Jump to content

tebthereb

Members
  • Content Count

    11,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from RoyalAguila in Squad Sizes   
    Re: Squad Sizes
  2. Downvote
    tebthereb got a reaction from Fatjon in Signature Limits   
    A rule on the forum, which I imagine is relatively unknown to many of you, is that signature pictures should be no larger than 470x120 pixels in size. This rule has never really been enforced all that diligently as most people (mods included) thought that it was too small. However, recently more and more images have been appearing in people's signatures which are far too big. Some have even distorted the page due to being too wide, others are so high that scrolling down the page becomes a chore. In order to control the size of images in signatures, we have spent the last week or so discussing a new limit which will be enforced properly.
    Signature Limits

    One image (flat or GIF) no larger than 500x280 pixels
    One image (flat or GIF) no larger than 500x250 pixels plus one line of text (no larger than size 2)
    No videos (including Youtube)

    We feel that these new limits are more than fair and there should be no need for anyone to have an image larger than this in their signature area. Obviously, we understand that not everyone will read this immediately so you have until this Friday (07/06/13) at 6PM to remove any images that are too big. After this time the following procedure will be in place:

    You will receive an official warning requesting the removal of your signature
    Failing this, you will be given an infraction and told to remove your signature
    Failure to do so will result in a further infraction and the image being removed by an admin

