Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,155 posts(s) found
We haven’t disregarded this suggestion and another manager came up with the same request not too long ago. If it is not paid we need to have clear boundaries with regards to how many notes you can add and how big they can be.
Wow, just watched the replay and it is not what I was expecting! Still, very hard to figure out. I’ve raised a bug for us so we can properly investigate it.
Thanks for reporting!
I’m going to have a look…this sounds familiar from a looooong time ago. It will be nearly impossible to replicate the issue as I cannot see simulation details exactly as they were, other than what is in the match replay and commentary. But as I said, I’ll see if I can figure something out!
After gathering some feedback on forced transfers I have updated the amount of money required to be dependent on the player skills and potential when compared to his teammates. Instead of a fixed amount of at least 3x the team money balance this will now vary from 1x to 3×. I expect it will be close to 2x or slightly over it in most cases, unless you’re trying to snatch the top players of a team.
It could, but I’m not sure we really need this extra complexity. I’ve done some changes (not yet live) that will make the multiplier vary between 1x and 3x based on player current skills and potential when compared to his teammates. Let’s see if things get better once that change is in place.
I’ve adjusted the player generation code so that lower ranked countries have better chances of getting decent players. Currently the chances are very low, they should at least be more likely to generate players with good primary skills and bad secondary ones or vice-versa. Why not even an overall decent player every now and then?
CPU teams have now learned to use different formations and tactics instead of the predictable ones they’ve been using so far. They’re still dumb in terms of picking the players suitable for a given position in the field (e.g. they may pick an L player to play on RC), but this is definitely an improvement to some of the bizarre formations I’ve seen them using in their matches.
I can confirm nobody was successful yet, the amount required may indeed be too high. I’ll give it a couple more days to see how it goes and then consider reducing it. The reason I didn’t want to use player value is because that calculation in itself is not a fair representation of the player quality/potential in lots of cases, so I need to fix that first.
When renewing the contract of a player that is unhappy in terms of his priority there is now a cap on how much more money he is going to ask for. The old logic was always doubling the value on every renewal, which is not really what we intended originally.
The forced transfer feature is finally complete! I recommend you read the corresponding section of our game manual to familiarise yourself with it. The bottom line is there is no player status anymore and in order to buy a player that is not transfer listed you need to pay a lot of money to the team and be ahead in relation to the player priority. You can only attempt such transfer once every 6 turns, you can find out how many turns you have to wait in your profile page (easily accessible by clicking in your name, for example, from the team info page).
MediumTicker unlocked!
MediumTicker is locked, I will look into it in an hour or so.
That’s probably been left there as a mistake, it is not in our plans to allow them to play friendlies :-)
That’s strange, the columns are still clickable for me! Maybe contact me in-game so we can discuss further via email or something.
I have no issues with that…how much do you reckon it should cost?
Man, I’ve seen many others far worse than you :-)
Plus I was with you in Croatia for a couple seasons when you were starting to have consistent performances in CL, but we never really stood a chance against the big clubs. Anyway, I’m sure other managers would have plenty of tips to offers!
Don’t rush it! It needs to be properly done…plus I have done nothing during the long weekend (public holiday here in Aussie on Monday) :-)
I have pretty much done the logic that determines when the player and club will accept a forced transfer, now I need to put all the boring restrictions around it.
With the flock of managers moving from Paraguay to Belgium it was only a matter of time…well done! I’ve personally sent Dimitri a congratulatory message for the perfect season PSV had, outstanding achievement that brought him to the first place in the manager ranking.
Should I add Luxembourg to complete the Benelux gang? :-p
I like the idea Joseppi! This is now in our TO-DO list ;-)
During the season tick the RubySoccer Football Federation will elect the World Team of the Season, picking the 11 best players from all over the world. The best player among those 11 will also be given a special Player of the Season award. The election criteria is a mix of player match performance and the one used to give stars to players, mostly relying on consistent good match performances.
The World Team of the Season will be displayed in the Hall of Fame screen (accessible from the Dimension menu) in a new tab called Players.
I agree Fabio, it would have to be a situation where the money offered would make a lot of difference to the club, so having a lot of money would also work as a “defense” against this kind of offer. I’m also thinking that of changing scenario “a” above (where the player and the board are satisfied with the offer), instead of automatically transfer listing the player the offer becomes a pre-contract with the player and he’ll be transfer listed when the contract is almost ending (maybe 12 turns before), so that the manager losing the player has some time to plan for a replacement if needed (especially important for goalkeepers). During this pre-contract period the offer cannot be withdrawn, the player contract cannot be renewed, other teams cannot bid for the player and the owner can decide to transfer list him earlier (for the price of the pre-contract offer, of course).
