Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,164 posts(s) found
Found what the issue was, it shouldn’t happen for next season. I’ve also rectified the values for the current season, please let me know if it happens again.
Cheers
Ah, I see what the issue is now! It is a bug in the way we determine the team’s quality/expectation for international competitions taking into account the previous season’s performance. For teams that were not part of international competitions in the previous season the calculation went wrong and the numbers are too low, causing the starting rating and board reactions to be exaggerated.
Thanks for reporting guys, I’ll have a look into it.
Some players now are very strict during contract negotiations and that must be the case for your player. The best way to avoid situations such as yours is to have the Negotiations investment area with a high level so that the suggested wage you see when offering a contract is as close as possible to a value the player would accept. There is no 100% guarantee the suggested wage will be enough but in practice I’ve had no issues so far (I’m on level 10, but if you have a bit less you can just offer a bit over the suggested wage and still be safe).
It wouldn’t be fair to revert the situation for you because we have declined to do so for other managers in the past. I’ve lost a player this way myself before the Negotiations area was created. The best course of action in this case is try to sell him as soon as possible.
Cheers
You could say it’s a bug, but it can be explained by the way player ratings currently work. Each player start the match with a rating that is based on your opponent’s quality compared to your team’s quality. If you’re playing an easier opponent, your starting ratings will be lower, if you’re playing a harder opponent your starting ratings will be higher. This is to mimic the fact that more is expected from your players if the opponent is worse than your team and vice-versa.
During the match, all player actions add up to the starting rating. If they tackle an opponent, pass successfully, score goals, their ratings go up, if they commit fouls, get cards, miss a pass, etc, their ratings go down. The final rating is then a result of the starting rating plus the actions the player performed during the match.
We know this is a simplistic way of rating players that ignores the overall player contribution to the match and also ignores the position the player is playing, i.e. an attacker missing a tackle should not be a big deal whereas it is a big deal for a defender to miss it. The final rating should also consider how the player contributed to the final match result. For example, if a player gives his team the victory in the last minute, he should get a big bonus to his rating.
All the changes outlined above are already planned to be done, it is good that you brought this up so we can raise awareness of how this works and what we plan to do about it.
In the past week the focus has been on re-designing the player evolution model. We’ll still have evolution steps as we have today but each step will be tied to a requirement (training, playing official matches, playing first division matches, etc). Your coaching role will change, instead of determining how often players improve it will be used to give you insights about how to continue improving a player or how good a player will become for example.
Stay tuned for more updates!
I believe you’re the first one (or at least the first one to voice it) that has fallen into the trap of allowing multiple players to go into critical. When we changed the behaviour of critical players so that they were not automatically transfer listed we also made them negatively impact the morale of other players. That is fine if you have just few critical players, but once you’ve got a high number others will go into critical much easier in a domino effect.
Looking at the effect now for the first time in practice it feels a bit harsh. In order to prevent this you should have either addressed the morale issue once it appeared or get rid of critical players once their number started to go out of control. I’m not saying you can’t get out of it now, you probably can, but it will require selling/loaning out most of your squad by the looks of it.
The match history for morale does not go away from one season to the next, so it’s not only about 3 out of 4 this season. It all looks fine regarding the calculations, I guess it’s just this piece of information that you were missing :-)
Cheers
I’m not sure I completely agree that players should be Neutral or better when a new season starts. I mean, they could definitely get a morale boost, but they should still “remember” what happened in the previous season and be affected by it. The whole morale thing will get better after we introduce the player roles feature, where the manager can set the expectation of what role the player will have in the squad (key player, future prospect, etc) and the morale will be affected accordingly. My plan is to finish the player evolution re-design and the go for the player roles, if nothing else proves to have a higher priority.
I’ll change the role of coaching to give you feedback and insights into player evolution instead of directly affecting evolution pace. Similarly to the way you request a scout report for a player you will be able to request a coach report for your own players. This will report will contain two basic pieces of information: how far is your player into his evolution and what you should do to help him improve.
We haven’t finalised the design for this coach report just yet and what influence the coaching level will have, if it will influence accuracy and/or the time it takes to generate the report and/or level of detail. In general lines the coach could tell you something like this for a player:
John Doe still has quite a lot to improve. He would benefit from playing in a higher ranked country for some time, we should loan him out.
Thanks guys, appreciate the support! If you “Like” our Facebook page you already now that I’m currently designing the new player evolution model. I had a chat with Danilo today about it and we have most of the idea consolidated.
It’s going to take a while to fully develop it but it is definitely going to be worth it. Managers need to be prepared to see all their existing player skills reduced slightly once the new model is in place. This is required to reduce the number of exceedingly good players and feel the effects of the new model quicker.
Completely agree with you Fabio and I’ve posted my findings and plans in the other topic about Recent Changes. This is not due to players improving without playing (even though this speeds up player improvement for sure), but due to an old change to allow lower ranked countries to generate good players that had a bad impact over the years. This change has been now partially backed out but it would take another few years for us to see it take effect, that’s why we are going to act soon and shake the player evolution model as it is.
Yep, I raised that issue a few months ago and even created a poll to reduce player skills overall, but the majority voted saying it was good as it was, to just fix it long term. This was a result of a change done a long time ago to allow lower ranked countries to eventually generate good players. What happened them is that only these good players “survived”, increasing the number of good players overall.