    Note: Repeated disregard of requests to remove your signature may result in the privilege of having one taken from you.
    If you would like to have an image resized so that it complies with the forum rules then I'm sure someone will be able to help you on the graphics board. You may wish to post in the Graphics Request Thread.
  3. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from marcos vitorino in Gold Championship 1 News   
    Re: Gold Championship 1 News
    Sorry if it seemed like I was harassing you.
    I have never had any special powers that would allow me "unblock" myself, honestly. I couldn't and wouldn't. I could do just about anything on the forum - but on the game my abilities were no different to any other customer.
    I have accidentally blocked people many times over the years (block button close to send or something). So when I sent someone a polite message (and I don't feel I am ever aggressive) and discovered I was blocked, I tended to assume the best i.e. that they have made the same mistake. I would then PM them from another account. Most of the time the person would respond and I would find blocking me was a mistake. If they didn't I knew it was intentional.
    I can't remember the specific messages I sent you or the player concerned... I used to send so many PMs... but my usual approach would be to try and find a mutually acceptable deal as I have always thought every player had a price (cash or trade). It always amazed me when people would marvel at my team yet not enter negotiations. For me, negotiation was the best bit of SM. SM limiting the part ex options was a blow although I understood their reasons.
    I must admit, I miss GC1, but I won't come back to SM as it is only moments like this (Easter hols) where I get much time. Thanks to those that have offered me spots in their Game Worlds.
  4. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from rio31 in Gold Championship 1 News   
    Re: Gold Championship 1 News
    I have finally decided to leave GC1 and to quit SM in full after more than 8 great years.
    I love the game, forum and the community and my departure is the result of increasing demands on my time in the real world. This has resulted in me doing the bare minimum on SM for a good year or so now; keeping my teams ticking over has increasing become a chore rather than the labour of love that it once was.
    Due to the sheer amount of time and effort I used to put into the forum and my teams I have found it hard to quit, but it has reached the point where my inactivity is making the clubs I have worked on suffer and that is not fair on my successors.
    My departure from GC1 is the hardest because Spartak was my first gold club and the team I have poured everything into over many years. I am proud of the side I have built and my track record... although I never conquered the SMFA cup to the extent I would have liked! It is a great gameworld - has always been my favourite by far - with some terrific managers.
    I have been the target of a lot of accusations in my time at GC1 and if I am honest it upsets me that some people think I have cheated and will be pleased to see me go. I do take comfort in knowing that I have always acted with honesty and integrity and that there are a number of people in the community remember this and my past contributions to SM.
    I wish everyone the very best of luck for the future. The game and the forum gives back whatever you put in.
  5. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from marcos vitorino in Gold Championship 1 News   
    Re: Gold Championship 1 News
    I have finally decided to leave GC1 and to quit SM in full after more than 8 great years.
    I love the game, forum and the community and my departure is the result of increasing demands on my time in the real world. This has resulted in me doing the bare minimum on SM for a good year or so now; keeping my teams ticking over has increasing become a chore rather than the labour of love that it once was.
    Due to the sheer amount of time and effort I used to put into the forum and my teams I have found it hard to quit, but it has reached the point where my inactivity is making the clubs I have worked on suffer and that is not fair on my successors.
    My departure from GC1 is the hardest because Spartak was my first gold club and the team I have poured everything into over many years. I am proud of the side I have built and my track record... although I never conquered the SMFA cup to the extent I would have liked! It is a great gameworld - has always been my favourite by far - with some terrific managers.
    I have been the target of a lot of accusations in my time at GC1 and if I am honest it upsets me that some people think I have cheated and will be pleased to see me go. I do take comfort in knowing that I have always acted with honesty and integrity and that there are a number of people in the community remember this and my past contributions to SM.
    I wish everyone the very best of luck for the future. The game and the forum gives back whatever you put in.
  6. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from Shelbourne FC in Managers who ignore Transfer Bids   
    Re: Managers who ignore Transfer Bids
    Well I haven't posted for a while but I will give my opinion on this subject.
    There has been a lot of talk about ignorance and laziness and I can understand it must look like that if you are chomping at the bit for a response to what you consider to be a good bid and are getting nothing back.
    I don't consider myself lazy or ignorant but I do ignore bids all the time and here is why:
    1) Some people make bids persistently on my players just to annoy me. Declining them just prompts another bid. I am not going to mark the player as unavailable just to deter one person's childish tactics as all my players have a price. Ignoring the culprits in such cases works.
    2) Sometimes I don't check my club messages. Some weeks I am just logging in to setup tactics as I don't have time for anything else. There is nothing wrong with that - people can spend 10 mins or 10 hours per day on SM its up to them.
    3) Sometimes I receive a bid and am genuinely contemplating it. I want to see if it prompts other interested parties to bid. Or I will only accept if I conclude another deal. That sort of thing. Unless the other manager has bothered to PM me (all too rare!) I don't feel the need (or have the time) to tell them this.
