Recent Posts

Subscribe to Recent Posts 17,969 posts(s) found

May 20, 2018 12:39

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

Yep, I have done the same in the past and I agree it is not good for the game. I mean, financially it is kind of ok but the behaviour itself is not exactly how we intend the player market to work. Wage disputes and a better control of the amount of money in the hands of managed teams are two topics that I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.

With regards to wage disputes in player negotiations, currently the base factor for the player decision is how much you are offering compared to how much he would like to receive. From there we apply all the other factors, such as the player negotiation priority bonus, star player bonus, etc. So for example, if the player wants 30k and your offer is 45k, you start with a 1.5 “strength” to your offer. One of the crazy ideas I had was to change the base factor to be the amount you offered compared to the maximum your board allows you to offer. For example, if you offered 50k and your board allowed 100k, your “strength” is 0.5, whereas if another club offers 30k and the board only allowed 45k it already starts at 0.75, ahead of you! Of course, this is assuming 30k is acceptable for the player. I know, very controversial but it takes into the account the “sacrifice” a smaller team could be making to have the player, and also a bigger team would usually have more bonuses on top of the base strength, so even in the example of 0.5 × 0.75 after all the bonuses the first offer could still prevail.

Regarding controlling the amount of money in the game (with managed teams) we have some very interesting ideas where CPU teams could start selling decent players for large sums if there are too many clubs with a lot of money (meaning they have nowhere to spend) or they could start looking at buying players from less rich managed teams first (if they can find suitable options, of course). This is just the tip of the iceberg on these ideas because I don’t want to say too much on how this would work.

All this is going to take some time, I’m taking some time off very soon and won’t be doing any changes to the game for a few weeks :-)

 

May 20, 2018 09:01

266 posts(s)

 

Hi, after all the free transfers lately I notice teams are just giving average C/B class players 200k a week to get them into their clubs. If the player isn’t deemed good enough he can be sold on for 20+ million to computer teams. This needs addressed so everyone can give a fair wage they believe to appropriate.

No club should want to buy a B player with 200k a week wages.

 

May 19, 2018 06:31

266 posts(s)

 

I’m fine having player class on profiles but when I’m looking for players I don’t look at class! Just abilities.

Thanks :)

 

May 18, 2018 12:04

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

Really? I thought you’d like this one :-D
I’ll add an option, no worries!

 

May 18, 2018 10:40

266 posts(s)

 

Can I have an option to remove player class from transfer list please? It’s taking my focus off the attributes and onto their class only.

 

May 16, 2018 23:09

148 posts(s)

 

Muller and West were already sold, now it’s time for Gilmar Rinaldi and Marc Ruano

Gilmar – Kpg 93, spe 92
Ruano – Tac 100

Both players under 30 years old, with good attributes, and still improving their skills!

 

May 16, 2018 11:10

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

Updated player evolution profiles so that:

  • no new players will be generated with “reaches potential on his 30s”
  • introduced new “reaches potential very young”
  • adjusted age for “reaches potential while still young”
  • adjusted number of available improvements per season to be smoother and always have a minimum of 2
  • removed the scenario where a player had no improvements available in a given season even before reaching potential
  • reduced some differences in number of improvements for different profiles
  • players can start losing skills at 30, 31, 32 or 33 depending on profile (the older he is capable of reaching the potential the older he will start losing skills)

The main goal here is to improve the number of world class younger players, currently players over 30 dominate the top player lists all over the world. This should also make it faster to renew your squad when the time comes. These changes are effective for newly generated players only, existing players will retain their current profiles.

 

May 13, 2018 22:01

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

Not at all. Each different club class (when CPU controlled) will prioritise loans, first team players and future players in different orders. B clubs if I’m not mistaken would prioritise future players, then loans, then first team players. E and F should be prioritising loans.

 

May 13, 2018 19:10

583 posts(s)

Donator

 

Is it currently only possible to loan players to B class clubs? They were the only ones interested in my player so far (that I have put on the loan list something like eight times).