It would then be very similar to the way it is today, where you can still make a player from a managed team critical but he is not immediately transfer listed, just won’t renew contract. We need to be very clear about the rules, maybe a message on the offer screen when you’re trying to buy a non-listed player.
Values entered into transfer price and wage fields are now properly formatted as you type. For example, if you type 12000000 you will actually see 12,000,000 on the screen. This should help avoid mistakes of entering one less or one extra 0.
I agree with you Fabio and my idea of how to change this is more aligned with option 1. I believe the status system is not adding much value at the moment and I’m considering replacing it completely with the player priority system just introduced. It is still one-dimensional but easily extensible in the future to allow players with multiple priorities if need be. In summary my draft proposal is:
1) Purge the player status system as it is
2) Limit the number of non-listed offers you can make in a given period
3) When you make an offer to a non-listed player, your offer is weighed individually against the player current situation in terms of wage and priority
4) The transfer amount of your offer is evaluated by the team’s board taking into account the club’s financial situation
There can be four outcomes:
a) Your offer satisfies the player (much better compared to his current wage and priority) and the board (the amount of transfer money will make the board happy): in this case the player the player goes to “critical” and is automatically transfer listed by the amount you offered, even for human managed teams. You cannot change your offer and other teams cannot make an offer.
b) Your offer satisfies the player, but not the board: CPU teams will renew the player’s contract, human managed teams will be alerted the player wants to renew or be transfer listed and will have x number of turns to action it, if they don’t the player won’t renew anymore and will either have to be sold or let go by the end of his contract
c) Your offer satisfies the board, but not the player: for CPU teams nothing will happen, for human managed teams the manager will be advised to transfer the player by the board, if he doesn’t action it in x turns his manager performance will be reduced by a given % amount, but nothing else will happen
d) Your offer does not satisfy the board nor the player: for CPU teams your offer will be rejected and for human managed teams it will just stay there for the manager’s knowledge, but will have no other effect
This is just a draft idea and needs deeper analysis and explanation. In addition to addressing the “friends bidding together” issue we want to make it possible for more managers to “steal” players by themselves, but without making it too easy. Happy to receive feedback, as always!
Thanks Fabio for your nice words! I agree with most of what you’ve said and I’d like to add that we understand there are still some challenges for newcomers and especially for those not quite there yet. I’ve seen some decent managers trying hard to be part of the elite in some leagues and not being able to do so. Of course, this is part of the challenge and fun, but our job is to make sure the opportunities are there for them to grow and get there and not just keep being frustrated. On the other hand, it’s a real treat when I see someone who had some tough seasons in smaller leagues against CPU teams and now is able to compete internationally at the same level as the big clubs!
Too long, didn’t read: thanks for your words, if you’re reading this and you’re new or frustrated for not being a top manager yet don’t worry, we are planning ways to improve the game experience for you ;-)
CPU teams will ask for higher values when transfer listing a player whose status became critical. This is the first of a series of initiatives that we know need to be done to make CPU teams a bit less dumb. We still want them to “help” managed teams a little bit, but their lack of planning is not good for the health of the game overall.
You can now postpone the retirement of your players using rubies by clicking the new icon beside the retirement icon in the player info screen. The cost increases the closer the player is to 40 years old: 1 ruby if he’s 36, 2 rubies if he’s 37, 3 rubies if he’s 38 and 4 rubies if he is 39. You cannot postpone the retirement when he is 40 years old.
When you postpone the retirement you are guaranteed the player will not retire at the end of the current season. During the next season tick, normal rules will apply in determining whether the player will announce his retirement again, if you’re lucky he may not do it. As usual the chances of announcing retirement are higher the closest the player is to 40 years old.
Newly generated goalkeepers will have 30% more training evolution steps on average than existing goalkeepers. We didn’t change the overall number of times a player can improve so that means that GKs will have less steps requiring them to play matches as a result. As things current stand it is difficult in many occasions to fully develop a GK without compromising some of your official matches, this change is hopefully assist in addressing that in a few seasons.
I’ve seen worse before (and I have a bug recorded to investigate) where a player played a national squad match without even being from that squad’s country :-(
Thanks for reporting anyway, I’ll add this on top of the existing bug so it’s clear the issue is not only about different nationalities.
You now have an option to choose whether or not a scout search should become inactive when no players are found on completion. The default behaviour is to make them inactive and therefore all existing searches have been marked as such. If you want them to continue running in this situation just uncheck the box that says “Inactivate if no player found?” when creating new ones or editing existing ones.
Thanks Alexander for the suggestion.
Ah, got it! I’ll add an option for that in the search itself, turned off by default.