Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,153 posts(s) found
Yeah, I feel the same way. Sometimes a player had a single great match then was sold, but he remain in that list for the rest of the season. I’ll add this fix to our tasks.
You may have noticed some CPU teams have more than the limit of 40 players in their squads. This was due to a bug that has now been fixed, CPU teams will respect the same limit of players human managed teams have, even if it changes in the future. Of course that any teams currently above the limit will remain so until they sell their exceeding players, but they won’t be able to hire/loan additional players in the meantime.
The field image is misleading, I grant you that. The GK mark in there is only correct if you’re looking at the heat map for the home team. In other words, for the home team the defenders should be at the bottom and the attackers at the top, for the visitor it’s the other way around.
Maybe we could have directed training in the future to remove negative traits?
Do you really think “bad at saving PKs” is that bad at the moment? PKs need serious re-working IMO as at the moment there are way too many saves.
The last poll results are in:
24% – keep inactive players frozen in their inactive teams
76% – randomly free transfer inactive players throughout the season
Thanks for voting!
Players will now improve a higher number of attributes in a single improvement when younger and a lower number when older. Previously all player improvements gave them a random number of points between 1 and 6 (1 and 5 for goalkeepers), but now the earlier improvements are guaranteed to give them more (between 4 and 6 and then 3 and 5) and the later improvements will give them less (between 2 and 4 and finally between 1 and 3). The average number of points a player receives after all his improvements remain unchanged. This change is effective immediately for existing players as well, in proportion to the number of improvements left in his career.
The main goal of this change is to have better players than can be used as first team at a younger age, instead of relying solely on old players. This could also bring a new dynamic to the transfer market as managers may be willing to sell “not so old” players knowing they will have to wait less time to renew the squad.
I have to agree that this trait is not useful for goalkeepers, but I had this before in some of my players and it seemed to work well for me. I had an attacker that had this trait and I always had a sub rule for him at 50 minutes, and he did pretty well. To be honest I didn’t compare his performance when I did this to when he played from start, now that I think of it.
All players should get both a positive and a negative traits if they reach their potential. There was an exception to this unfortunately due to a bug, but it has been fixed for some time now. Of course if you’re talking about MediumTicker more players will have the bug than in FastTicker, as things take longer to smooth out in there.
The age in which players start losing skills will now vary between 31 and 34 depending on the age they reach their potential. Those reaching potential while still young will start losing skills at 31 and those reaching potential in the 30s will start losing skills at 34, with the other two profile types in between. It is important to notice that all existing players that are 31 and over OR that are already fully developed will still keep the current behaviour of starting to lose skills at 31, all the others will follow this new rule.
The auto-generated in-game newspaper is now reborn with news about player movements (transfers, starting career, leaving club). The World News tab will show relevant player movements in the last 3 turns (or last 3 turns where at least one player moved). There is also a complete separate section now for Managers at Risk instead of displaying them at the bottom of the User Articles page.
Hahahaha! Fair enough, that is terrible suggestion. Maybe for younger players they should at least suggest a value no lower than the player’s current wage?
I’ve finally tracked down the bug where CPU teams where loaning players that they didn’t really need, and therefore were not using them in matches. If you have a player loaned to a CPU team and you see he is not being used you should call him back and loan list him again. Next time he gets a loan offer he will be much more likely to be used by the team who gets him, now that the problem is fixed.
What if we introduce player trades? Subject to admin approval as the forced transfers are. Maybe we let the system automatically calculate any payment due when a trade is proposed and/or only allow trade of players of the same class?
Maybe you’re aiming too high (too good players) or aiming at players in high classe clubs and/or leagues. These two factors definitely increase the amount required to successfully force a transfer. I have concerns in reducing the 6 turns waiting period because I don’t want the market to be primarily based on forced transfers, but I’m happy to hear other opinions about that.
If you have specific examples you’d like to discuss feel free to message me in-game.
And the world is right again, hopefully no more hiccups!
I knew the transfer code for cpu teams was not perfect! Not to worry, I will have a look in about an hour or so.
International cup matches now give additional ranking points in comparison to national league or cup matches. These bonus points are higher depending on the importance of the competition, i.e. Europa League and Copa Sudamericana give you a smaller bonus than Champions League and Libertadores, which give you a smaller bonus than the Club World Cup. We probably need to have a complete manual page to demystify how the ranking points are calculated!
CPU teams have a completely revamped logic to decide which players to sell and which players to buy. They now view players in one of 3 categories: main squad, reserves and future. For selling they will get rid of reserves that they believe will not become main players, mainly due to age, as well as extra future players they may have. For buying each team will have a different priority based on their class, deciding whether to hire main players, future players or loan players.
A key change is that a CPU team will not bid for a player if another CPU team is already bidding. This should increase the number of different player negotiations happening simultaneously. Nothing changed with regards to the values they pay for players.
Bem-vindo de volta Lince, espero que goste das mudanças! Não acredito que as opções pagas afastem jogadores pois elas não estão aí pra dar vantagens desleais a quem as usa, não queremos jamais que o jogo se torne “pay-to-win” pois não gostamos desse modelo de negócio. A idéia é que elas adicionem diversão (renomear jogadores, estádio) ou permitam acelerar alguns processos como relatórios de treinador e scouts, coisas que não vão ser determinantes pra te fazer campeão. Em troca disso recebemos um suporte aos custos e ao tempo que nos dedicamos ao jogo.
Qualquer dúvida sobre as novidades, críticas ou sugestões às novidades é só falar.
