Recent Posts
18,542 posts(s) found
My understanding is that a player loses 3 points in every skill if playing out of position. If he is playing as -1, 0 or +1 is indifferent
Of course, if a player has 2 possible positions (DA, DM or MA) he can play in either without any penalty
A penalty also applies to sides (L, C, R), but if I recall correctly the penalty increases (1, 2, 3 points) the further from the original side the player is. Again, there are players with 2 potential sides (LR, LC, RC)
Hi,
I am just wondering how a player is penalised when they are used in the wrong position?
For example, in a 5-5-0 formation, where all the Attackers are in M/+1 rather than in A/-1 ?
Thanks,
When you are trying to hire players from the market you will not get the “not interested” messages anymore, they will always listen to your offer first. Similarly we have removed the exclusive negotiation (priority indicator) when one or some teams had exclusive offer evaluation by some players and could sometimes win disputes with very low salaries.
Both these things were based on the player negotiation priority profile, which is still in place and will have a weight in the player decision, but now we have removed the two extremes where the player either completely ignores a team/manager or gives him exclusivity.
Yep, I have done the same in the past and I agree it is not good for the game. I mean, financially it is kind of ok but the behaviour itself is not exactly how we intend the player market to work. Wage disputes and a better control of the amount of money in the hands of managed teams are two topics that I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.
With regards to wage disputes in player negotiations, currently the base factor for the player decision is how much you are offering compared to how much he would like to receive. From there we apply all the other factors, such as the player negotiation priority bonus, star player bonus, etc. So for example, if the player wants 30k and your offer is 45k, you start with a 1.5 “strength” to your offer. One of the crazy ideas I had was to change the base factor to be the amount you offered compared to the maximum your board allows you to offer. For example, if you offered 50k and your board allowed 100k, your “strength” is 0.5, whereas if another club offers 30k and the board only allowed 45k it already starts at 0.75, ahead of you! Of course, this is assuming 30k is acceptable for the player. I know, very controversial but it takes into the account the “sacrifice” a smaller team could be making to have the player, and also a bigger team would usually have more bonuses on top of the base strength, so even in the example of 0.5 × 0.75 after all the bonuses the first offer could still prevail.
Regarding controlling the amount of money in the game (with managed teams) we have some very interesting ideas where CPU teams could start selling decent players for large sums if there are too many clubs with a lot of money (meaning they have nowhere to spend) or they could start looking at buying players from less rich managed teams first (if they can find suitable options, of course). This is just the tip of the iceberg on these ideas because I don’t want to say too much on how this would work.
All this is going to take some time, I’m taking some time off very soon and won’t be doing any changes to the game for a few weeks :-)
Hi, after all the free transfers lately I notice teams are just giving average C/B class players 200k a week to get them into their clubs. If the player isn’t deemed good enough he can be sold on for 20+ million to computer teams. This needs addressed so everyone can give a fair wage they believe to appropriate.
No club should want to buy a B player with 200k a week wages.
I’m fine having player class on profiles but when I’m looking for players I don’t look at class! Just abilities.
Thanks :)
Really? I thought you’d like this one :-D
I’ll add an option, no worries!
Can I have an option to remove player class from transfer list please? It’s taking my focus off the attributes and onto their class only.
Muller and West were already sold, now it’s time for Gilmar Rinaldi and Marc Ruano
Gilmar – Kpg 93, spe 92
Ruano – Tac 100
Both players under 30 years old, with good attributes, and still improving their skills!
Updated player evolution profiles so that:
- no new players will be generated with “reaches potential on his 30s”
- introduced new “reaches potential very young”
- adjusted age for “reaches potential while still young”
- adjusted number of available improvements per season to be smoother and always have a minimum of 2
- removed the scenario where a player had no improvements available in a given season even before reaching potential
- reduced some differences in number of improvements for different profiles
- players can start losing skills at 30, 31, 32 or 33 depending on profile (the older he is capable of reaching the potential the older he will start losing skills)
The main goal here is to improve the number of world class younger players, currently players over 30 dominate the top player lists all over the world. This should also make it faster to renew your squad when the time comes. These changes are effective for newly generated players only, existing players will retain their current profiles.
Not at all. Each different club class (when CPU controlled) will prioritise loans, first team players and future players in different orders. B clubs if I’m not mistaken would prioritise future players, then loans, then first team players. E and F should be prioritising loans.
Is it currently only possible to loan players to B class clubs? They were the only ones interested in my player so far (that I have put on the loan list something like eight times).
Sounds good to me, 6 turns should be ok.
Some time ago I was thinking of using the Negotiations level to provide a forced transfer price suggestion when attempting to do a forced transfer, similar to the way we have the suggested wage. In this case, however, as soon as you see the suggestion for a given player you would need to wait another 6 turns to see the suggestion again. How does that sound?
Hi all,
From long time I’m trying to buy good striker by forced transfer. My club budget is small so I don’t want spend too much money.
So in this situation, my suggestion is follows:
Could we add in our Scouting system “suggested forced transfer amount” option?
Then after a few ticks of scouting, managers would be get valuable raport:
“To buy this player, we should try to offer 15-20M $” etc.
Higher lvl of scouting = more correct suggestion in raport.
