Recent Posts
18,535 posts(s) found
Since it’s a favourable change I reckon it should cost at least 5 rubies per player. Then you shouldn’t be allowed to change it again for at least a season.
I’d like other managers opinions on the matter too.
I have no issues with that…how much do you reckon it should cost?
Hi, I was wondering what your thoughts would be on spending gems on changing a players position. For example:
AMR could be turned into either AMC or AML
DR could be DC or DL.
Might be a good way to get people to buy more :) plus I would like to swap some of my team around haha
Man, I’ve seen many others far worse than you :-)
Plus I was with you in Croatia for a couple seasons when you were starting to have consistent performances in CL, but we never really stood a chance against the big clubs. Anyway, I’m sure other managers would have plenty of tips to offers!
That would be me.
L L L L L L
Liverpool
Don’t rush it! It needs to be properly done…plus I have done nothing during the long weekend (public holiday here in Aussie on Monday) :-)
I have pretty much done the logic that determines when the player and club will accept a forced transfer, now I need to put all the boring restrictions around it.
Gabriel, any updates status?
Sorry to keep bothering about this, but wanted to following up now that family members are also being used for “joint bidding” :-(
I also sent PSV manager a congratulations, a great performance!
Belgium are definitely coming, in a few seasons they will be a force to be reckoned with !
With the flock of managers moving from Paraguay to Belgium it was only a matter of time…well done! I’ve personally sent Dimitri a congratulatory message for the perfect season PSV had, outstanding achievement that brought him to the first place in the manager ranking.
Should I add Luxembourg to complete the Benelux gang? :-p
Netherlands and Belgium are the latest champions in Europe (Fast Ticker)
2nd CL title for Netherlands, 1st ever international title for Belgium :-)
Haha Fabio you are correct! The genuine managers would put it to good use.
I like the idea Joseppi! This is now in our TO-DO list ;-)
All players sold by Brazilian managers would be described as the next Neymar :-)
During the season tick the RubySoccer Football Federation will elect the World Team of the Season, picking the 11 best players from all over the world. The best player among those 11 will also be given a special Player of the Season award. The election criteria is a mix of player match performance and the one used to give stars to players, mostly relying on consistent good match performances.
The World Team of the Season will be displayed in the Hall of Fame screen (accessible from the Dimension menu) in a new tab called Players.
Hi, I think it would be a good feature to be able to write a few lines on a transfer listed player.
Like if I had a young player for transfer I could put in that my scouts reckon he will get to 100 shooting etc, obviously this isn’t set in stone and managers must might not always tell the truth.
Even if I listed a player for 50million I would be able to write wether I’m happy to negotiate or looking for a quick sell.
What’s people’s opinions on this?
There’s plenty of money in the game, I don’t think a cap should be put on. Although I don’t usually give out massive wages.
Some players are asking for high wages currently. Some of them are even asking for absurd wages imo. Should there be a limit to it, and if so, what? 200k, 250k, 300k?
I agree Fabio, it would have to be a situation where the money offered would make a lot of difference to the club, so having a lot of money would also work as a “defense” against this kind of offer. I’m also thinking that of changing scenario “a” above (where the player and the board are satisfied with the offer), instead of automatically transfer listing the player the offer becomes a pre-contract with the player and he’ll be transfer listed when the contract is almost ending (maybe 12 turns before), so that the manager losing the player has some time to plan for a replacement if needed (especially important for goalkeepers). During this pre-contract period the offer cannot be withdrawn, the player contract cannot be renewed, other teams cannot bid for the player and the owner can decide to transfer list him earlier (for the price of the pre-contract offer, of course).
It would then be very similar to the way it is today, where you can still make a player from a managed team critical but he is not immediately transfer listed, just won’t renew contract. We need to be very clear about the rules, maybe a message on the offer screen when you’re trying to buy a non-listed player.
I think this would be a great improvement!
One thing to think hard about is that chance of acquiring a player that belongs to another human manager. This part is very debatable and would need to be done very carefully, with a lot of buy in from the community of managers….
Values entered into transfer price and wage fields are now properly formatted as you type. For example, if you type 12000000 you will actually see 12,000,000 on the screen. This should help avoid mistakes of entering one less or one extra 0.
I agree with you Fabio and my idea of how to change this is more aligned with option 1. I believe the status system is not adding much value at the moment and I’m considering replacing it completely with the player priority system just introduced. It is still one-dimensional but easily extensible in the future to allow players with multiple priorities if need be. In summary my draft proposal is:
1) Purge the player status system as it is
2) Limit the number of non-listed offers you can make in a given period
3) When you make an offer to a non-listed player, your offer is weighed individually against the player current situation in terms of wage and priority
4) The transfer amount of your offer is evaluated by the team’s board taking into account the club’s financial situation
There can be four outcomes:
a) Your offer satisfies the player (much better compared to his current wage and priority) and the board (the amount of transfer money will make the board happy): in this case the player the player goes to “critical” and is automatically transfer listed by the amount you offered, even for human managed teams. You cannot change your offer and other teams cannot make an offer.
