Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by argala

  1. Re: Current Multiplayer Problems & Solutions

    Absolutely TOTALLY AGREE. What we were told was a total sham' date=' they've done nothing & probably don't intend to. Nothing changed! Yes I'm on the verge of quitting too...[/quote']

    That really makes me flip out... I'm not speaking about some structural change... You just have to take off this limitation. That's nothing new. I had a chat with Steven 8 (EIGHT) months ago, speaking exactly about that.

    This is his answer:

    I agree that if someone has been made an admin by us then there shouldn't be any restrictions on how much data they can add / edit.

    This private message is written by SM Dev (Steven) and is dated: 07-31-2014, 03:48 PM.

    Of course you agree! There're some people (like us admins) doing for you a free job, improving your game with updated infos. SM Database is RIDICOULOUSLY up to date, and is going worse! can you realize it??

    Now, Steven, for God sake: assuming that you've some people working on SM codes, there are two options.

    A) You never warned them about this 20 players message: in this case, as you repeatedly claim you did and they're going to fix it, you lied to us, who aren't only your clients (I'm gold manager since like forever).. We're also your voulonteer manpower.

    B) You warned them, and they couldn't solve a freaking banal limitation which is active for like 20 users (just wondering, I don't know how many admins are left, but really few of us).

    In the first case, you're a barker.

    In the second case, you're telling us: "I don't have the capacity of supervise my own employees in order to make fix something which takes 5 minutes to get fixed."

    What are you trying to tell us?


  2. Re: Current Multiplayer Problems & Solutions

    Always people complaining about slowliness of SW' date=' and the few admins left have to face this message every freaking time.


    We're fed up with this. Seriously. Remove it NOW.

    As I said some months ago, I was fed up with this, and I decreased my activity in SW...A couple of WEEKS ago I had to add a bunch of players, and I'm glad to see that NOTHING changes since the last year.. Still facing the same freaking 20 players message.

    Obviously, SW devs claims that they're going to fix something in SW were hot air...

    Congratulations guys, keep the good work on (Ironic)

  3. Re: Not receiving bids

    I am playing the 0.67 version as Hull City' date=' I have 13 players transfer listed but have only had 1 bid for a player after playing through... summer window, january window, summer window

    In the 0.65 version I received offers for every player that was transfer listed. I think this is potentially a bug :confused:[/quote']


    anyone else is experiencing this?

  4. Re: Not receiving bids

    I am playing the 0.67 version as Hull City' date=' I have 13 players transfer listed but have only had 1 bid for a player after playing through... summer window, january window, summer window

    In the 0.65 version I received offers for every player that was transfer listed. I think this is potentially a bug :confused:[/quote']


    anyone else is experiencing this?

  5. Re: Current Multiplayer Problems & Solutions

    Always people complaining about slowliness of SW' date=' and the few admins left have to face this message every freaking time.


    We're fed up with this. Seriously. Remove it NOW.

    27 days and counting since I added the last player, and still this message, every day. 87 days and counting since I added the last referee, and still have this message. We have a ridicously patchy database, Steven, wake up and change something there. AND STOP GIVING US STOCK ANSWERS, it's even more annoying than being ignored.

    Note well: I edited at least a couple of times this post as was pretty ruder.

  6. Re: The New Players Thread

    So many players from the Croatian league has been added :eek:. Half of them didn't even appear in a single game for their club...

    It doesn't matter where they have played. I didn't add them' date=' but I just checked it out, and apart ORSOLIC (who's not croatian, by the way) and DUKA (who got 9 benches this year, and looks like the 2nd GK in his club) they all already played professional matches so they are eligible to be added.

    And some of these players are in wrong clubs..

    this is the reason why i don't use SW anymore..

    Which ones?

  7. Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

    For example' date=' we appear to be having a League review of Argentina at the minute. Is this SM or a group of SW users? Can JMH or Argala please shed any light?[/quote']

    As i preiously said, any SW user has any kind of power, speaking about ratings. I don't know if a SW DEV (like vicky) or any other DEV do this, but SW is not about ratings, in any visible section of the website.