    4) Some clubs where I am more active than others I receive 200+ club messages per day and I face these at the end of the day after getting in from work. Clicking reject on each of these in isolation is quick but in total is very time consuming.
    Based upon the above I don't really think the current system needs changing. Yes there are a million things that could be done to improve the transfer market but that is a whole other subject imo.
    I would like to see a return to the days of being able to select (via tick box) certain club messages to apply actions such as "reject" and "delete" to make it easier to manage inboxes.
  7. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from Gozzy in Managers who ignore Transfer Bids   
    Re: Managers who ignore Transfer Bids
    Well I haven't posted for a while but I will give my opinion on this subject.
    There has been a lot of talk about ignorance and laziness and I can understand it must look like that if you are chomping at the bit for a response to what you consider to be a good bid and are getting nothing back.
    I don't consider myself lazy or ignorant but I do ignore bids all the time and here is why:
    1) Some people make bids persistently on my players just to annoy me. Declining them just prompts another bid. I am not going to mark the player as unavailable just to deter one person's childish tactics as all my players have a price. Ignoring the culprits in such cases works.
    2) Sometimes I don't check my club messages. Some weeks I am just logging in to setup tactics as I don't have time for anything else. There is nothing wrong with that - people can spend 10 mins or 10 hours per day on SM its up to them.
    3) Sometimes I receive a bid and am genuinely contemplating it. I want to see if it prompts other interested parties to bid. Or I will only accept if I conclude another deal. That sort of thing. Unless the other manager has bothered to PM me (all too rare!) I don't feel the need (or have the time) to tell them this.
    4) Some clubs where I am more active than others I receive 200+ club messages per day and I face these at the end of the day after getting in from work. Clicking reject on each of these in isolation is quick but in total is very time consuming.
    Based upon the above I don't really think the current system needs changing. Yes there are a million things that could be done to improve the transfer market but that is a whole other subject imo.
    I would like to see a return to the days of being able to select (via tick box) certain club messages to apply actions such as "reject" and "delete" to make it easier to manage inboxes.
  8. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from muallan in Managers who ignore Transfer Bids   
    Re: Managers who ignore Transfer Bids
    Well I haven't posted for a while but I will give my opinion on this subject.
    There has been a lot of talk about ignorance and laziness and I can understand it must look like that if you are chomping at the bit for a response to what you consider to be a good bid and are getting nothing back.
    I don't consider myself lazy or ignorant but I do ignore bids all the time and here is why:
    1) Some people make bids persistently on my players just to annoy me. Declining them just prompts another bid. I am not going to mark the player as unavailable just to deter one person's childish tactics as all my players have a price. Ignoring the culprits in such cases works.
    2) Sometimes I don't check my club messages. Some weeks I am just logging in to setup tactics as I don't have time for anything else. There is nothing wrong with that - people can spend 10 mins or 10 hours per day on SM its up to them.
    3) Sometimes I receive a bid and am genuinely contemplating it. I want to see if it prompts other interested parties to bid. Or I will only accept if I conclude another deal. That sort of thing. Unless the other manager has bothered to PM me (all too rare!) I don't feel the need (or have the time) to tell them this.
    4) Some clubs where I am more active than others I receive 200+ club messages per day and I face these at the end of the day after getting in from work. Clicking reject on each of these in isolation is quick but in total is very time consuming.
    Based upon the above I don't really think the current system needs changing. Yes there are a million things that could be done to improve the transfer market but that is a whole other subject imo.
    I would like to see a return to the days of being able to select (via tick box) certain club messages to apply actions such as "reject" and "delete" to make it easier to manage inboxes.
  9. Like
    tebthereb reacted to S04 in English Championship 1   
    Re: English Championship 1
    Thiago +1
    Sad to see you go Steven but as you say probably for the best, at least your wc-1 team went to a good manager in Mr.Malcom.
  10. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from sirmarkhughes in Exchange Player Value   
    Re: Exchange Player Vale
    When you have a big squad this will generally mean that your chairman heavily restricts what he will allow you to spend on new players (cash or part ex) as he undervalues them due to thinking you already have enough.
    I think that is pretty realistic.
    It depends on the part ex value of the players offered by the small club. If the squad is small their chairman will value them pretty high.
  11. Like
    tebthereb reacted to sirmarkhughes in Exchange Player Value   
    Re: Exchange Player Value
    My post was an off the cuff post,it might have flaws as it was just a 5 min reply to topic, nice disect of it though.
    Couple of points though.
    The small clubs I am talking about have massive squads 80 + players, when I say small I mean in stature to ratings [High end 90's], the higher the rating of a player you have in one position will limit the chairmans value of a lower rated player who plays in same position, thus meaning you can bid less no matter how much cash you have in the bank.
    By bigger I mean have more high end 90 rated players, these small clubs I am talking about have squad values of £200 million plus, 25-30 first team and youth teams in excess of 50 + players mostly all the young talents/risers.
