Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,200 posts(s) found
It’s a known issue, that’s for sure! We randomly distribute first placed teams against second placed teams, without considering whether they were in the same group. In terms of international competitions we need to fix that and improve the country distribution in the group phase.
You guys should meet in the final as usual! :-(
I’ve sent you an in-game message on FastTicker to get more details.
Cheers
Yeah, didn’t make the players very smart on such decisions :-)
The weakest team tie breaker served two purposes: increase the chance of a player being played in official matches AND helping weaker teams.
The logic is highest wage percentage, then longest loan period, then weakest team bidding. In terms of improvement if he only needs to play matches he’ll improve equally fast in any team, otherwise it depends on what is the player requirement. Did you set up anything specific in your loan clauses such as team playing international competitions or from higher ranked countries?
Percebemos sim Pedro e vamos corrigir em breve. Como esse é um problema que afeta apenas uma tela pra quem usa o jogo em Português não demos prioridade alta para esse problema. O motivo por trás disso é que a mesma letra de abreviação é usada pra mais de uma coisa (D para draw e defender e L para loss e left) e essa tela acabou usando a tradução incorreta (D como defensor e E como esquerda ao invés de E para empate e D para derrota).
Abraço
All you said is correct (the 35 minutes thing can be less, but that’s a safe number). Interesting suggestion, funny nobody thought about it for player development before morale was implemented. Well, I guess that’s because everybody played friendlies like crazy to develop their players before “training” came into the picture.
Anyway, added to our list! Let’s see if others have more improvement suggestions for the formation rules.
Doubling is fine, the restriction will remain there just to prevent some ludicrous values that would render a team useless too quickly.
An MA or AM player can play without any penalties on any M or A position, so nothing to worry on that front. We leave it to the owner of the player to decide how he wants the player position to be presented and it mainly impacts in which list the player is displayed when building your formation. If we allowed the international squad manager to change it, then the player owner would see the position swapped, most likely against his/her will :-)
Logic changed a bit, please let me know if things are still unmanageable.
I’ve realised players were now asking for exaggerated salary increases by considering teammates salaries. Even though they will continue to look for his teammates when asking for a new salary they will be less aggressive on their demands now. Also, the maximum wage allowed by the board now takes into account this smarter way players are asking for wages so you don’t end up losing players unnecessarily.
@Joseppi I was suspecting that was the case. I will have a look at your situation but I’m pretty sure I will have to review the board wage restriction, unless your finances are really bad. Maybe link the restriction to the suggested wage…
@Dirk players will not look at the wages of players who have more stars or are “better” than they are. I say “better” because I know the way the game calculates how good a player is does not always reflect the reality. But if you have a similar or worse player earning too much you can expect that to affect the wage asked by a player.
It’s a long weekend here in Australia, so I won’t promise to review the board logic in the next couple days as I’ll be out and about and about with my family.
Hi Joseppi,
Are you saying the board won’t allow the increase or that the players are not accepting small increases? If it is the board I can definitely look into it, if it’s the players there was a change recently were players became smarter when asking for raises, especially if you have some high wages in your squad.
Cheers
Small improvements pack:
- added ‘Hire Date’ column to players contracts screen; the ‘Contract Begin’ column now represents the last contract renewal date
- when modifying a scout search do not receive an alert about losing progress if current progress is zero
- player value is now periodically recalculated for CPU managed teams as well as human managed teams
I wouldn’t say revert, what I can do is add an extra column with the date the player joined the club. The renewal date information is also important as it now determines how soon you can offer a new renewal contract.
I’ve fixed a reported bug where managers were unable to transfer list a player that had renewed contract in the last 72 turns instead of the usual check of hired by the team in the last 72 turns.
In addition to that I’ve released a few more things related to non-transfer listed offers and player status, but they are just informational and are not active yet. There is a new Status tab from your players’ screen that will show you how happy he is with different aspects that matter to him. Once fully implemented this will be used to determine how easily he can be tempted by transfer offers (assuming such offers would potentially increase his status values) and decide to leave the club by requesting transfer and not accepting contract renewals.
Yeah, I figured the same when trying on one of mine. The issue is related to the new contract renewal model where the new contract takes place immediately and the contract start is updated with the season and turn of the renewal instead of remaining as the player original hire date. The logic to prevent the transfer is looking at that renewal date instead of looking at the original hiring date…I’ll try to fix it today, shouldn’t take long (I just need to find time to do it).
For now it’s just that, you ignore the bid or message the other manager, it doesn’t affect your player or the other manager’s players in any way. I’m also not keen to allow managers to just drop bids as that could lead to some managers potentially dropping bids just to let a specific manager bid alone…we’d need some measures to prevent or inhibit that. When the feature is fully implemented your player may tell you he wants to leave (depending on how compelled he is to move to the bidder(s)‘s team(s)) and while it’s still up to you to decide whether to transfer list him he’ll not want to renew contract and may negatively impact the other players if you don’t accept his request.
That was a tricky one…the issue was you had a non-listed offer against one of your players and that page assumed that player was listed, resulting in an error. This is now fixed.
Thanks!
This has just been fixed. Please have a look and let us know.
Aha, I think I know what the issue is, I will fix it later today. For now I think you will be able to see and cancel your bid if you have anorher type of transfer going on (regular transfer, loan, etc). Thanks for reporting!
A few improvements in one go!
1) Individual player tactics are now available. You can override your team instructions regarding tackling, passing and shooting for each player in your formation using the new Player Tactics tab from your Formation screen.
2) Contract renewals have been changed so that the new contract values are applied on the spot. You are also able to re-negotiate the player contract earlier than before. This is in preparation for the feature where teams will be able to make offers to your non listed players to persuade them to request a transfer from you. By offering a renewal with a better salary earlier on you are more likely to convince the player to stay in your squad.