50% of the managers who voted in our poll decided that we should have a suggested value for the forced transfers based on the Negotiations level. In order to be fair, once this is done, you will spend your forced transfer offer as soon as you are shown the suggested value, so if you decide to not go ahead with an offer for the player you will have to wait another 6 turns to try another one. This will avoid managers going around and trying different players just to check the suggestions before deciding which one to buy.
Thanks for voting!
New formulas are now in place for ALL club revenues. The main goal is to try and balance the game economy and add a more challenging scenario when managing small clubs. These are the changes:
1) Sponsorship is calculated based on the league class with a small influence of the team quality
2) Merchandise is calculated based on the team class with a small influence of the league quality
3) Match attendance is calculated based on home team class, visitor team class and competition type. For league matches the league class is used, for national cup the team with the highest league class is used, for international competitions we have an almost guaranteed attendance of 40,000 (EL and Sudamericana) or 50,000 (CL and Libertadores).
4) Stadium investment has been replaced by Headquarters. Its role is the same as the Stadium when it comes to limiting how high the level of the other investments can be, but it does not determine stadium size anymore, all clubs have a 100,000 capacity stadium (at least for now).
The thinking is that the revenue from Sponsorship and Merchandise can be used to pay for your main players wages (roughly your 22 best players), the revenue from competition prizes can be used to pay for investments and the revenue from tickets sold can be used to pay additional wages or for buying players.
Hopefully this is the last big change to the economy and we can now focus on a few important improvements to player evolution and potential prediction!
A new forced transfer formula is in place. In summary, it does not depend on the target player’s team money balance anymore, but on the player estimated value and his team’s and league’s classes. From our manual:
“The team’s board will evaluate your offer in comparison to the player’s base value. The base value is not displayed anywhere and is the key factor in the estimated value calculation, therefore the estimated value is usually a good indication of the player’s base value. Your offer will have to be between 2x and 12x the player’s base value, depending on the grade of the target player’s team and league. That means it is easier to force the transfer of players from small clubs and/or leagues. If the player’s team has a manager, the amount required to force a transfer is doubled.”
Interesting. I can see now that all your remaining matches for the current season have no formation set, which means your default (D2) will be used and also displayed in the matches screen. If you do any changes in the matches screen and save then whatever formations were displayed for each match should be saved against that match in the database. If/when you do that let me know and I can double check if something looks wrong behind the scenes.
Here is a possible explanation:
1) You had D1 as default formation
2) In the matches screen, you have at any point made changes to any match formation and saved
3) Whenever the D1 default formation was displayed in the match screen, it was then saved against the match itself as the formation to be used
4) You changed the default formation to D2
5) As explained in item 3 above, D1 was already set against all those matches, so D2 does not automatically becomes assigned to them
Cheers
Don’t be surprised if you see your players’ estimated value radically changing, it is all part of the modifications done to the way we calculate it. It now takes into account the player class, age and the amount of money available to the teams in the dimension. As you can imagine the same player may have different values in FastTicker and MediumTicker.
Another key change is the amount of money CPU teams are willing to pay on player transfers. We’ve noticed a considerable increase in that value and therefore made some adjustments. They will continue taking into account the player estimated value but will now also factor in the player’s class and the buyer team’s class.
Coming soon: improvements to forced transfers that will change the amount of money needed and also include a suggested value for the offer.
Olá Enrico,
O objetivo é tentar simular situações em que o jogador não iria aceitar ser contratado por um time fraco numa liga fraca, ainda mais se esse tive já tiver um certo número de jogadores iguais ou melhor que ele. Mas nada impediria você de contratar um jogador de classe mais baixa e evoluir ele até uma classe mais alta, mesmo que isso faça você ficar acima do seu limite. Ainda não sabemos se colocaremos em prática essa regra ou não, por enquanto estamos fazendo outras mudanças mais importantes e deixaremos os limites apenas como uma proposta, que pode vir a não se concretizar.
Abraço
Enrico, respondi sobre isso em outro topico
[Português]
É exatamente esse tipo de discussão que queria fomentar com a proposta de limite de jogadores. Estou analisando uma série de iniciativas que visam adicionar um grau de desafio maior ao jogo quando você está tentando evoluir um time pequeno e o limite de jogadores seria algo nesse sentido. Times grandes teriam mais facilidade de contratar jogadores e pequenos maior facilidade em formar jogadores. Além disso serviria também pra representar situações em que um jogador bom não aceitaria jogar por um time pequeno ou numa liga pequena.
Enfim, ainda não está certo que essa proposta vai pra frente, como disse outras mudanças de menor impacto estão sendo consideradas também!
[English]
David is asking about the player limit proposal and here is my view:
This is exactly the type of discussion I’d like to see with the proposal ti limit the number of players. I’m evaluating a number of initiatives whose aim is to make the game more challenging when you’re trying to improve a small team and the player limit is something towards that goal. Big clubs would have an advantage in hiring players and and smaller ones would have an advantage growing players. Besides that the limit would also represent situations where a good player would not accept playing for a small club or in a small league.
Anwyay, it is not yet confirmed this proposal will go ahead, as I said other changes with less impact are also being considered!
Just changed the logic when setting the numbers, if there are any duplicates you still get the error message but everything is saved, except for the duplicate(s) which become blank.
Points give for team and manager rankings now take into account the opponent class. That means a victory against an ‘A’ team is worth more points than a victory against a ‘B’ team, for example.