Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,164 posts(s) found
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.
Scout searches can now also be completed using rubies. Bear in mind that there is no guarantee a player will be found, it all still depends on your search criteria. Similar to coach reports, the lower the progress of your scout search the higher the price: 3 rubies if current progress is between 0% and 33%, 2 rubies between 34% and 66% and 1 ruby if higher than 66%.
They already do, they are only made inactive if no players are found (in which case you probably want to change the criteria).
You can now use rubies to immediately complete coach reports: 2 rubies if the report progress is less than 50%, 1 ruby otherwise. As said before we don’t want RubySoccer to become pay-to-win. While early completion of coach reports provide you quicker insight on your players we do not deem it to be fundamental and decisive enough so that those not paying for it are unable to compete against those that are paying.
He’s an explorer! He wants to get to know people from other countries, travel the world! I know, it may sound silly if you think about real life, but these restrictions are there to add something different to the transfer market. RubySoccer has many things that do not resemble real life. For example, we don’t have restrictions on number of foreigners in the squad, south american clubs would never have that many europeans playing in their squads.
I have “lost” a couple players due to the new rules as well. One of them wanted to play in a high ranked country and there was Paraguayan club bidding who was able to hire him with a lower salary. The other one wanted a lower ranked manager, so a smaller club with a new manager got him.
Anyway, it’s a recent change and we should give it a time to see whether or not it is a good one :-)
Thanks for the detailed suggestions, it sounds really interesting! I’ll definitely consider all that is being discussed here as one of the next big changes :-D
Agree about goalkeepers, maybe just for them I could extend the amount of improvement provided by training and reduce the amount provided by match experience.
Instead of my option 2 above (which I probably wouldn’t want to do anyway) we could have the following (thanks Samir):
2) You have an option to “send a player” to gain match experience (without using money) and, after x turns (depending on coaching requirements, coaching level and how much he still needs to play to improve), he improves. During this period the player would be unavailable to be used by your team and you could only send one player at a time to gain match experience. Obviously the number of turns that it takes to improve this way should be more than if you were actually using the player in your matches.
I’m still a bit unsure about a youth league and the complexity it adds to the game. I’ve been thinking of a few ideas to try and address this issue, what do you guys think about these:
1) Allow the team to pay a certain amount of money to simulate match experience for a player. This should work ONLY for simple “play matches” requirement, not for play abroad, play for division 1, etc. The exact amount will vary depending on player quality, minimum coaching level requirement for next step and this action should be limited to once (overall, not per player) every x turns (maybe 3?). For example, I could pay 100k to simulate match experience to one of my players that need to play official matches, then I will only be able to do it again (for any player) after x turns. Players need to play a few matches to improve, so I’d have to do this the same number of times for him to improve.
2) Extend number of times players improve by training so that match experience is not required until a bit later than what it is today.
3) Allow you to offer an amount of money in your loan clauses for each match the player is used by the team loaning him. For example, I could loan list a player offering 50k for each match he plays.
My preference is for option 1, it is the simplest to implement and tweak as needed. Actually option 2 is simpler to implement, but I think it will reduce too much the control we have over player improvement, it would mostly happen automatically. Option 3 is not bad either in my view, but it requires a bit more work to limit the amount that can be offered and also make CPU teams “aware” of the new rule so they can make use of it (loan players with this option when they need a bit of money).
Four new inactive clubs have been added to Argentina. As a result, the second division (properly renamed to Primera B Nacional) now has three relegation spots. Don’t forget you can see and vote for your favourite inactive clubs in EACH country by going to the Inactive Teams tab in the Country screen.
They are free. Your transfer budget may still show a lower value after the transfer because now the player’s wage is part of your fixed expenses, and that is taken into account when calculating how much you’re allowed to spend on transfers.
Just to make it clear (some people have asked me this before), the transfer budget is not something separate from your team’s money balance, it is just how much FROM the money balance you are allowed to spend on player transfers.
There were some changes a couple months ago to make the profiles that make players reach full potential younger more frequent in the game, but it takes a few seasons as usual for this to make a real difference (old players will retire and the new generation will reach potential younger on average). I tend to agree with Dimitri so I was hoping this change could improve things, and maybe it will in a few more seasons. A youth league will take time to plan and develop anyway, so we can devote some time to it and keep evaluating how player development is playing out. This will be an interesting and important topic to keep alive for a few seasons to share our observations.
You need to reduce your investments and try to sell some players to start with. Also hire some free players either to use or re-sell later. When I joined Santos in FastTicker it had only 6M balance and 0 in investments, I had to immediately sell a few players and luckily the total wage was low so I wasn’t losing money when playing home. In a few seasons I had a decent amount of money to hire better players, but I suppose I was not even close to the richest teams in the Brazilian league…
What should be the maximum age in a youth league?
Your budget will go down as your money goes down, or if your fixed expenses (wages + investments maintenance) go up. Doesn’t look like a bug (just had a quick look), but if you keep an eye on it and still feels that something is odd please let us know.
I hear you guys. I’ll give some thought to both options proposed (youth/reserve league and an alternative way to improve player development via investment). I think it’s worth it to find some balance between the old model (too easy) and the new one (hard most of the time).
Yep…bug is fixed, need to manually run remaining of tick in a few mins.
We have just introduced the concept of negotiation priority for players. Each player will have a priority and take that into account when evaluating transfer offers. This replaces and enhances the broken “first team chance” they used to consider along with the wage (which is still a factor).
You can find more details in the game manual, player contract section. In summary there are two main differences. The first one is that when your team looks bad in terms of the player’s priority he may reject a transfer offer or, in case of renewal, ask for a higher wage (a message will be displayed when that’s the case and the suggested wage for renewal takes that into account). The second one is that a transfer offer may become a priority offer if the team is very well placed in terms of player priority. During offer comparison the player looks at priority offers first before even considering others, so a “normal” acceptable wage priority offer on its own will beat any wage in other offers.
Your Negotiations investment area has just become more important as the player priority may be revealed in the contract offer screen depending on your negotiations level. When you reveal a player’s priority you can also see which transfer offers are priority offers in the current negotiations section of the player info screen.
If this works well we will enchance the player status logic to consider the player negotiation priority when evaliating non-listed offers, but that’s a separate future discussion to be had.
Wouldn’t that make developing players too easy again? Some kind of youth league/tournament has been requested before and we haven’t discarded the idea, it just needs time to design and develop properly.
They haven’t stopped, but they give priority to hiring over loaning. Also, between turns 129 and 18 in the next season they don’t loan at all, as they know there will be no or very few matches to play.
I’ll add your suggestion to our list Tomás. It will make even more sense (a little bit) with the upcoming change to player negotiations.
Cheers
It used to when the only influence was match participation, but not anymore.