Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,177 posts(s) found
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
I think I’ll add a morale rating column with a % to give more detailed information to managers on morale, along with some other changes for the last trial phase. That will be quicker than catering for additional statuses as you suggested, Joseppi. Not saying we’re not going to do it in the future, I just want to simplify the initial design so we can deliver it quickly.
@Sniff: we’ll introduce the squad status thing in a later stage, but it’s definitely a great idea. Morale is not really linear, we have three different stages based on player age, within those stages it is somewhat linear, but the percentage of matches played demanded is very different between different stages.
@Dr. Gullit: agreed, I’ll wait a few more days and inroduce additional changes for a 3rd and final trial
That’s because they evaluate the last x matches, starting from when I last reset morale (or from when you or they joined your team, whatever is later) and up to a pre-determined number of matches, but they only change morale for the first time after 3-5 matches, so even if you played them in the last match it could mean they played 1 out of 5 which would give them a 20% match participation ration that could take their morale to bad level depending on their profiles.
Glad to see this back to life after trial phase 2 started. First of all let me reinforce that nobody is at risk of losing their players during the trial, they will still renew their contracts even if they are at Critical morale level and I doubt anyone will pay the transfer price currently being set. That said I’ll give my directed responses as usual:
@midcheshire: don’t worry about losing players just yet, we will announce when morale is there for real and reset the values once again. Regarding friendlies…no, they don’t count for morale.
@Joseppi: from a starting point (when morale is reset or a player joins a new team for example) it takes between 3 and 5 matches for the player to first evaluate his match participation and his morale to move accordingly to Good or Bad and it takes between 7 to 12 matches for the player morale to go to Critical if he has not played enough in that period. From that point onwards each match will be included in the calculations and the morale may change after every match. Remember this is done as “percentage of last x matches that I’ve played”.
@Filipe: took the words from my mouth…or from my fingers in this case
@Northstar: as I’ve pointed out in a different topic and poll, there are too many good players so I think most teams end up hiring instead of loaning. I’ve changed the player generation process to rectify this, but it will take some time to see the results as existing players start to age. CPU teams may loan some good players but then we may have another issue related to how they evaluate if a player is good for their squads…this is going to improved soon.
Is this second phase of the trial any better? I feel I’m able to control morale a bit better…I still have 2 critical players that I wish were not critical but that’s because I didn’t setup my team properly over the weekend and used my default formation in most matches. I still have to field some really unskilled players from time to time so that they won’t go to critical, but that should be ok.
I have some additional ideas to put in place (apart from what has been suggested already) but I want to have further feedback before either starting the morale for real or starting a trial phase 3.
Morale is still under trial, that’s the only reason why the players accept renewals and the transfer prices are silly. Once we are happy with the parameters and the trial is over the transfer prices will be what you see now divided by 10 and the players will NOT renew contract. You’re right, that’s the whole purpose of the thing :-)
@Davison: the last couple years don’t count, we did virtually nothing on them
@Sniff: this is a result of the poor way in which the board evaluates your squad in comparison to the others. In your case your team seems to be highly rated by the board, as a result every victory gives you a little bit and every draw/loss takes a lot, making it too hard to recover from a bad board rating. What I’ll do is I’ll bring forward the task to review the way squad quality is calculated and see if that improves the expectation and performance calculations. If it does not or is not enough I’ll bring forward the task to revisit the way the board evaluates the performance until we get it right.
Thanks for the feedback guys.
As I usually say, the rules are the same for all so you’re not the only one losing players. That’s not to say the rules are good as they are, it’s just to reiterate that nobody is being treated unfairly. The reason to introduce such change was to make contract negotiations something to give some thought about instead of simply offering any wage to start with and wait for the player to reply. There is no fun in that at all and it is also unrealistic as the players had very little say in the process. Now if you give him something that he consider far from his expectations he will have a say.
Morale was introduced as a trial exactly for this reason, so it doesn’t negatively impact anyone while it’s being tested. Unfortunately RubySoccer is not our real work at the moment so we cannot invest as much time as we’d like to thoroughly test all new features. We rely on live tests more often than not.
A new investment area has been added: Negotiations. This area of the club will provide you advice on how much to offer a player you are negotiating with. The highest the level more accurate the suggestion. All clubs have the maximum level on this area to start with so they can experience the full benefits of it. Next season you will be able to decide how much to invest in this area as you do for all others. Hopefully this will mitigate some of the negative impacts of the enhance player negotiations.
You will see the suggested wage when offering a contract to a player and the wage field will come pre-populated with the suggestion (except when you are looking at an existing negotiation, in which case it will come populated either with your own offer or with the player’s counter offer as usual). I am yet to add the suggested wage to the mobile version of the contract offer screen.
Wrong topic but I can reply anyway. 3k increase is too little, just have a look at similar players and it will give you a reasonable clue. I’m already working on a new investment area that will suggest a wage in the contract offer screen so you have a starting point.
The parameters for morale calculation have been relaxed a bit and morale has been reset for all players. It was clear from the discussions in the forums and from personal experience that players were being too demanding. I have not yet done any of the suggested enhancements to the system apart from changing existing parameters, let’s see how this works out first and move on from there. Oh, and this is still a trial so you won’t lose your players due to morale just yet.
