Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,164 posts(s) found
Well, let me give you a practical example. Let’s say based solely on your squad quality evaluation (which is very poorly calculated sometimes) the board would tell you to finish middle in table, but in the prior season you happen to have qualified for Champions League by finishing in third place, so instead of telling you to finish middle in table this season the board may now maybe tell you to qualify for Europa League. They still want you to over perform (in terms of squad quality), but not necessarily as much as you previously did.
Question from Sniff:
“With regard to team quality calculations, what will happen if a team over performs the season before the calculations come into effect? Will this then make the board too harsh on a team that has over-performed, as in all likelihood they won’t be able to repeat their level of performance? I don’t have a solution, but possibly something to think about in the implementation.”
It will definitely have an impact, but if you think about it, it is not unrealistic. Once the board sees you’re capable of over performing they will expect that from you again. The other way around is also true, if you under performed they will ease their expectations in the following season. Also, if you over performed your performance will be high enough to survive the higher expectations in the following season.
CPU teams will stop loaning players too close to season end and will not start loaning again until after investments are updated for the new season. This will ensure they don’t loan players during a period where they will not use them and also ensure they don’t loan players just to have them returned because of reduced coaching level.
Team quality calculation will change next season. In the current system the team quality is solely based on the quality of the players in the team and that is then used to determine board expectations, manager performance increase/decrease and a few other things. If we look at the results versus expectations it is clear the existing method is not good enough in a lot of cases. That’s why starting next season the team quality will be competition based and include the previous season’s performance in each competition in addition to the quality of players. This should provide more realistic expectations and manager performance ratings.
@Charles: no, it doesn’t
Fixed! Morale related screw up on my part, still needs permanent fixing, let’s hope it doesn’t happen again before I have time to investigate and fix it properly :-(
I’ve found that with my youngest non-youth players all they needed so far is to play 2-3 matches (out of 20+) so far to stay in Neutral. Of course that number can be different for each team and it should be easier to manage morale of players who have lower skills when compared to the calculated main squad skill.
We have a big change coming, but that will take a little longer to be ready. In the meantime we are improving the way the team quality is perceived to be competition specific. This will affect the board expectations, manager performance rating changes and team/manager ranking points. The goal is to have more realistic goals and match results effects. The new system will try to learn from the team’s previous participations in each competition and balance that with the current squad quality to provide a better result.
We are partially ready for allowing the ticket price change, the field exists in the database for all teams but it is currently set as 10 for everyone. What we need to do to enable this is implement some logic to reduce the attendance for higher ticket prices and vice-versa. The attendance then needs to have an effect on the team peformance to balance things out I believe.
I like your suggestion of allowing the manager to decide how many tickets should be available for the visitor team fans, but increasing the number of tickets available for visitores must also decrease the performance penalty received by the visitor team during the match.
I’ll add both these things to our task list.
The main driver for attendance in the league is your current position, for the other competitions attendance gets higher the further you get. We can definitely improve (and we will) on attendance calculation and ticket pricing by introducing more variables such as club fan base, derby matches, etc. At the moment the variables are match importance (mainly), team quality, opponent quality.
The ticket price has not changed since the beginning of time, it has always been 10 per seat except on cup finals when it can go as high as 40 per seat in the Club World Cup.
1) I was thinking about that when trying to manage my players’ morale as well :-D
2) CPU teams had been artificially assigned coaching level 10 for a long time but that’s been changed. The new minimum level for them is 5 but of course they can go beyond that by spending their own investment points. That said, I don’t think many of them have coaching level 10 anymore so I suggest you try reducing your coaching requirements.
Retiring players are not affected by morale. The idea is that they are not looking to change clubs in their last year as a football player so their rating will remain as 0% and they will never go out of Neutral.
I’m not doing it as my next task, I’ll keep an eye on this topic and hopefully the discussion will have progressed further when it’s time for us to decide what to do, if anything. I tend to agree with your view Joseppi, I think the way things are it’s an additional challenge and actually adds something that could go wrong during contract negotiations where in the past it was a straightforward process. The Negotiations department is there for those who few it’s too hard to estimate a safe wage, as long as you have a high enough level you will be on the safe side most of the time just by following the suggested wage, if you have a low level the suggested wage will be occasionally too high or too low.
So the change I’ve proposed would make it better I suppose? That is, the player always comes up with his offer first and if you reduce it too much for his liking or keep failing to reach his expectations he then could decide to cancel negotiations with you. What do you say?
If the player always replied to your first offer there would be no challenge at all, as you would know how much he wanted. It would only make sense if the player rejected your offer but didn’t tell you how much he wanted, then you have to do a second guess. Even then, much less challenging than it is now. Another option is to completely change the negotiation process and make players first tell you how much they want, with an inflated value and then have the manager decide to either accept that or try his luck in offering less.
