? I thihk not, on the contrary.
So sum up, more information/knowledge is more fun in my opinion. Improving the help/wiki is the best way in making the game better.
Another group of young promises transfer listed, check it:
http://www.rubysoccer.com/game/team_players/176
1) Seems nice, maybe another line in the Investments page to allow managers to choose how much they want to save next season… That probably would make you change how the budget is calculated too…
3) It doesn’t need to make the game more frustrating, level 0 phisio this days gives you mostly no worries, you should have that only at level 6 or 7… One season test is too short, managers need to know how bad things get with the harder sistem and addapt the phisio levels, that requires much more time…
4) A more complex wage negotiation should be discussed, if we have players asking higher wages because they are main squad, or they have inferior players being better payed in the team, or if you have a level 10 budget, and some other variables… This would make wages rise and make people pay more attention to it, and more importance to the wage limit consequently…
Anyhow, nice to know you have things open to changes Gabriel :D
Thanks for the feedback, Dimitri. Here are my comments:
1) That’s a good starting point to improve the current situation. Of course we may have to revise the current transfer budget formula and analyse the impact.
2) I’m currently working on that (not as fast as I’d like due to business trips, but still…)
3) That was the next thing on my list after improving the scouting department. Still haven’t decided the best course of action but it definitely relates to injuries and stamina!
4) When I first came up with the formulas for wages and budgets I was sure they would have to be revisited at some point. I think I should also mention that the levels doesn’t mean the same thing for all teams, the same level for smaller teams would mean a smaller wage limit when compared to big teams. My lack of definition of what makes a team big is on purpose ;-)
Good feedback everyone. I understand the budget as we have now is not really a budget because we create money out of thin air, but it was just a new idea to start with in this new system. We will consider the options already presented among other things in order to improve this situation. Hold on tight! ;-)
I am still no fan of the points system, but apart from that, there are a few things that can easily be improved.
1) The transfer money. As mentioned by a lot of people, if you lose all your money at the end of the season, why would you sell players? My suggestion is that 50% of your money is transfered to the next season as money, the other 50% as points.
2) Scouting needs to be improved, but I understand this will be implemented shortly.
3) Physio should be more important too. The easy solution is to have more (or more severe) injuries, for example double the amount/chance. The question is: does this make the game more fun, or more frustrating (no one likes to have injured players)? Not sure about this, I suggest just to test one season how it works out. Another idea is to have physio influence stamina. For example: level 1 gives 1% chance of an extra point of stamina for each player not playing, level 10 10% (if that seems low: it’s about 6-8 points during a season)
(also I don’t think you should get messages about it, just see it in the player screen as you see improved stats)
4) Wages. For me:
Wage Limit: $870,980
Current Wage Total: $679,523
I have wages at 2, could have done it at 1 too, but that would have given me (I think) 2 extra points?
I checked another team (Feyenoord), about 800k in wages, probably also wage limit at level 2. So I have 15% lower wages, should that not be worth 10 points or so? I have the feeling it’s not balanced yet. Maybe 5 points for every level, starting from 600k?
Rui (and others), the changes are really good, just think about it. You can not build up 1-2Billions and buy 8 superstars per season.
The only flaw with this thing now is people have NO reason to sell if they are going to lose the money at the end of the season. If we can solve that puzzle so people will actually want to sell the players to create other opportunities, then the economy system will be really good.
I’ve called it faulty but it is actually really good, it prevents a lot of cheating, the transfers now make more sense, so again only problem is people not selling because of the money have little meaning if you can not reinvest it before they are gone. I think my suggestions earlier could be possible solutions but we should think this really carefully.
Also and again there is still too much money in the system, removing a zero from everything besides the wages would be more realistic.
/BK
Fillipe, board do make deals in certain clubs in real life as well, so it’s really a decision of game being realistic or not.
In SS you had the BIG Club clause, but that is not the best way to do things.
At this point, big club clause or whatever, something really has to be done, the budget mechanism is faulty by design. Either do it as real budgeting or do something else. Again, for me If I never made another deal for 20 seasons I’d be fine, but for the sake of game being better, this has to be re-considered.
/BK
Rui,
The inflation means money being worth lot less than it used to be, it is already here because people won’t buy or sell the players for any money unless they know they get REALLY high offers and have to make sure they can spend it on same season. So it’s already here in a way.
