Recent Posts by Rafael Pereira
18 posts(s) found
Great deals at Vila Capanema!!!
All players are negociable.
http://www.rubysoccer.com/game/team_players/5
My opinion is that when a team loans a player, a contract is stablished. The old rule was bad for the teams who used loaned players. When someone says “you can use my player for 144ticks”, it should really mean that, not “you can use it until who nows when”…
A sell after the loan shoudn’t prejudice the loaner.
So, I think this new rule ir correct.
As a suggestion, I think that the buyer should be ablo to choose between taking the player immediatly, paying an indenization to the team who loaned the player. Or he could choose to wait until the end of the loan contract to use him.
I don’t like this bankrupt system.
It’s hard to sell a regular player… I guess it’s better not to renew players contracts or releasing them for free as it happens when a team can’t pay a player salary… That’s my suggestion.
this “destruction” of a player is unfair… a bankrupted player doesn’t need to worry about finances because he will receive some money from the game board just because he is bankrupted, while an honest manager is obliged to sell players to balance finances. and it’s not always that the market is interested in our players… many times I fired second class players just to save their salaries. If I knew that they could be “destroyed” like you suggest, I’d never fired them… By the way, I’d never spent 3 seasons searching for financial balance.
My point is that the game engine should not “help” this players and teams.
I also don’t like this “cleaning the house” idea after a manager is fired. You know, the game engine should not inject money on teams without no purpose . Since this game don’t do this for teams who wins titles or achieves good positions, I don’t see why a bankrupted team should recive money like this.
So, if a team bankrupts, let it be. raise another team from “third division” and close the bankrupted one. Or let the bankrupted team playing with 13 players and no money until someone shows up to clean the mess.
That’s my point!
Best!
Here’s my suggestions:
1- personal orders about passing, running and kicking. General orders like we have nowadays makes players who can’t pass to pass and who can’t run to run, just to follow general tactics.
2- defensive orders: man to man or zone defense.
3- going to: some tactical order saying “when the player x gets the ball, run though the left/right side and cross the ball”. nowadays, the game engine makes it difficult to use the sides of the field, since all offensive players tend to go to the center. because of it sided attackers are cheap and useless. It also makes almost all teams (at least in brazilian league) to use similar tactics. It’s boring.
Buying!
I need a midfielder
passing +85
max age 30
paying until 5millions, depending on the player other skills
best!
cara… 300k por departamento é muito caro.
eu não pagaria isso nem pelos 3 departamentos, quanto mais por um só. meu time não custa isso! a não ser que essa nova despesa seja compensada pelo aumento ou por alguma nova fonte de renda, o investimento não vale a pena.
mesmo a melhora na qualidade dos jogadores não traria tanto retorno financeiro, já que o mercado de compra e venda de jogadores vai ficar deprimido mais uma vez já com a criação dessa nova despesa mensal. isso já aconteceu na época da diminuição dos estádios e pode acontecer outra vez.
claro, um departamento top pode custar mais caro, mas deveria ser possível manter departamentos bons por um preço razoável. talvez 100k/tick pelos três.
uma pergunta… teremos que contratar os profissionais do departamento ou apenas investir neles?
abraços!
It’s not always possible to be here before each match I play.
when a player is injured or suspended, the system automatically arranges another player so complete the squad. usually, they pick a left side defender to replace any unavailable player – what ruins my tactical system. It stolen some points away from me and almost took my figueirense away from libertadores this season.
well… I’d like to know if is there some tactical rule to avoid the system to do it, replacing the unavailable player by another from the same position to occupy the same tactical function. If there isn’t, here’s another suggestion to improve this great game!
best!
You did it!
Thank you!
Now I can enlarge my stadium with some discount!
Hi guys
about increasing the number of stadium seats.
you’d create some sort of discount when we build more than 100 seats.
since the price is the same when we build 100 seats in four ticks or 500 seats in 20, eg, the player who construct 100 seats each 4 ticks will make more money than that who started a larger construction.
it happens because who builds only 100 seats will be able to use them just after 4 ticks, while the player who makes a long turn investment need to wait all the construction period without any increase in it’s field.
using the 20 ticks exemple, who makes small increases can use an increased stadium in two or three matches. it’s not a big advantage, but it’s an advantage.
if you don’t want to make long turn constructions cheaper, you’d liberate parts of the construction each 4 ticks. but I prefer discounts! :)
best!
about aging consequences…
since young players can only improve or stay the same, I assume you guys intend to make older players decrease their skills after some time.
so, as a suggestion about that, I’d like to remember that old players, in real life, lose physical skills, but they can, sometimes, also gain some of it as a result of experience and as a way to adapt themselves to new physical conditions. Maldini, Gamarra, Romario are examples of it.
what we see in rubysoccer is that a player, after certain age, just keeps the same skills. The only difference is that an older player often gets injured. So, when you guys change the system about aging consequences, I hope you think about what I said.
Best!
it doesn’t happen in real life.
a soccer player contract always has some kind of fee for the side who wants to break out.
if another club wants to hire a player against the owner club will, it just have to pay the fee and the contract is broken. nowadays in rubysoccer we have pay this fee to fire, but not to contract a player.
just to mention!
Best!
Ok!
I imagined that you guys ‘d have some sort of club ranking.
But do you use it as a criterion to sort teams in nat’cups or something like that?
Is there a criterion to sort teams or it’s just pure lucky?
You guys could create a club ranking, based on titles and league positions. It’d be nice to be used instead of sorting as a way to define national cup’s matches… just like it was in libertadores until 2006: the best club against the worse, the 2nd best against the 2nd worse… think about it!
Best!
I can’t see replays of any match on fast ticker.
But when I try to do it on medium ticker, the replay works just fine…
why?
I’m really curious to see how my team works on the field to solve some tactical problems.
best!
Looking at this angle, it does happen… I was just surprised to see $1 players in the market!
I agree on you when you say those teams in bankruptcy should have some sort of market access. A team in bad financial conditions can’t even hire free players or those who costs $1. It’s not a complain, I took my team to bankruptcy, but it’s though to leave this situation when you can’t improve the squad.
best!
what I see now, after the economical changes during the last season, is that a result of this “frozen transfers market” is that some teams are selling high wage players almost for free just to balance their finances. I saw some of them on sale for $1.
I don’t know if it’s a problem or just a natural aspect of the game economy, but certainly its a fact tha doesn’t happen in real life.
best!
I don’t know if you guys noticed it, but the info of draws and defeats on classification chart is inverted.
best!
In this subject, I’d like to report something that I’m not sure if it’s a bug or a kind of blind point of the game system. I coach Figeirense (Brazilian Série A) and now I’m receiving the message that stops me from buying player because my team lacks players and also receiving the message that stops me from negociating new players because my team exceeded the 30 players limit.
Well… I suggest you to use the same rule to establish the minimal and the maximal number of players per team. Probably this problem happens because the system accounts loaned players to limit the maximum of players per team, but ignore them when limits the minimal quantity of players per team.
It’d be better, especially to those teams who doesn’t have enough money to buy a full quality squad and need selling good players and using loaned players to be competitive, if loaned players could not be counted at all. This way, we’d not suffer with teams without players enough to play and also ’d not limitate the possibility of loans…
That’s it!
Best!