 

May 10, 2018 12:23

38 posts(s)

 

Sounds good to me, 6 turns should be ok.

 

May 10, 2018 11:25

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

Some time ago I was thinking of using the Negotiations level to provide a forced transfer price suggestion when attempting to do a forced transfer, similar to the way we have the suggested wage. In this case, however, as soon as you see the suggestion for a given player you would need to wait another 6 turns to see the suggestion again. How does that sound?

 

May 10, 2018 06:53

38 posts(s)

 

Hi all,

From long time I’m trying to buy good striker by forced transfer. My club budget is small so I don’t want spend too much money.

So in this situation, my suggestion is follows:
Could we add in our Scouting system “suggested forced transfer amount” option?
Then after a few ticks of scouting, managers would be get valuable raport:
“To buy this player, we should try to offer 15-20M $” etc.

Higher lvl of scouting = more correct suggestion in raport.

Best regards,
Luke “Bronson”

 

May 09, 2018 07:23

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

In some cases when player classes changed we noticed the estimated value was taking to long to catch up with the new class value range. That sometimes caused confusion and made it harder to make accurate forced transfer offers. We have now changed the logic so that the estimated value immediately catches up to a more reasonable value aligned to the new player class.

 

May 03, 2018 01:27

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

@Will you are not a moron! This tells me we need to make the way multi-position and multi-side works more evident.

@Joseppi and Dirk: maybe we can start with side only and allow a change from single side to single side or from multi-side to multi-side. In other words, if your player is L he can be trained to be C or R, but not LC or LR. If the payer is LR, you could train him to LC or RC. Does that make sense?
In the future the same approach could be done to player positions, and also maybe taking into account the the main skill for the new position must be no more than 5 points less than the current’s position main skill. For example, a D with 90 tackle, 85 passing and 82 shooting could be trained to become M, but not A.

 

May 02, 2018 21:58

44 posts(s)

 

First off: I’m a moron.

Secondly: Thanks for listening!

 

May 02, 2018 21:25

148 posts(s)

 

Selling Muller and Stefan West!

West – pas 98, sho 87, avg 87, dutch national
Muller – sho 95, avg 90 (!!!), brazilian national

 

May 02, 2018 14:09

148 posts(s)

 

Ouch!

 

May 02, 2018 11:43

621 posts(s)

Game Master

 

I rather prefer the option to train players from L to LR or LRC.

For me players with a double position like DM or AM have more value in the game. They have to be rare to find. If everyone can change players to a double position a key aspect of the game gets lost.

One exception could be if a player has a secondary skill of an other position (def, pas, sho) that’s higher than his primary skill he should be able to be trained to a new position.
F.e. A defender with D85 and M 94 could become a M or DM afer serious training.

 

May 02, 2018 07:48

266 posts(s)

 

That sounds like a good enough idea, I personally would just like to be make players from say MR into MC or ML. The problem with changing position toDM or AM is teams would have no players that are just standard positions

 

May 02, 2018 01:18

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

Will, I think you are incorrectly reading the way sides and positions work. Let’s consider each “row” in the field has 5 sides, let’s call them L, LC, C, RC and R. A player with L side can play both on L and LC positions with no penalties. A player with LC side can play in all positions except R, without penalties. So a player having multiple sides is actually a good thing, as it gives him more options. The same is true for multi-position players (DM, MD, DA, AD, MA, AM), they can play in both positions with no penalties. There is a topic in our game manual about setting up the formation that mentions this.

That said, I still agree it is a good idea to be able to “train” a player into a new position or side. Maybe that makes sense only if the player is not already multi-side or multi-position? For example you could train a D into a DM or DA, but if he was already DM you could not change it. What do you guys think?

I’ve made sure this task was moved higher up in our priority list so we evaluate it sooner rather than later.

 

May 01, 2018 21:06

266 posts(s)

 

I’ve mentioned this before and I agree. It would be a good way for the game developers to make more income too.