Let’s see if you need extra levels once I change the parameters and reset the morale, I’m thinking it will be easier to manage. And we are definitely going to add the expectations thing when negotiating with a player, that makes a lot of sense! But that will come in a future enhancement, for now I just want to introduce the system in a manageable but interesting enough way ;-)
I’ll introduce the Negotiations investment area soon to provide advice on how much to offer a player during contract negotiations. Keep an eye on the announcements in the next few days.
Stars and relative quality are not taken into account yet. When you are on holiday morale will still be calculated the same way so you will have to plan ahead your squad rotation or ask someone else to babysit your team (as long as you let me know in advance). Loaned out players will still have their morale calculated based on the matches they are playing or missing in their loan team and when they’re back the calculations will continue on the owning team as usual, seamlessly.
In the first few years as a professional the player expectations will be lower. They already are in fact but certainly higher than they should be. I’ll do some changes and a reset on morale soon.
Even though most of you haven’t replied directly to my questions this is great feedback! I’m working on something else and once I’m done I will reset the morale trial with less demanding parameters so we can re-evaluate. I’ll also add some of the feedback below to the planned enhancements to the morale system. Individual replies:
@Samir: good point on stamina, this is not currently taken in consideration
@Joseppi: not sure if we want to wait that long to evaluate morale, I prefer the every match evaluation especially on MediumTicker where a season takes 48 “real” days
@Rui: the first time the player alerts he’s in bad morale he should get back to neutral by playing a single match, that was one of the things I considered in the calculations. If we adjust the numbers though I won’t guarantee that will be the case. To give you a real example, let’s say the player tells you after one match that he is in bad morale and his profile requires 50% of match participation to be in neutral. If you play him in the next match he’ll go back to neutral, but then if you don’t play him in the following one he’ll go back to bad. This is the most extreme example we have at the moment. Restoring critical morale is much harder as the rule is he needs to play at a good morale level just to be back to neutral. Example, let’s say a player is in critical morale after not playing 5 matches and he requires to play 66% of matches to be in good morale. You will need to play him in 10 matches in a row (so he will play 10 out of 15) to get him out of critical and back to neutral. When that happens, the morale is basically reset meaning the history is lost and starts the counter again.
@Sniff: we ddin’t want to pollute the main player skills tab even more, that’s why I’ve added a morale tab. Maybe if we color code the player name itself in the player skills tab it would help?
@Davison: 1) agreed 2) what do you mean by that? 3) we can certainly factor in the match result to simulate the fact that the player realizes he’s not ready yet to be playing if he is losing too much when on field
@Northstar: hopefully we won’t get to that, certainly not during the trial. Once we reduce the demands and restart the trail we can re-evaluate, but we don’t want that scenario to happen!
@Dr. Gullit: they already have a less demanding profile but I agree we need to make all profiles even less demanding. Injuries and suspensions are already taken into account and morale is not reduced if the player was ineligible for a match.
I agree it is too hard so we can tweak it a bit, reset morale and continue the trial. I’m open for suggestions on the following (assume I’m asking about an experienced player, 30+ years old):
1) How many matches should the player wait initially before evaluating his match history and switching morale to either good or bad? This setting is currently 1, 2 or 3 depending on profile.
2) How many matches should the player wait initially before evaluating his match history and switching morale to critical if he hasn’t been playing enough? This setting is currently between 5 and 10.
3) What is the percentage of matches that would make the player morale good? Most demanding players have this set to 66% at the moment, needs to play 2 out of 3 matches on average
4) What is the percentage of matches that would make the player morale bad? Most demanding players have this set to 50%, 1 out of 2 matches on average
5) What is the percentage of matches that would make the player morale critical? Most demanding players have this set to 33%, 1 out of 3 matches on average
@Davison: we’l’l continue breaking it further until we get it right, that’s why I’ve come up with the trial for morale
Contract Negotiations
With 96% of manager participation in the poll, here are the results:
11% – I think players should not have a say, change it back to what it was
25% – Keep the system but change it a little bit, players are being too harsh
26% – Add a Negotiations investment area to advise the salary that should be offered to a player
30% – Don’t change anything just yet, let’s experiment a bit more
8% – No answer
So you can see that 81% of the managers want the system in, at least for now, but the majority of those would like to either tweak it down so players are not too harsh or enhance it via the Negotiations investment area. For now we’ll please the 30% that would like to experiment a bit more and our preference is to add the Negotiations investment area (as is for 26% of the managers) so if opinions don’t change when we get to develop it that’s the approach we are going to use.
Thanks!
The player is transfer listed as per the board decision so he does not disrupt the mood of the whole team. Currently there is no actual disruption, but this is to simbolize that. In a future enhancement of the morale system we may stop the automatic transfer list and cause some actual disruption instead so it would be in your best interest to actually transfer list the player instead of just leaving him there.
Regarding the silly prices they are there just for the trial period. When the changes are in for real it would be a tenth of what you see now, which is actually affordable by the biggest teams at the moment. You can always change the price to be lower than that limit if you really want to get rid of the player.