I’ll tackle this issue pretty soon, I just want to do one more change prior to that related to how mentality and individual tactics affect the player behaviour during the match. Once that is out I’ll address this player skill issue by doing the following:
- players will not reach their maximum potential without playing, the way to reach their maximum potential will be a mix of things unique to the player that may include training, playing official matches, playing abroad, playing in the national squad, playing against better teams, etc
- add variability to the player evolution model…currently all players have a linear evolution and it is relatively easy to determine whether a player has reached his potential. We need different types of players, some that evolve quickly when young and they stop, some that only start evolving when getting older, some that evolve linearly, etc
- enhance coaching and scouting to match the new model
CPU teams will now take in consideration player stamina when deciding the line-up for a match. As I’ve said before we don’t want to make CPU teams too smart but this is a basic feature that they should already be doing. Let’s see if they will now pose more of a challenge, especially the ones in international competitions where stamina management can become an issue.
In the current system a player may unlock 100% of his potential without playing a single match. That is unrealistic and the plan is to change that so each player will unlock a different percentage of his potential by doing different activities, such as training, playing matches, playing abroad, playing in the national squad (maybe), playing international competitions, etc.
A player can get a golden star again at any point, he can even keep his golden star for more than one season if he deserves.
You just gave me an idea regarding home advantage. I think each player could have a different maximum penalty when playing away matches, representing how much he feels the pressure.
We’ve known for some time now that a good keeper is too important in the game and the main reason to me is the number of shots that happen in some matches. Maybe the ball is getting to the goal too quickly? :-)
If we change that aspect of the match engine we need to reduce the keeper importance or maybe add a factor to get him “tired” when defending tricky shots so if you have good attackers even a great keeper will have a hard time being the match hero.
The messages screen has been modified to display the current message on top for mobile devices. On the desktop version messages continue to be displayed on the right hand side. Please let us know if this works better for mobile devices.
Cheers
Loan list screen has been modified to conform with the new user interface design. It’s funny how we keep finding some screens that were not converted. If you see some screen that looks odd (gray background instead of white for example), please report!
The scout search results screen will now display only the player last name instead of the full name. This change aims to better accommodate player names on the screen, for most players. We may still have to do some further adjustments but the screen looks a bit better now than it was before.
@Dimitri:
Champions League follows the same rules as the national leagues, goals difference, goals scored and number of wins.
Alphabetical order?! If that’s what it is we can change that later :-)
@Roberto:
That’s fair enough, we can give it a shot to implement that as first criteria for Spain if that’s what’s used in real life
We use existing skills to determine free kick, corner kick and penalty kick expertise and GKs use the keeping and speed as usual. Penalty kicks line up always go from best shooter to worst. That said, I agree that a player that has good shooting skills during a match is not necessarily a good penalty kick taker and vice-versa and the same applies to GKs defending penalty kicks and free kicks, so we could discuss the introduction of some new skills for that purpose.
Lots of good suggestions indeed! I hope you guys keep them coming, human interaction is what makes this game fun.
It will happen, most likely in bits and pieces instead of all at once.
That is in our list already, I’ll try to implement it sooner rather than later. We had a couple other improvements related to AI but, as you said, they usually have lower priority when compared to features that will have direct impact on the human managers experience. One of them would be to have the AI mimic human manager formations and have more varied tactics, but I was afraid it could make them too strong in some cases.
The list was just a simplification in terms of development effort and user effort to manage the national squad. It made it simpler for us to develop the logic to swap a player in a national squad if you could pick it from a list. What we can do is have an option to include a player in the national squad and, if you select it, present you with the list of players currently in the national squad so you could choose which one to remove.
Morale is already tiered and based on player age. We have 3 different morale tiers, one for the youngest players, one for middle aged players and one for old players. The older the player more demanding they are.
The differences between the tiers are:
-critical percentage: below this number the player morale becomes critical
-bad percentage: below this number the player morale becomes bad
-good percentage: above this number the player morale becomes good
-minimum number of matches before the player morale goes out of neutral
-minimum number of matches before the player morale can go to critical
-negative influence when the player morale is critical
Even within tiers that are small differences to increase the diversity of player behaviour. On top of that, players that are below the current squad quality level receive a small percentage on their morale even without playing, to represent their acknowledgement that they are not quite ready yet. I see two things that could change to further adjust morale, we can either increase this percentage players receive even when not playing or reduce the requirements of the youngest player tier to make it even harder for them to go to critical.
Either way, I don’t want to make it too easy so you don’t even have to think about it but I want to make it closer to reality. I tend to agree that the way it is it is hard to maintain a nice pool of young players for the future without them going to critical. A youth team playing their own competition would solve that ;-)
Thanks for the opinions, guys. Do you know if the current rules are not in line with real life rules for any of the countries? The only rules we have allowed for are things related to what you see in the league table, we have not implemented direct confrontation or number of cards rules at all.
Managers will now receive messages when a player is injured during a match.
Thanks for the suggestion, Roberto! We have the ability to have different tie break rules for each country so we could mimic real life rules. At the moment all countries (except Brazil) follow this rule: goals difference, goals for, number of wins. Brazil has number of wins as first criterion, as in real life.
We are still uncertain on how much we should follow real life rules and try to keep up with them and how much we should have our own global rules to make all countries balanced. Currently I’m leaning towards having our own global rules. I know some leagues in real life have direct matches as their first criterion to break ties, and it definitely sounds more exciting.
Let’s see if anyone else would like to voice their opinions about this topic.
The board expectations logic has been fixed so that the calculated number your team is measured against aligns with the expectation the board tells you. During the last season tick I had to re-generate expectations to manually fix it, next season tick will have it calculated correctly without need for manual intervention.
When you successfully get players out of Critical we basically “reset” their morale, meaning they will start the match count again as if they have just joined your team.
Makes sense, added to the list.
Thanks!
I probably did for that one, any other players to watch?