/BK
Berhan quote: “Rui, it’s not about the amount but more about the principle of how things work.” – that’s what i’ve been saying since the new changes…
Berhan quote: “otherwise you are creating money from thin air (like the American Federal Reserve)” – lol. that’s exactly what happens in RS at the moment
Berhan quote: “you can be absolutely sure that inflation will come!!” – of course it won’t come. at the start of the new season money is gone.
this new system is very unfair: if you sell players, you loose the money at the end of the season; if you buy players, you will have more money to spend when the next season starts.
I’m still not ok with your “Board making deals” thing, but I agree your budget system sounds better than what we have now. It’s more realistic and probably more market friendly than this.
The inflaction argument is wrong though, the sistem we have makes it mostly impossible to have inflaction over a certain level, simply because teams cannot amount that much money in just one season. Even so I’ve seen some 500 and 700M deals already :D
A quick solution could be that whatever money you are able to save through this is stored in a different account/variable, and used for something else, like really doing the mega-big transfers managers couldn’t stop because the clubs decide to overrule managers decision.
it could be used as “shield” factor for club "protecting their player, or “attack” factor of a club trying to get a desired player even if manager doesn’t want to sell the player.
This one is leaning towards my earlier suggestions of being able to buy any player.
Anyway, just some thoughts, and whatever the solution of this, it has to be better than the way it is.
Also this thing effects everyone so it’s FAIR in that perspective, no need to cry about it. I just wanted to make you aware of this.
/BK
Rui, it’s not about the amount but more about the principle of how things work.
Guys, budgets do not work like that, you have to re-think, I am not sure what kind of points I got for those 600M, didn’t pay attention really.
One important point I think about using budgets is to separate the club general funds from the transfer budget.
At the end the budget amount has to be the BASE for calculating new budget depending on levels of:
- Transfer Budget
- Money from players sold added to transfer budget AND
- Money left in YOUR TRANSFER BUDGET, otherwise you are creating money from thin air (like the American Federal Reserve) and then you can be absolutely sure that inflation will come!!
The reason you are not seeing the inflation is because people are not selling their best players because money has lost it’s meaning, fair enough, it can be solved but the way you did it – it does two things:
- creates money out of nothing (inflation will come, wait and see)
- acts as a show stopper to accumulate vast amounts of funds for budget so huge deals can never be made. Stops the big deals at the moment but it will not later on. This has scaled the previous scenarios with huge cash in the clubs to last only one season and whatever happens during that season (deals /buys /sales) it’s only in that window of opportunity. It’s like having transfer windows, only with budgets rather than time windows.
It works for stopping cheating (for a while), and making huge deals, cheating will require some work etc.. But it also prevents the game from working better.
Again, please think again.
1) Transfer budget is to be a percentage of total club funds (not a fantasy number). Stored in an own variable/account.
2) When Club gets XX% of transfers and leaves YY% of transfers in the transfer budget (same season) THAT (and whatever is left in your transfer budget for this season) is to be the base for the next seasons BUDGET suggestion, not a fantasy number or you’ll get inflation soon.
3) When at start of season you decide not to use much transfer funds, that money is to be put back to the Transfer account of the club and to be the base for next season’s transfer budget and again , what’s left in your current season transfer budget.
I think this is so natural to do so never paid attention to this earlier.
You have to take a look at how budgets work really. You have done something else, that is not budgeting, it’s like starting a new mission / level in a game where you get this and that to achieve this and that. Totally different thing than one would expect here, no?
/BK
oh, and let me just quote you in another recent thread: “The new economy changes are GREAT, period.”
LOL. no, they aren’t.
they are totally unfair for the managers who want to sell players to have money to spend on other players. those ones loose all the money at the end of the season.
and what happens to the ones who spend all the money buying players? they get more fresh money the next season.
i see no logic there, but many see it, so i’m probably blind :)
+600m? i lost much more than that lol. it’s the new economic system. the one you like very much, Berhan hehehe. that’s why no one wants to sell. that’s what some guys were saying it’s not fun, but many seems to love it, so let’s play it.
of course the money left can’t stay there for next season. if that happened, the managers who sell good players would be even richer then before, like Gabriel said.