  8. Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

    Who choses which players have a rating change? Please understand' date=' i am not on a witch hunt, i just genuinely would like to know how it works. Once we know this, perhaps we could suggest some much needed improvements.[/quote']

    This is the main point. I can only tell you that SW, since his first day, was NEVER about ratings, at least for his visible users, not-dev-admins included . Admins can edit or create any info of a player, club, coach, referee but ratings. Being precise, in the beginning (2012) there used to be a little window where you can "Suggest rating changes"(+5/-5): was never been active, and had never effect. I cannot even suggest a player rating when I'm submitting his creation, so, answering to 87+ reply, I can state all Ratings stuff is a SM issue, as they're the only people who have acces to that.

  9. Re: Riferimento: Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

    When I was a SW member I tryed to change Gonalons skills and my purpose has been rejected first: you answered to me that Gonalons SW skills could not be the same like other data sites. But when I complained for Calum Chambers position change' date=' you and someother forumer told me that it was to refresh Calum's positions like other data sites.


    If i have to be sincere, one of the first improvements we've to do is that a normal user shouldn't be able to edit Gonalons, or any top player neither. I read a lot about the good ol' days before SW. Does anyone remember how it's work? I do, and you couldn't add/edit any player whose rating was higher than 86, and anyone of the (50/60) world top clubs players.Not even a 78 rated. So, no Gonalons edit was allowed, and not even Chambers. Now, maybe your purpose was legitimate. But, as I can see all the edit tickets, trust me when I'm saying that the 99% of malicious edit/adding (I'd say 100%, but the 1% are morons who are try to add theirself to the DB in some unknown clubs) are related to these clubs, or their players.

    Without this spam, SW would have work way better.

  10. Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

    They may bring in more but I've seen no obvious sign of it. The main powers for admins are the ability to add/alter more players than non-admins and our suggestions go straight to the hidden deciders. If we vote on a change proposed by someone else it goes straight to the panel then. Doesn't wait for the appropriate number of public votes. They did give jmh more powers than lthe rest of us. Not sure what they are though

    I can clarify this copying/pasting an old message by SW Mark (not in charge anymore).

    Hi Argala' date='

    All edits made by people are passed onto this page for further approval. At the moment it's you and JMH who have access to this page. The idea is that the most trusted people have access to this page and can stop dodgy entries going through. All you have to do is press accept if you think the entry is correct and reject it if you think it's not. There is a suspend button but only press that if the user is trying to put himself into the wiki or the edit is malicious.

    You also have the power to request a suspension by searching users and pressing the suspend button. If you need any more help or you find a bug with the page then let me know.


    Mark [/i']

    This message is dated Sept, 2013, and I guess nothing changed since then.

  11. Re: Riferimento: Re: Riferimento: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

    Dear Argala' date=' I always read your forum posts/topics/answers because are very interesting. But I think you are a bit pessimistic man answering to my words. So at your all points I have/can answer with one reply only: SM can get back to old players' revision system simply. They can except league schedule, it is not important a 3 times big leagues revision but it is important that player's rise/drop evaluations - position changes were not horrifying as now.

    This is just this SM community want.

    P.S.: I think SW is really going to collapse, and I think I'm close to truth when I say that active members are very very few.[/quote']

    Mate, don't misinterpret me: I didn't want to be harsh, and I'm not being pessimistic, just trying to keep it real, purposing feasible countermeasures.

    I agree 200% with you that SW isn't working as it should. In the beginning (Jan, 2012) I was convinced that SW was a good improvement. Think about it: a 10k community could review even faster than we used to do in the golden age with periodic reviews by country. I made a constant effort to help it out in order to enhance their work, as I added/edited 3362 (just checked it out) players and counting since then (and more clubs, more stadiums, more pics, etc.).

    Imo the best solution is easier than coding an external site and sniffing their infos: they'd run SW as it's supposed to run: Building up a serious board of specyalized admins for each country, and giving them the power of coordinate the community work.

    Now, let's see how: the "pyramidal" structure of soccerwiki (users

    So, there's a problem at the base of the pyramid (it maybe could be fixed banning more harshly malicious users, and giving some in-game prizes like SM credits to worthy users), but the main problem, I agree with you, is at the top of the pyramide. The "unknown board" is working from bad to worse: this summer I had to wait fortyeight (48!) days in order to see a bunch of players accepted.. and I'm an admin: so figure out a normal user, who have to wait my approval (or by any other admin) and the unknown board approval, and can only submit a couple of tickets a time. This would be so frustrating for everyone, and I guess we already lost a lot of good users because of SW DEVS were just playing around. They're too few, or too lazy, I don't know, but the actual Unknown Board composition is the real guilty in this "red chain" we're speaking about.