3) When asking for a salary value players will take into account the salary paid to his teammates, if they earn more than average he may ask for more than average. Your negotiations department will take this into account when suggesting the salary you should offer.
4) You are already allowed to make transfer offers to non listed players, but for now the target player will not be affected by your offer and it will be entirely up to the manager to decide whether to transfer list him or not. That means CPU teams will just ignore such offers. Of course all this will change when this feature is fully implemented and these offers will have impacts on the target players and also negatively affect the players from the buyer team, this is just an early release of partial functionality.
Questioned about Fabio Moraes’ declaration about the referee on their semi-final match, manager Gabriel Cesario told the press the Sportivo Luqueño’s manager need to be careful with his words.
“I admire Fabio for his achievements but he was talking nonsense about our semi-final. If his players can’t be controlled and get lots of cards it’s not my fault. I had two injured midfielders that would tell you a different story.”
It’s the second season in a row Cruzeiro is beaten by Sportivo Luqueño in Libertadores, last season the confrontation happened on the quarter-finals and the winner was decided after a penalty shootout.
“They have a great goalkeeper but we missed too many opportunities during the 180 minutes, I need to concentrate in improving my own squad. After 4 consecutive Brazilian titles in Libertadores we’ll have Paraguay once again in the top spot. They have even beaten us in ranking points this season and will be 4th place in the country ranking next season, very good stuff!” – said the Cruzeiro manager.
I understand and I’m glad you think that way as it is impossible to guarantee the game will be bug free. Whenever we recognise a failure in the game logic quickly enough to rectify it we’re happy to do it, that’s why I put you back in charge of Netherlands. If another manager had already taken over I wouldn’t sack him to put you back.
Thanks for pointing out you had another application, I’ve now taken care of that as well by deleting it.
Yeah, the logic for sacking doesn’t care about when the manager joined the national squad, but it definitely should! I’ll create a bug for us to fix this and put you back there in the meantime.
Cheers
This should get better with the new feature I’m working on. Together with the ability to make offers to players that are not transfer listed I’ll implement an improved player “happiness” system that will be used to determine the likelihood of a player moving to a different club. Playing matches will still be part of it, but bundled together with other aspects such as salary, teammates, club/manager reputation, country ranking, etc, it will give you a better chance of keeping youths even if you don’t line them up in official matches.
Yep, your suggestion made me bring improvement forward from our backlog and I’m also happy to see it coming first in the poll. Check out this topic where I’ve outlined how I plan to implement this feature: http://rubysoccer.com/forums/1/topics/2958
Given the latest poll results announced this week I’ve started working on allowing contract offers to be made to players that are not transfer listed and I’ve created this topic to outline how I believe it should work and collect feedback from others to influence the way we implement it. The basic idea is to give managers the chance to go after that star player that will never go to the transfer market and let the player decide whether it is a good move for him or not. We also need to make sure there is a balance on how making offers to non listed players affect the morale of the target player and the morale of your own players.
These are the main ideas I have so far:
- Expand on the current morale idea (which is based solely on match participation) into player happiness based on a number of different factors (wage, matches, teammates, etc)
- Allow expression of interest against a player. This is not a formal offer but it is a lighter way of try and affect the player happiness so he may decide to leave his club. This can be ignored by the player if he has no intention of leaving his current club to go to yours.
- Allow direct transfer proposal to a non listed player. This will be a more aggressive way of affecting the player happiness but it may also have a greater negative impact on your own players. This again can be ignored by the player.
- Allow managers to make contract renewal offers to their own players at any point after 72 turns of the last signing. This will be one of the ways to improve your player happiness and also defend against transfer offers. Contract renewal logic will also change so that the new wage is effective immediately instead of after the current contract ends.
It will be tough to make CPU clubs react and actively participate in this new idea, but I’ll give my best to make it happen. If you have any comments or suggestions please reply to this topic, your idea may even make it to the final cut version ;-)
Cheers
That’s probably related to the new pressure handling feature that replaced stadium size in calculating the penalty received by the visitor team. CPU teams’ stadiums are usually much smaller than human managed teams’ stadiums, therefore in the past they didn’t penalize visitor teams much. All existing players when the feature was introduced received a pressure handling rating of Poor, which is the worst possible. As you replace old players with fresh ones you’ll have a better mix in your squad and sometimes can even use specific players to play away matches. The difference is not huge, but if you have two players that are very similar the pressure handling may decide who you put on the field as a visitor.
Next Enhancement
With little more than 80% of manager participation we already know the option that came first:
55% Allow contract offers to players that are not transfer listed
22% Better player match rating calculation
12% Something else
8% Money replacing investment points to improve and maintain club facilities
3% No Answer
Already started on it, but it will obviously take some time to be done properly. I may start a forum topic to discuss it or if anyone else has something to add about it feel free to create one.
@Joseppi: I gave a lot of thought about it and my intention is to move away from investment points and back to using money to improve (and maintain) the different club areas. It was clearly a mistake back then when we removed the money altogether. Truth be told we were not focused on the game when we did that and this was just an easy escape instead of putting real measure to deal with inflation.
@Dimitri: I completely agree that the ones that left would add a lot of value to this conversation. I tried to directly contact a few of the most “famous” managers to get some insight, but they didn’t leave because they didn’t like the game, they just didn’t have enough time to play due to family/work commitments. I’ll see who I can find on Facebook.
@Tukmans: thanks for the long post, it goes pretty well with our plans to allow bids to non-listed players. Hotlisting as you suggest could represent an expression of interest and an offer is a more direct approach. We just need to make sure that if you make offers or express interest in too many players it could have a negative impact on your squad as well, as they might think you’re going to the market to replace them! I’ll like your post into our planned feature regarding this.