Recent Posts
18,551 posts(s) found
Another problem: the avg column in the player screen is not working anymore :(
If this is a price people are not willing to pay for the other benefits of the new look & feel, I will look into options to bring the “one click menu experience” back. But I do ask everyone to try it for a bit, before coming to any conclusions. Also remember this is the first iteration – we will adjust things as we go.
I don’’t understand. It takes two clicks instead of one click to get to a screen. How is that an improvement?
No, for a good reason: this new layout is responsive. There are still a few problems, but in a near future the whole website should work on a mobile device (after logging in using your mobile device, try the “full site” option).
I took a little bit of time to get used to the new menu, but after that time I ended up finding it better. Lets see how it goes, do let us know how it feels for you.
About the new layout: is there an option to see the full menu, like there used to be?
We have a brand new look & feel, along a number of other changes – too many for me to mention. This is the very first iteration of our new look & feel, so THERE WILL BE BUGS. We also had major upgrades and changes in our infrastructure, so this cause issues with ticks & etc. Please report the bugs as you find them, and be patient. We also would love to receive suggestions and feedback! Enjoy!
To those who love our current look & feel: you better take some screenshots. It is all going to change, and very soon.
We are yet to introduce training injuries. I was planning to do it with the other injury changes (increased likelihood during matches and increased average duration) but decided to postpone it to plan it better and have the other changes introduced sooner. I agree it doesn’t make physio important, on season start I thought it would as I was unlucky and had two players injured for a long period, but then it got better as the season progressed. Maybe we can make training injuries more likely if you have a lower level of physio?
I can notice it has changed, a player had an 11 turn injury. It still doesn’t make physio points important. I wouldn’t mind more injuries, maybe not as much as in real life, but three on average?
We have slightly changed the generation of multi-position players (DM, MA, DA, etc) so that their two main skills have a higher chance of having a big gap between them, even though they will still be closer in most cases.
The points calculation for the team and manager rankings has just been improved. Now we store the history of matches instead of just a count and the number of points, that means we can discard the oldest entry and include the new one instead of just discarding an average based on the current points as we did before.
Another important change is that unemployed managers will have their match counter reduced as well as their points and instead of losing one point per turn they will lose one entry in their match history. The old system caused a disadvantage for someone that decide to return to the game because it took longer to earn points when compared to a fresh new manager. Not anymore!
The board always believes that the team can perform better than in the previous season. The only exception is a financial mismatch. That is real football.
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.
Once the board sees you’re capable of over performing they will expect that from you again.
But by it’s very nature the original over performance can’t realistically be repeated, otherwise it wouldn’t be over performance, it would have been performance:)
Hence my original question!
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
Lee Coleman won’t renew contract, offers please
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 :-(
Fast ticker stuck at 90%
fast ticker is freezed!
does playing friendlies increase a players morale?
Or ignore it. Just make sure that they are not critical anymore when you have to renew the contract.
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.
this morale feature has some problems. I’ve under 20 players promoted from youth team with critical morale because they don’t play, or players with critical because they have too few matches (but with an avg rating of 4.7). bha…
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.
There was a postal soccer game – yes I am showing my age here – that for the life of me I can’t remember what it was called, but they used to allow amazing stadium upgrades. You could build executive boxes, seating or standing areas and then allocate which set of fans were in each section, you could also price each section differently. I always thought it added a nice element to the game. Executive boxes brought in silly money but were ridiculous in cost to build, maybe something along those lines. Just a thought though.
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.
thanks for the shout out and btw i agree with you sniff
Sunderland for Life me