    I already discussed with Steven about this, I reckon they're busy with singleplayer implementation, but I think they should prioritize the SW issue as the main issue we have. Nothing against with you, and hoping this thread should integrate my purpose with more creative (but feasible) implementations, because personally I'm also fed up with waiting some changes there... ;)

  12. Re: Riferimento: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

    NO voting their Data Changes suggestions.

    No effects. Tickets need only be voted by just one SW admin' date=' and it went directly to "unknown board". (i don't know who is in charge there, so I'll use your definition)

    delete SW account

    No effects. You cannot see anywhere how many users have an account there, so you wouldn't damage the "reputation" of the website, and nobody would notice that.

    make a petition to SM asking to abolish SW system.

    Also no effects. You'll get a BOT reply

    As purposed changes' date=' they could base SM up on external sites like Transfermarkt (SW changes are very close to Transfermarkt Data).


    How would you do that? Did you see transfermarkt DB? I'd evaluate there're 150k players in their DB. that's it like 200% bigger than SM/SW DB.. And prices there are accurate just for top players. Go and check a top youth side out (e.g. Man Utd u21, PSG u21) and look at those prices...

    Probably you don't know it, but transfermarkt released 2/3 years ago a manager game into their website (German language only).. Well, I tested and let me say it was a completely joke. You shouldn't change what we have here with that...

    Just to point it out.. I'm not happy with SW performances. But your boycott purpose is not efficacious, and your purposed change isn't feasible...

  13. Re: The New Players Thread

    That's a myth. There used to be that rule but it doesn't matter anymore

    The rule was 450 minutes and it was before soccerwiki creation (when you used to add players directly in-game).

    Since the beginning of SW, there is not any guideline about that, although the "unwritten" rule is accepting only players with at least 1 minute played in an official game...

  14. Re: It's Tough At The Bottom(Match Reports,Transfer News,Discussion,and Slagging!)

    I scouted a lot of players for this set-up' date='quite a few players that I found had played/playing first team football this season,but are not in the game..[/quote']

    Well, that's pretty common even with the old system, at the beginning of the season, as they used to review one country at time. If you remember, top4 leagues were reviewed 3 times a year, some others twice, and 90% of leagues were reviewed once a year... Btw, if you're looking for a player and he isn't in the DB, there's a easy way to fix it: login at SW, go to Add new player, wait several days and here you have your guy :D

    I reckon, as I did before, SW is running slow now, as too many infos have to be accepted by too few people. I already whine with SW Devs and I'm losing pacience as Devs should delegate to us admins some work, but still..

  15. Re: It's Tough At The Bottom(Match Reports,Transfer News,Discussion,and Slagging!)

    I realise the old system made the game too easy but soccerwiki isn't doing its job properly' date=' I cant see why they cant revert to the old system but list countries that will be reviewed within the next 5? months, then you don't know if they will be reviewed in 2 days time or 5 months.[/quote']

    Well, basically because SW don't make a league review like before. If you have a look at the last rating changes, you can see the reviewed players don't come from a specific league. SW is "community based", and it supposed to be run by users. I agree it "isn't doing his job properly" though. It wouldn't be so slow to accept edit/new players...

  16. Re: It's Tough At The Bottom(Match Reports,Transfer News,Discussion,and Slagging!)

    Oh and you managed to out bid me on Vita too :D

    Vita is pure talent, probably the best of the bunch... But I missed Trainotti (decent) and Cristini (pretty good, outbidded)..I guess you messed it up though, as Reggina and ReggiAna aren't the same team.. :D

    I got this challenge as several clubs of Lega pro are really underrated... I cannot give you any advice for italians them.. But there're some foreigners who are worthy to be picked up :D

  17. Re: It's Tough At The Bottom(Match Reports,Transfer News,Discussion,and Slagging!)

    There is nothing we can do to this ******... The game is all but ruined before the first game is even played.... He knows the rules and is now ignoring any attempts to contact him... I'm gonna start a new thread entitled Managers to avoid and we will make sure no one has him in their set ups again

    Yeah, i's about to say that... If someone is breaking rules so deliberately , I highly doubt he will follow punishment we are planning here. It's maybe harsh, but according to my experience, the only efficacious method with cheaters here is stalking and harassing them (please avoiding menaces with penal consequences though :D ) . Everybody should PM and blame them for their attitude.. If they block chat and PMs going to other GWs where he uses to play and telling everybody he's a cheater, has really good payback... :D

  • Create New...