Best regards,
Luke “Bronson”
In some cases when player classes changed we noticed the estimated value was taking to long to catch up with the new class value range. That sometimes caused confusion and made it harder to make accurate forced transfer offers. We have now changed the logic so that the estimated value immediately catches up to a more reasonable value aligned to the new player class.
@Will you are not a moron! This tells me we need to make the way multi-position and multi-side works more evident.
@Joseppi and Dirk: maybe we can start with side only and allow a change from single side to single side or from multi-side to multi-side. In other words, if your player is L he can be trained to be C or R, but not LC or LR. If the payer is LR, you could train him to LC or RC. Does that make sense?
In the future the same approach could be done to player positions, and also maybe taking into account the the main skill for the new position must be no more than 5 points less than the current’s position main skill. For example, a D with 90 tackle, 85 passing and 82 shooting could be trained to become M, but not A.
First off: I’m a moron.
Secondly: Thanks for listening!
Selling Muller and Stefan West!
West – pas 98, sho 87, avg 87, dutch national
Muller – sho 95, avg 90 (!!!), brazilian national
Ouch!
I rather prefer the option to train players from L to LR or LRC.
For me players with a double position like DM or AM have more value in the game. They have to be rare to find. If everyone can change players to a double position a key aspect of the game gets lost.
One exception could be if a player has a secondary skill of an other position (def, pas, sho) that’s higher than his primary skill he should be able to be trained to a new position.
F.e. A defender with D85 and M 94 could become a M or DM afer serious training.
That sounds like a good enough idea, I personally would just like to be make players from say MR into MC or ML. The problem with changing position toDM or AM is teams would have no players that are just standard positions
Will, I think you are incorrectly reading the way sides and positions work. Let’s consider each “row” in the field has 5 sides, let’s call them L, LC, C, RC and R. A player with L side can play both on L and LC positions with no penalties. A player with LC side can play in all positions except R, without penalties. So a player having multiple sides is actually a good thing, as it gives him more options. The same is true for multi-position players (DM, MD, DA, AD, MA, AM), they can play in both positions with no penalties. There is a topic in our game manual about setting up the formation that mentions this.
That said, I still agree it is a good idea to be able to “train” a player into a new position or side. Maybe that makes sense only if the player is not already multi-side or multi-position? For example you could train a D into a DM or DA, but if he was already DM you could not change it. What do you guys think?
I’ve made sure this task was moved higher up in our priority list so we evaluate it sooner rather than later.
I’ve mentioned this before and I agree. It would be a good way for the game developers to make more income too.
The unrealistic nature of not being able to train (or pay a few rubies) to add a new position to a player is becoming increasingly frustrating. If it requires a certain amount of matches, or whatever it may be, I’ve had some players in their “unnatural” positions for years. I feel like by now they’d be comfortable in their new role and make it their primary and preferred position.
Being able to change a players side (LC to C – RC to C – L to LC) would vastly improve the transfer market too. People would be willing to SPEND some of the money they seem to horde since they know w player might soon be useful ion a new role, rather than being saddled with an LC when they really need an L or a C.
I don’t think moving a player from an L to an R is a good idea, as this is kind of a major change to their playstyle, even in real life.
But:
LC -> L
LC -> C
Those would make sense.
Could even make C players be able to go LC or RC, but note on their profile they are originally C players, and therefore cannot be changed to L or R after they have been trained in LC or RC. Same with LC or RC who have been changed to C; they’d be unable to go LC -> C and then over to RC.
Give players sides (L or R) and let them train (or pay) or play a certain number of matches in a C LC/RC or L/R role so they can be 100% proficient in their new position.
Just getting a bit frustrated with buying or training up players who refuse to play a couple yards outside their comfort zone after years of training.
Team classes can now be seen in the league table and team matches screen. We can easily add that info to more screens in the future, if it proves to be useful.
Goalkeeper (a) leaves the field (not possible to replace)
Ouch
Scout searches can now be configured to look only for multi-position (MA, DM, DA, etc) and/or multi-side (LC, RC, LR) players. If you do not check this option the search will work as before, looking for all types. For example, if you search for D with multi-position checked the search will only find DM, DA, MD or AD; without mutli-position checked it will also find D players.
Cheers
With the number of very rich clubs increasing, should we introduce some kind of tax over their transfers or profit in order to control the inflation? Do not worry about specific rules yet, they will be discussed if this goes ahead.
15% – Yes, a tax paid when the club sells a player (in some specific conditions to be determined) is a good idea
24% – Yes, a tax over club profits at season end (if they exceed a certain threshold) is a good idea
13% – Yes, both taxes are a good idea
43% – No, keep the game as is, free of taxes
5% – No Answer
Even though the majority (52%) is in favour of some kind of tax we are not going to introduce any changes. With such close results it is not worth spending the time and effort, we will look into other ideas to better control the amount of money in the game.
Thanks for voting!
In some cases it can. Basically the game calculates a factor based on how much you offered and how much the player wants. For example, if he wants 50k and you offer 100k this factor is 2. Then this factor is modified by the player priority (which can add or subtract 1 from it) and also by the hiring bonus star, which has no limit at the moment (we simply add up all bonuses).
Sometimes I think we need to do something to benefit smaller teams to try and give a chance to everyone and also pose a challenge to the top managers.