b) Your offer satisfies the player, but not the board: CPU teams will renew the player’s contract, human managed teams will be alerted the player wants to renew or be transfer listed and will have x number of turns to action it, if they don’t the player won’t renew anymore and will either have to be sold or let go by the end of his contract
c) Your offer satisfies the board, but not the player: for CPU teams nothing will happen, for human managed teams the manager will be advised to transfer the player by the board, if he doesn’t action it in x turns his manager performance will be reduced by a given % amount, but nothing else will happen
d) Your offer does not satisfy the board nor the player: for CPU teams your offer will be rejected and for human managed teams it will just stay there for the manager’s knowledge, but will have no other effect
This is just a draft idea and needs deeper analysis and explanation. In addition to addressing the “friends bidding together” issue we want to make it possible for more managers to “steal” players by themselves, but without making it too easy. Happy to receive feedback, as always!
Don’t be afraid to inbox some managers for tips too! Im always happy to help.
I agree with Fabio, the game is very good now and if I offer big money for a player it usually gets accepted.
Keep up the good work.
It is starting to get annoying the number of transactions in which friends team up to bid for a player, making the player’s morale critical and sending him to the TL. I do not see much difference between this and creating 2 accounts to sell players from one to the other…
The higher price asked by CPU is a mitigating factor but is far from enough.
1) How about changing the rule so that the number of bids would not add up? What would matter for the player to decide to be transfer listed would be only the “highest” bid (not in amount, but in importance).
2) Or perhaps a tougher punishment on players from human managers with critical morale: if a human-managed player has a critical morale due to bids for other players, he goes straight to the TL, and morale would not change for 4 ticks unless the bid(s) is (are) withdrawn. Then the manager helping out a friend would have a lot at stake…
3) Last suggestion – which I do not like, but would be a mitigating factor – is unifying the transfer lists. At least then newly listed players would be out in the open for everyone to see. I do not like this because (i) it is the least effective, and (ii) it would make the game easier (managers that want to excel should be able to differentiate themselves by putting extra effort, such as by going from TL to TL)…
Thanks Fabio for your nice words! I agree with most of what you’ve said and I’d like to add that we understand there are still some challenges for newcomers and especially for those not quite there yet. I’ve seen some decent managers trying hard to be part of the elite in some leagues and not being able to do so. Of course, this is part of the challenge and fun, but our job is to make sure the opportunities are there for them to grow and get there and not just keep being frustrated. On the other hand, it’s a real treat when I see someone who had some tough seasons in smaller leagues against CPU teams and now is able to compete internationally at the same level as the big clubs!
Too long, didn’t read: thanks for your words, if you’re reading this and you’re new or frustrated for not being a top manager yet don’t worry, we are planning ways to improve the game experience for you ;-)
Taking a look at the game and remembering how it was before, I just wanted to leave my congrats to Gabriel and Danilo for the significant improvement over the past months:
- There is no “one dominant team”. Winners of national league and international cups are, in most cases, changing from one season to the other. This shows a high level of competitiveness has been reached
- Transfer lists are lively. There are plenty of good players being sold (although prices are high) and money has become useful again. Unlike in the past, however, there are not too many good players lying around – it is just necessary for clubs to buy and sell players
- Small clubs have a chance. While it is unrealistic to think one will win an international cup within 5 or less seasons in a club, uprising teams have a shot of building reasonably decent squads fast enough so they challenge the more established ones
There is still plenty to do and is nice to see that GC/DC have been adding new features almost on a weekly basis, but wanted to leave this encouragement note here for now :-)
CPU teams will ask for higher values when transfer listing a player whose status became critical. This is the first of a series of initiatives that we know need to be done to make CPU teams a bit less dumb. We still want them to “help” managed teams a little bit, but their lack of planning is not good for the health of the game overall.
You can now postpone the retirement of your players using rubies by clicking the new icon beside the retirement icon in the player info screen. The cost increases the closer the player is to 40 years old: 1 ruby if he’s 36, 2 rubies if he’s 37, 3 rubies if he’s 38 and 4 rubies if he is 39. You cannot postpone the retirement when he is 40 years old.
When you postpone the retirement you are guaranteed the player will not retire at the end of the current season. During the next season tick, normal rules will apply in determining whether the player will announce his retirement again, if you’re lucky he may not do it. As usual the chances of announcing retirement are higher the closest the player is to 40 years old.
Newly generated goalkeepers will have 30% more training evolution steps on average than existing goalkeepers. We didn’t change the overall number of times a player can improve so that means that GKs will have less steps requiring them to play matches as a result. As things current stand it is difficult in many occasions to fully develop a GK without compromising some of your official matches, this change is hopefully assist in addressing that in a few seasons.
Happened again last match
While I keep on winning, please don’t correct the issue :-)
I’ve seen worse before (and I have a bug recorded to investigate) where a player played a national squad match without even being from that squad’s country :-(
Thanks for reporting anyway, I’ll add this on top of the existing bug so it’s clear the issue is not only about different nationalities.