Northstar, are you sure it was what the player asked for or was it what your negotiations department suggested? If it was your first offer to the player there is no such thing as what the player asked for, the only information you have is how much he currently earns and a suggestion from your negotiations department, which may or may not be good enough (the higher your level the better the suggestion). Once the player rejects your initial offer and reply with a value then yes, the value you see in the wage field is what the player is asking for.
There is no need to lose patience, let’s investigate if this is really a bug or not. I don’t understand why people are so pissed off for losing players or why managers are trying to aim so low in the wage offers. Since I’ve introduced this change I’ve been trying to offer higher wages than usual and it has worked so far, I only lost one player. With the negotiations department I don’t even worry about it any more because I kept it at level 8 which I’m hoping will be good enough for the vast majority of the players.
Feel free to send me an in-game message if you prefer to discuss there.
Cheers
That rating is really the percentage of last x matches played. Since the last morale reset there has been no matches played, so it should really say N/A or something like that. The rating is not linear so Neutral will not necessarily be 50%, in fact 50% will be Good in most cases.
Completely agree. I’ll change it so CPU teams don’t loan players between the season end and the turn were investments are defined, it’s just silly.
Injuries are now a bit more likely during matches and the average length of injuries has been increased. It was too easy to manage injuries and most managers didn’t even bother having a high level in physiotherapy, hopefully this will raise the importance of this area. In the future we are going to introduce training injuries, meaning players may get injured even without playing a match.
In addition to that we have also decreased the amount of time the board may override your decision to sell a player or let him go for free from 3 to 1 season after joining the club.
We acknowledge the game lacks a proper guide or manual for newbies. Once we catch up with the list of features we missed in the past couple years (more or less) we’ll have to do something about it so RubySoccer can attract and retain new users. The in-game help was a small step in that direction, but of course it is not complete yet.
Back to morale…yes, I’m anxious too! I didn’t remove the players from TL because I thought managers would do it themselves. And Dirk’s reply to Fabio’s question is spot on.
Morale effects are now for real! The trial is over and morale has been reset for all players. Here is what changed since the last reset:
- Critical morale players will not renew contract
- Critical morale players will be transfer listed by a price that is between 7 and 10 times their estimated values
- Maximum number of players in a team has been increased from 30 to 40
- It is a bit easier to go out of critical morale now, you only have to take the player back to what would be a Neutral level for him instead of Good as it was previously
Cheers
All good. Schedule has changed a bit, if people think it’s a big deal I can delay the ticks to get them as they were before.
Cheers
It’s been a while since my changes broke stuff. Here we are again :-)
Easy fix but I need to get to work first…give it another hour or two.
We now have a revised way to calculate the player overall quality and the team overall quality. Every season the formula for player quality will get updated based on what real managers consider a good player. The result will be a better relative estimated value and wage calculation and improved CPU buy/sell behaviour. The team quality calculation will benefit from this revised player quality calculation, but it has also been improved in itself in order to assist the board expectations calculations and manager performance evaluation. There is an additional task in our short term plans to further improve the way manager performance and expectations are managed, but the changes included today are an important step in that direction.
Ah, no need to get rid of him, I see he is being sold :-)
But I take your point and I agree with you, we need to relax these restrictions and build proper tools to investigate suspicious situations. We have something in place but it’s become obsolete now but rebuilding it is one of the key things in our list in order to be able to handle and attract more users.
This was a kind of anti-cheat measure, to prevent managers from letting good players go on purpose. The issue that needs to be fixed here is the calculation that makes this player be considered good for your team when you don’t consider him to be. Another issue is to have proper anti-cheat tools to investigate each scenario rather than block manager actions such as yours that are not cheating related. For the moment I’ll get rid of that player for you, alright?
Morale has been reset and the third and (hopefully) final phase of the morale trial has begun! Stamina and relative player skill will be taken into consideration when players don’t play a match and give a small increase to the rating instead of zero contribution. This shouldn’t make much difference for older players but will definitely help managing younger players morale, even though they will still have to play every now and then.
If this proves to be the last trial what I’ll do once it is over is reset the morale once again, reduce the transfer multiplier for critical morale players to what we originally intended (the price you see now divided by 10), change the contract renewal process so critical morale players will not accept renewal offers and finally increase the maximum numbers of players in a team to 40. This last one has been requested for a while, not so sure managers will be so eager to have that many players now that morale is in place ;-)
Cheers
We did not give this options because the scout reports belong to the team, not to the manager.
Small improvements to the players morale screen:
-fixed sorting
-included morale rating column