The amount of money left in the budget at the end of season is converted into bonus points for the new season’s investment areas. We don’t want to make it accumulate just to prevent the inflation we had in the old model. In the future we may come up with other advantages for having a lot of money left in your budget when the season ends.
Cheers
I had like 600M plus at the end of the season, is that money gone now?
I thought that money will always be there, and the seasonal budget will be added there.
-———————
If the money is gone, than I think there is a big misunderstanding, budget does not work like that, when you get deficit or surplus on your budget, you decide what to do with it, it does not disappear into thin air.
It would be more logical, that money is always left in the season budget account. So depending on what you gain or lose by transfers and budgeting, it will live it’s own life.
It will be adjusted (added more from transfers/budget) on turn 13 or so.
Also when using levels on “Money from players sold added to transfer budget” the money gained from the transfers (the part that is not inserted into your transfers account) should go to the club general funds account.
That money is THE BASE for the offer board makes you on season transfer budgets.
I don’t see any other logic logical if not like this. Prove me wrong.
/BK
Gabriel, about the paper, get someone at ODESK (cheap) or similar to use a tool for newspaper articles, have templates, read from web for football articles and create say 10-20 templates, rest is dynamic creation of the news paper. It’s worth spending say 100-200 dollars. It’s best to work with the templates, the data collection is easier. Just a thought. You also need to give something back to managers getting involved, people just want stuff for free, not gonna donate/help/pay if they can get things for free. Offer that a lottery will be made between the participating managers, winner will get a extremely promising youth player, or something.
Filipe, what about the BOARD runs over your decision and sells the player just because the OFFER is too good to refuse?
Very realistic. Also THAT GAME is a different game than players not willing to renew, that is interaction between player and manager.
My suggestion is game between you (manager) and club.
amacb suggestions are good, seasoned manager, he knows what he is talking about.
—
About the players not liking the manager, it SHOULDN’T BE TOO random, it has to do with the fact of what kind of manager you are. If you are a cow trader type, buy low sell high type, then you could attract only certain type of players. If you are all about winning titles you could attract certain type of players.
Of course players could change attitude during their careers, like younger players wouldn’t mind to join a “steping-stone” club in order to get a chance of potentially going to bigger clubs, think Ibrahimovic: Malmö → Ajax → etc…
I remember writing an article about different kind of coaches 10+ years ago, here are the types I am talking about:
1) The Hard-Nosed Coach
- believes strongly in discipline
- rigid about schedules
- very well organized
- enforces rules
- uses threats to motivate
- does not get personally close to players
- teams usually well-organized
- good team spirit when things are going well
Negative points :
- Dissension and unnecessary tension occur when things are not going well because of the coach’s inability to handle sensitive players.
2) The Nice-Guy Coach
- players want to play for him
- uses positive means to motivate his team
- often experiments
- his team is relaxed and cohesive
Negative points :
- Characterized as weak because he cannot handle players who take advantage of him.
- constantly worried and pushes himself
- spends hours on preparations
- considers setbacks as personal affronts
- his demand might be unrealistic and his team might burn itself out before the season ends or before crucial games.
Negative points :
- Intense involvement often leads to emotional display, which tends to embarrass the players, the team or organization.
- does not take things seriously
- gives the impression that everything is under control
- he puts little presure on the team
- players do not complain
- players feel relaxed and free to question and often benefit from uninhabited
discussions.
Negative points :
- Too casual about training and produces a team that is not fit. The coach also produces a team that often panics when under presure.
5) The Business-Like Coach
- uses sharp logic and intellect to resolve problems and outguess the opponents
- would sell any player as long as the price is right
Negative points :
- Lacks compassion. He is unable to motivate his team emotionally and has little rapport with players who need his support and attention.
This is very important part in the game, pay attention or it is going to be half-baked thing and people will hate it. Do not be afraid to innovate.
Just my thoughts
/BK
Some very nice ideas here. I’d say the player related ones have a higher priority compared to the improved newspaper. And yes, when we have more types of articles in the newspaper we expect your help again in generating the templates for the different topics. I remember many people didn’t get the idea when trying to help in the past so we’ll make sure it’s better explained when we get back to it.
I like the player morale idea. An improved newspaper would be fun too, but I guess we can partly do something about that ourselves?