Recent Posts by Gabriel Cesario
4,174 posts(s) found
Interesting suggestions, Parag, I’ll consider them when implementing changes to the scoring probability.
Regarding your first question (lots of long shots increasing the probability of goals) I was thinking something like making the keeper lose stamina every shot, but the amount lost is related to the difficult to defend the shots, so lots of long shots wouldn’t make him lose that much.
Netherlands was added later on the game, so dutch players “were born” older than usual, except for the youths.
The main idea I think we could work on what you’ve written Dhimitri is that as the number of shots on goal raise we could make it increasingly easier to score. I’ll experiment a few changes with this idea after I finish the current match enhancements I’m working on.
On loan renewal the loan wage is recalculated based on the agreed loan percentage. For example, suppose the player wage was 5,000 and you agreed to pay 50% of his wage, so the loan wage is 2,500. If the player wage becomes 10,000 during the loan period, you’ll still pay 2,500 as the loan wage, but if the loan is renewed, you’ll start paying 5,000 (50% of the new wage).
There is a simple explanation, Humberto. Sometimes, when you use wingers, they do not receive or get the ball very often. This improved a little after the more realistic player movement and distance calculation implemented a while back, but this central behaviour is likely to change after we implement another enhancement that will add a new strategy option: play in the center, using wingers or mixed.
I agree that this kind of match shouldn’t be that common, Vaughn. I’m currently working on the match engine, implementing partial tackles (when the player makes the opponent lose the ball but does not control it) and a few other enhancements will follow this one. Let’s see if these weird results are affected by them.
I’ve seen statistics like this when you don’t have any defenders on -1 or 0 mentalities, giving your goalkeeper penalties on his skills to defend shots. But if you say this is common to many teams it may not be the case.
Let’s keep this discussion going in order to improve the match engine ;)
We have this page accessible from the login page. It lists the enhancements we consider high priority at the moment. Regarding date estimation, it’s really had for us to give them. We never know exaclty how much time we’ll have available for RubySoccer development. I wish I had 8 hours daily from Monday to Friday just to work on the game :)
Fixed!
Thanks for reporting Julkan, I’ll take a look.
Cheers!
England:
League : Scunthorpe United
Cup: Blackpool
France
League: Brest
Cup: AC Ajaccio
Germany
League: Hertha BSC Berlin
Cup: Bayern Munchen
Italy
League: Napoli
Cup: Genoa
Netherlands
League: Roosendaal
Cup: Roosendaal
Portugal
League: Benfica
Cup: Penafiel
Spain
League: Recreativo Huelva
Cup: Getafe
Argentina
League: Boca Juniors
Cup: Boca Juniors
Brazil
League: Flamengo
Cup: Paraná
Paraguay
League: Libertad
Cup: Libertad
Uruguay
League: Danubio
Cup: Cerro Largo
We have that planned already, that’s a good idea :)
The first 2 league rounds tend to have a good attendance, after that the league position is taken in consideration. For the national cups, the first rounds tend to have poor attendance, it gets better as you approach the final.
That’s exactly my suggestion, change the wage paid by the loaning team only on loan renewal.
We have this enhancement planned for a long time now. I’ve just raised its priority to critical so we can work on it sooner.
Cheers!
Well, we have two different points of view here, keep the same wage, or keep the same wage percentage considering the new wage. I’d like to keep the renewal simple, not allowing the negotiation of new terms so it has to be one of these two options. Both makes sense to me, but I think I prefer the second (percentage of new wage). Anyone else?
It is working the way it is supposed to work, but I agree with you Filipe, we should change it.
Cheers!
Not exactly the 11 best, we consider a certain number of players in each position (e.g. 1 best keeper, 5 best defenders, etc). I can’t tell you the exact numbers, it’s more than 11, but your weak young guys will probably be out of the calculation :)
Not the value, Alban, but the players quality ;)
The Board doesn’t allow you to fire all of the players the same way it doesn’t allow you to transfer or loan them. The problem is they make no difference wheter you’re firing/selling/loaning the best or the worts players. We could enhance that logic a little bit, but we don’t want to make it too restrictive as sometimes you have/want to sell one of your best players to buy others in different positions.
Well, maybe we can find an intermediate way of showing this info :)
The expectations are not updated during the season, Vaughn. We could do something like that, but we need to be careful on when and how to update.
Starting next season on both dimensions managers will receive a bonus or penalty on their performance rating depending on their competition results compared to the Board expectations. You were expected to fight against relegation but was middle in table? Extra rating points for you! Were you eliminated from the national cup sooner than expected? Too bad, your rating will drop a little bit.
The amount of rating points earned or lost will depend on the quality of your opponents. In a well balanced league, failing or being above your expectations may not affect your rating that much, but if a top team fail or a clearly inferior team performs really well, that will make a big difference.
I’ll post a new announcement about Board enhancements in a few minutes. Check it out. :)
Oh, and nothing else influences the shots, it’s only shooting skill and distance (to determine if the shot was good) and keeper quality.
I’ve had a couple similar results lately (one with them against Palmeiras). I believe the main reason for that are the “uber” goalkeepers (as someone said in another topic). With some enhancements we’ll add to the match engine soon (like partial successful tackles) we hope to reduce the number of shots to a more realistic number and by doing that we’ll probably have to make it a little bit easier to score.
Not really, what Dhimitri did was fire lots of players from his team in order to rebuild the squad. This was identified as a potential destructive action to the team and he was fired, even though nobody benefit from his actions.
Things cleared up by email ;)
We’ll have that, Julkan, it’ll definitely be a good addition :)
The truth is the board evaluation is too simple right now, they only evaluate single match results, it doesn’t matter if you have qualified to the next CL round or if your finance is good or if your squad has improved. We have plans to enhance the board and make the performance evaluation more complex. I believe the current logic may be unfair sometimes, but it is usually good as teams with high expectations can lose points more easily than teams with low expectations.
Fantastic midfielders for sale at Flamengo. All 90+ on passing and good secondaries.