Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,177 posts(s) found
Really nice work, Will. Hopefully after the economy changes we’ll be able to add some of the countries you’ve already sent me. We’ll see how AI teams adapt to the changes.
The explanation (hopefully) is that the missing players have retired at the end of the season. When they do their related data is completely removed from the game. I know, it’s stupid for history purposes, but it was the safest approach when we did it. The fact the formations used all add up to 11 is a good sign that they really used 11 players at the time of the match.
Yes, it is! I hope it continues to be relevant until we have all countries in the game ;-)
Will, I’ve sent you an in-game message to discuss this.
Thanks!
The new thing will hopefully start in 1 or 2 seasons. The foundations are ready but the impact on the existing transfer system and stadium effects are yet to be implemented. Also the logic to instantly convert from the current model to the new one needs to be finalised.
We are still to decide what happens with the current money. The most likely scenario is use it for the instant conversion to the new model to decide the investment levels for the current season, this way teams that have excellent financial situation will have a better start. Of course this will only matter for the season when the change happens, in the following seasons the manager will have flexibility to adjust the investment levels based on his prior season performance.
A lot will change on these aspects after the economy changes are done. Club money for instance will cease to exist as it is today. It will be replaced by a transfer budget (that will be increased on season start based on stadium level, replacing ticket income) and a wage limit. Every investment area in the club will be managed by levels from 0 to 10 at season start and restricted by the team’s performance during the prior season.
Assuming this will be a successful change it shouldn’t be hard to include other investment areas in the future (such as youth academy) or change / improve the behaviour of existing ones (such as scouting / physiotherapy / coaching).
No, this one in particular should be very simple. I’ll discuss it with Danilo.
We don’t mind having paid upgrades as long as they are not something that give such an advantage that non-paying users have no chance of success. This is an example that would not have an impact of this kind, so we could make it happen in the future.
Just had a look at your matches and main formation, I can’t see anything wrong. The only situation where it should fail is if the player was unavailable (red card or injured), otherwise the sub should happen. I’ll have a look in the code later, see if I can find anything wrong when dealing with position MC1, but I’d be surprised to find an error that specific!
Interesting point, maybe we can consider a way to “tell” the board you are doing a long term work as you said Dimitri. I don’t think it can be too loose like a 3 season grace period as Charles mentioned, but it could make the board take it easier on your initially bad results :)
Performance: I understand what you’re saying, when you play most of the season against weaker teams it’s much harder to get your ratings up as any loss or draw, any early elimination or position below expectation in the league would drop your performance considerably. Maybe after finishing the economy changes we can rethink the manager performance evaluation process.
Retiring players: completely agree. That should be easier to change :)
Cheers
Oi Henrique,
Na verdade o Robert Junior vendeu esse jogador ao Rampla Junios, que na época não tinha treinador.
Abraço
========
Just clarifying that the player mentioned was sold, not bought, by Robert Junior.
It’s being worked on. I’m finalizing the new concepts and will discuss them with Danilo. The initial idea is that there will be no concept of money balance any more, the board will provide a transfer budget and total wages cap. The level of coaching, scouting, physio and stadium as well as the level of transfer budget, wages cap will be determined on season start based on past season performance and country ranking. The manager will have to decide which of those areas to improve or worsen. Oh, and there is also a level of return on players sold, which is a % of money earned selling players that will be added to the transfer budget.
The stadium will have a different role. The level of stadium will determine the amount of pressure on opponents (currently it’s always -3 on all attributes except for players 31 years old and above) and will provide a bonus for the transfer budget.
Player values and wages formulas will be updated and adjusted according to the new model. The estimated prices won’t be dynamic any more but will always follow the same formula. Managers will continue to be able to decide the transfer price for a player.
I guess that’s it for now. As I said, it’s still being finalized and is subject to changes, but I’m looking forward to putting it in place :-)
Cheers
Yeah, the ratings don’t always reflect the player abilities…especially cause it also depends on how he’s being used in the squad (position, strategies, etc).
You’re right, in MS you could hire your staff like players and we may eventually do that in RS, but we need to focus on the other changes first. I like the training schedule idea and I believe that this idea with some other changes to player development should help us get rid of playing lots of friendlies during the season.
I’m more and more inclined of getting rid of estimated value, even though once it’s adjusted could server as a starting point. My idea is to still let the managers set the transfer price to whatever they want, but given the new transfer budget to be introduced there is no point in setting it too high as even rich teams may not be allowed to spend what the selling manager is asking. Bottom line is, if you are unreasonable in your prices you will not be selling.
From the new attributes you mentioned for the players I believe morale is the top priority, and that would certainly influence the willingness to renew the contract and match performance.
Cheers
Thanks for the input guys. Here are my comments:
@Charles: I’m not sure it will reduce the gap between rich and poor teams, the idea is that a poor team will initially have lower budget and cap and not so good facilities, but if they have a good season they will have better conditions in the following season and so on. What will be better in the following season will be the manager’s choice. My idea is that at season start the board will give you some “points” to spend if you did well, and you can decide where to put those (higher transfer budget, better facilities, better youths, etc).