 

May 01, 2018 20:11

44 posts(s)

 

The unrealistic nature of not being able to train (or pay a few rubies) to add a new position to a player is becoming increasingly frustrating. If it requires a certain amount of matches, or whatever it may be, I’ve had some players in their “unnatural” positions for years. I feel like by now they’d be comfortable in their new role and make it their primary and preferred position.

Being able to change a players side (LC to C – RC to C – L to LC) would vastly improve the transfer market too. People would be willing to SPEND some of the money they seem to horde since they know w player might soon be useful ion a new role, rather than being saddled with an LC when they really need an L or a C.

I don’t think moving a player from an L to an R is a good idea, as this is kind of a major change to their playstyle, even in real life.

But:

LC -> L
LC -> C

Those would make sense.

Could even make C players be able to go LC or RC, but note on their profile they are originally C players, and therefore cannot be changed to L or R after they have been trained in LC or RC. Same with LC or RC who have been changed to C; they’d be unable to go LC -> C and then over to RC.

Give players sides (L or R) and let them train (or pay) or play a certain number of matches in a C LC/RC or L/R role so they can be 100% proficient in their new position.

Just getting a bit frustrated with buying or training up players who refuse to play a couple yards outside their comfort zone after years of training.

 

April 30, 2018 08:33

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

Team classes can now be seen in the league table and team matches screen. We can easily add that info to more screens in the future, if it proves to be useful.

 

April 29, 2018 08:16

99 posts(s)

 

Goalkeeper (a) leaves the field (not possible to replace)

Ouch

 

April 25, 2018 01:21

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

Scout searches can now be configured to look only for multi-position (MA, DM, DA, etc) and/or multi-side (LC, RC, LR) players. If you do not check this option the search will work as before, looking for all types. For example, if you search for D with multi-position checked the search will only find DM, DA, MD or AD; without mutli-position checked it will also find D players.

Cheers

 

April 24, 2018 00:03

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

With the number of very rich clubs increasing, should we introduce some kind of tax over their transfers or profit in order to control the inflation? Do not worry about specific rules yet, they will be discussed if this goes ahead.

15% – Yes, a tax paid when the club sells a player (in some specific conditions to be determined) is a good idea
24% – Yes, a tax over club profits at season end (if they exceed a certain threshold) is a good idea
13% – Yes, both taxes are a good idea
43% – No, keep the game as is, free of taxes
5% – No Answer

Even though the majority (52%) is in favour of some kind of tax we are not going to introduce any changes. With such close results it is not worth spending the time and effort, we will look into other ideas to better control the amount of money in the game.

Thanks for voting!

 

April 18, 2018 00:14

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

In some cases it can. Basically the game calculates a factor based on how much you offered and how much the player wants. For example, if he wants 50k and you offer 100k this factor is 2. Then this factor is modified by the player priority (which can add or subtract 1 from it) and also by the hiring bonus star, which has no limit at the moment (we simply add up all bonuses).

Sometimes I think we need to do something to benefit smaller teams to try and give a chance to everyone and also pose a challenge to the top managers.

 

April 16, 2018 11:07

621 posts(s)

Game Master

 

Thanks Gabriel. This explains a lot. I didn’t know the impact is that big.
Another example:
“Nórton Nobre has rejected your contract proposal (wage: $227,000). He was hired by KV Oostende (wage: $114,160).”

Can a hiring bonus overrule a difference of more than 100k? Makes it almost impossible for small teams to hire players of the free transferlist.
I already regret I sold my key players. :-)

 

April 16, 2018 07:53

4,032 posts(s)

Administator

 

There is also the “hiring bonus” star players that can add up to it pretty nicely. Some people disregard these types of star players but I’ve seen what they can do multiple times in the past when people asked about why they’ve lost the bid for a particular player. I haven’t check in your case Dirk but I’d bet it is related to that as well.

 

April 16, 2018 04:57

621 posts(s)

Game Master

 

I know but I have a C class team now. I do think Inter is way better at the moment and has better strikers.