Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,174 posts(s) found
Young attackers available at Benfica, they’re still improving:
Casimiro Algar
Age: 23
Position: AM
Side: RC
Tackle: 88
Passing: 79
Shooting: 83
Speed: 86
Dribble: 94
Control: 92
Header: 88
Price: $26,000,000
Bruno Gomes
Age: 22
Position: AM
Side: RC
Tackle: 75
Passing: 79
Shooting: 82
Speed: 84
Dribble: 96
Control: 86
Header: 87
Price: $19,000,000
Just did it, reduced the standard deviation ;)
About the html formatting not working in the forum, I have noticed that a couple days ago..no idea :(
The fact they meet in semi-finals is a coincidence (even though it is the most likely situation using the curent formula).This kind of complaint must have come from europeans, here in South America we are so used to the lack of organization in our football competitions that nobody would think about it :D
We are working on that, Nicky (Vaughn) is also taking a look at what we have now and giving suggestions. The reason for the blank space below the articles is because each article size has a large range of possibilities. For example, the main article is somewhere between 560 and 1120 characters, so when a 560 characters articles is picked for that space there is a lot of free spaces. Don’t forget the fact that the articles will be translated and become bigger in most languages. Our translators will have a lot of work (me included) for next month updates :D
My bad, this message is supposed to be sent only when someone makes a transfer proposal for one of your players, not when you offer a contract renewal or contract to a youth player :P
Should be fixed!
Agreed. I’ll add some more information to this article and make sure the articles have at least the basic information when we approve them ;)
I’ll remove it until we find a better way to add this information ;)
It’s % of points won, no matches :)
This is pretty common on brazilian league tables, that’s why I’ve added this information. Anybody else liked / disliked it?
Benfica will fight for the title :D
I can try the pot idea suggested by Filipe.
As you said, unlucky spread. I’m not sure if I’m mentioned how we form the groups, if I didn’t I’ll do it know.
- sort the 16 teams by quality and give them numbers from 1 to 16 (1 being the best, 16 the worst)
- group 1 will have teams 1, 8, 9, 16
- group 2 will have teams 2, 7, 10, 15
- group 3 will have teams 3, 6, 11, 14
- group 4 will have teams 4, 5, 12, 13
I’ve already answered Nirabdha by in-game message, but let me answer that here too. To make sure the swap will work with the current logic we have you should put each rule in a different minute (lilke 40, 45 and 50).
You’d lose more points in the ranking if the draw was against a weaker team ;)
We’ll create a different variable that will have only the score and review the approved articles that should use this new variable. It will be something like %{match.score}
Regarding your team result not being in the newspaper, maybe it would be if we had enough templates, who knows :D
The ranking and The Board are not connected. The Board evaluates your performance against what was expected while the ranking purely reflects match results. So a draw when you have more than 100 points in the ranking will always mean you lose some points, no matter against who you played.
Don’t be pissed Davison, I’m sure you’ll find another similar player soon :)
Unfortunately it won’t. Rules are applied individually so when the first one is checked it won’t be applied cause there is already a player on that position, it assumes you don’t want to swap. Danilo should be the one to comment that and discuss any improvement as he’s the one who designed the match actions stuff.
I think the average is ok, but we could reduce the “standard deviation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation) making it harder to have superstars or crap players at the end of their evolution path.
Your comments are correct Alban, including the one saying the skills don’t go over 100 (or below 1).
I know what you’re saying Alban, we don’t expect the game to be profitable with donations only. There are several things to think about like real clubs x fantasy clubs, how to keep everybody happy since everybody wants to win, etc. Let me comment these topics:
1) real clubs x fantasy clubs: I prefer real clubs and competitions, that’s one of the things that I liked the most about ManagerSim but unfortunately there are some negative effects of using them like
- we need to license them if we ever charge for the game or have a charge game mode
- most people will always want to manage the top clubs in real life or the clubs they support
2) If you pay to play it doesn’t mean you must be successful. You’re paying to enjoy a good game where you can develop tactics, meet other people from all around the world and eventually win something. Of course I know some people would simply quit if they always lose or are struggling to get better, but in a soccer management game someone always have to lose. We have some ideas to improve the game experience even if you’re not that successful.
What I assure you is we ARE thinking about ways to make the game better and profitable, without losing its spirit. Discussions like these are always positive! :)
Dhimitri has a good point, that’s the only explanation for some recent results :D
Anyway, the match engine must be tweaked, as we all know ;)
Fixed!
True…it was probably my fault, fixed a couple security bugs yesterday, looks like it’s so secure now that nobody can offer contracts :D
Thanks, guys.
Yeah, this small change was announced only on twitter (which has now the official latest news source in the login page as well).
Regarding the -3 penalty, it is only a simplification of the mentality / travel disorder implications. In the future we’ll probably have more complex calculations that should influence players performance during the match.
Looking into it, thanks for reporting!
I know guys, all of a sudden lots of goals are happening, even without changes to the match engine. The only thing that changed is that home team does not receive the +3 bonus anymore, but visitor teams receive a -3 penalty. Is that a drastic change that would result in more goals? I don’t believe so :)
Yeah, lots of things to consider. One of the biggest problems is have few cpu teams x having lots of countries :D
Even though I believe more countries would attract more people so we should be ok.
31-0? That was my record against North Korea on International Superstar Soccer :D
Have you tried clearing your browser cache and reloading the page? Looks like some garbage from yesterday’s updates.