Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,201 posts(s) found
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.
That’s the first time this is suggested…I like it! It would be really helpful as well in periods when you don’t have much time to manage your team, you could simply go into the players list to check who is low on stamina and mark those as unavailable. I’ll add to our todo list.
Thanks for the memory refresh, Tukmans! Both ideas are still on the table (satellite club and youth investment area), I had forgotten how you proposed to tie the two together. I still have one more thing to do with regards to the player market before I move to new major changes, let’s see if this one can be accommodated.
You may want to keep an eye on free transfer list in countries that have inactive teams. From now on, inactive players will be gradually released to the free transfer of their team’s country throughout the season. That means inactive teams will always get a fresh batch of players when re-joining the game as well as having their money balance reset.
That’s true, what I meant is that the impact shouldn’t be too big if you are ahead by 2 (as in the given example), but of course we know that anything can happen in 35 minutes…I’ll add this to our list of improvements then, see what we can come up with.
Friendlies are not a big deal anymore, that’s why we haven’t done any changes to them in ages. Just a small correction to your benefits list, the income is split between the two teams regardless of the playing field, so no need to worry about playing only away matches. Unless of course you want to compare your team’s performance playing home and playing away.
What happened to my Math? You’re absolutely right, subbing at 65 is not enough, it should be 55.
Hmmm, that was never in the todo list. Maybe it’s worth adding something like that for such cases, but then there is no issue in subbing these players after 65, it’s just they won’t improve :-P
At the moment you can only attempt one forced transfer every 6 turns, regardless of the players’ club or league.
There is nothing you are doing wrong, the player is probably not good enough for most cpu teams who are looking for this position. That is another thing to notice, each cpu team will be looking for the position they believe they need the most at the moment.
I like the idea of having deals with lower class clubs so you can send some players to play there. In the meantime I try to loan them out and I am usually successful, but for the ones that are too weak I give them some match time against weaker opponents.
It changed relatively recently when different cpu teams started having different behaviours. There are some further changes planned to be done in the new year where cpu teams will look into managed teams players first, if the price is fair. In the meantime it is not always possible to sell D players or worse, usually C or higher sell more easily.
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.