@Welington: the decisions will be based on current team status + last season performance, so it will be incremental (or decremental), not a hard reset every season. I like the idea of having a manager goal for the season, if the manager aims higher the board can give him more resources (but also penalize him harder if he fails) and the opposite if he aims lower. Staff market was my initial idea before having the departments, but then we moved away from that…we’ll probably keep things as they are initially, if we go ahead with these economy changes (too many things changing already). Regarding players contract I agree with you, but again we may implement economy changes first and leave that for when everybody is familiar with the new model.
I’m thinking with this new model the player’s estimated value doesn’t matter any more…you (and everyone else) will have a transfer budget and it’s up to you to decide how much you want to pay for a player and how much you think others are willing to pay.
Cheers
I have been thinking about some drastic changes in the economy. We all know how hard it is to balance the money in any kind of game and the focus of RubySoccer is not (or should not) be the economy. That said, my idea was to get rid of the concept of money balance altogether and have the board of each team define the season budget for transfers and total wage cap. These 2 numbers would be based on performance, achieving goals (we could add new goals other than final result on competitions), managing the money well, etc. When you sell a player a % of the value would be added to your transfer budget. This % could also be variable and defined by the board on season start.
We could also have more complex team departments or investment areas. For example, let’s say we have levels for coaching, scouting, physio, youth academy and stadium. These levels would not be controlled the way they are now (where you can increase or decrease at any time), instead they would be fixed for the whole season and the board could give you extra points to spend on whatever you want on season start (depending on your performance in the previous season). For example, let’s say you had a good season and the board gives you 3 points to spend. You could then improve your coaching department 3 levels…or maybe 1 level for your stadium, 1 for physio and 1 for youth academy.
There is still a lot to think about and discuss between us, but basically my idea is to give more control of the economy to the board and let the manager use whatever the board provides to manage the team and focus on squad management, investment decision and budget management.
What do you think? Have I gone too far? :-D
Cheers
I suppose it was bad luck on the random factor. Team performance was clearly not a problem and I doubt player quality would have a huge influence in reducing the attendance.
Reverted last change on players wages, we’ll now focus on applying fundamental changes to the economy model at once rather than trying to remedy the current unbalance beforehand using such measures. We have a suggestions topic open in the forums if you wish to have your say: http://www.rubysoccer.com/forums/3/topics/2226
Cheers
Thanks a lot for the feedback guys. I appreciate you’ve taken the time to write such long opinions and suggestions. The rationale behind the change was charge more from rich teams, but not from average or poor teams. I knew from the beginning it wasn’t going to be the solution to the economy problems and definitely not a very popular change.
I was hoping to gradually reduce the amount of money available so that when we implemented more fundamental changes to the economy things would not be that unbalanced anymore. Now I see we will have to rely on a hard reset on bank accounts when the time comes. I liked some of the suggestions in this topic and I’ve also had some new ideas.
If you have more, keep them coming: http://www.rubysoccer.com/forums/3/topics/2226
Cheers
Yes, being worked on and always open to suggestions ;-)
I’ve just added some clarifications here: http://www.rubysoccer.com/forums/5/topics/330?page=14
I’ve just added some clarifications here: http://www.rubysoccer.com/forums/5/topics/330?page=14
It’s good to see a lot of discussion around the new change, I already expected that :-)
I don’t want to explain too much but the way I’ve tried to do it shouldn’t make it harder for small teams to hire their youths, but it could make it harder to compete when hiring players. The players will not always try to double their salaries…they should be smarter now, ask for money when they “think” they can. If in the future we introduce other expenses for example they be should smart enough to not ask that much money because now the team may not be able to match it.
Hope this clarifies things a little bit…if in the end we see it’s not a good change we can always go back ;-)
Cheers
Lots of teams have money to spare…players might as well get their cut! Don’t be surprised if players start to ask for more money when you negotiate contracts, it’s only fair they get a raise due to inflation. I know, this will not fix the economy and we won’t forget other related issues ;-)
Cheers
Welcome Daniel! Me and Danilo used to play ManagerSim as well, that’s why the game has many similarities with it. We had been planning to create our own game for a while before MS came to an end, which sped up things a little bit.
We used to be more active regarding game improvements, but as we got older and busier things got slower. This doesn’t mean we’ve abandoned the game and we are aware of issues such as game economy as you’ve pointed out. Let me stop right here before I change the subject of the topic.
Welcome again :-)
We are currently testing a solution to stop the spam in the forums. Please let us know via in-game messages if you are unable to create topics or posts.
Cheers
Some of you may have noticed FastTicker is stuck. Well, can’t fix it from work, I’ll have a look when I get home :-)
Cheers
We can have a look just in case. Please send me an in-game message with more details.
Cheers
Accounts are blocked but new ones are being created. I have an idea to stop it, just need to find some time to implement it.
We’re discussing the best approach for that, we’ll probably have to add one of those human verification tools, but it would be good to have an immediate temporary solution to block all this crap…