    So the point you are making of SM want more smaller and realistic squads is moot in this instance.
    Most of the young risers go to the same 5 or 6 smaller clubs that I am talking about so it is them who is making the insane profits on them, it is these clubs who are getting bigger by the season, they just sell off the risers for big profits and repeat.
    A cap would then be the most viable option to stop any club from having 254 players, my club is 50-60 players full from first team to fillers and youth team, I do not need to buy risers and hardly ever do as my club is financially viable as I make a profit at the end of each season, I have the 2nd highest gate in the GW behind Man United and between that and European competition I do not need the risers to stay afloat but I would like to be able to build a youth team/academy of 20-30 youngsters of talents/youngsters I like to watch develop,that is one of the things that keep me interested in SM, take that away and my interest in SM drops substantially, On realism most Premiership clubs have a youth team/academy with 30 players so I am keeping it real, I do not have any concerns for players needing game time as I rotate the squad that I have, the only concerns I get are on loan players and I shuffle them per season so they disappear.
    I agree that the new system need more work and hopefully it gets done with some new implementations ie: squad cap, limit on number of players being able to be sent out on loan, higher impetus on morale of squads when playing games etc.
    With the part exchange system it may look like I am complaining ,I am not I just don't think it works at the minute with low rated players and with higher rated players especially at managed clubs doing internal deals as the values are skewed, hopefully it gets to a point where there is a realism to what players you can trade between two managed clubs for SM's sake as without internal deals happening forum filled game worlds will become a thing of the past then we will all be stuck with playing in half filled game worlds where you can pretty much dominate in the transfer market and in the game which to be honest gets boring after the first couple of doubles/trebles.
    Anyway I was just adding my two cents into the topic I will leave this back to the OP.
  12. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from Elohim in Support service   
    I had a look at similar threads on this subject but couldn't find a recent or similar discussion. Apologies if I am mistaken.
    Had a bit of a bad experience with Support recently that has actually wound up in me being banned from the service. This is a first for me.
    I was wondering what other people feel about the level of service from Support? I seem to find that my reports are frequently closed with only the explanation that after investigation it was found that there was no bug - but no help beyond that about the issue reported. This feels like a rather large flaw in a "Support" service to me.
    I sent a bit of a long PM to SM which goes into more detail about my recent experience and mentions a couple of suggestions. I have copied this below - thoughts welcome.
    Sorry that was long!
  13. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from Anri in Support service   
    I had a look at similar threads on this subject but couldn't find a recent or similar discussion. Apologies if I am mistaken.
    Had a bit of a bad experience with Support recently that has actually wound up in me being banned from the service. This is a first for me.
    I was wondering what other people feel about the level of service from Support? I seem to find that my reports are frequently closed with only the explanation that after investigation it was found that there was no bug - but no help beyond that about the issue reported. This feels like a rather large flaw in a "Support" service to me.
    I sent a bit of a long PM to SM which goes into more detail about my recent experience and mentions a couple of suggestions. I have copied this below - thoughts welcome.
    Sorry that was long!
  14. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from Ninster in Gold Championship 1 News   
    Re: Gold Championship 1 News
    What else can people report on though' date=' besides suspicion? It is pretty rare that anyone will have hard evidence... like a PM from someone saying "I am cheating", or looking over their shoulder and seeing a friend logging in next to them at school/work etc with a second account.
    As to when I would report a deal... hard to say... I suppose it just depends on how it "feels". I generally report based on what SM say can be an illegal deal; i.e.:
    [list']
    [*]Buying a club's best players for low value
    [*]Buying a club's worst players for high value.
    [*]Conducting multiple transfers with the same club that are one sided.
    [*]Any of the above prior to a manager resigning.


    Particularly if the last one applies. Why deals are not automatically reversed in that situation, I cannot understand!
    The first few are really subjective though and depends on each Game World. If it is a longstanding manager in GC1, I would think it pretty suspicious if they sold a high rated player for small amount of cash. If it is too low rated new managers joining at similar times and selling players for cash despite higher bids from other clubs, I would also report. Too many examples really.
    I am sure I report innocent deals sometimes but I don't feel responsible for any of these deals being reversed. Any fault there is with SM. Our part is just to flag deals to SM. A report should not equal an automatic reversal and thankfully this seems to be less the case than it was a few months back.
    What baffles me is when I see my deals being reversed when I know they are not the result of cheating on my part. Sure there is the SM get-out clause that the other manager might not have been acting fairly (knowingly doing a poor deal, for instance) but as I normally spend quite a while negotiating by PM it is normally pretty clear that this is not the case and that any advantage I have is the result of differences in opinions on values of players and what the other manager perceives as important to his team.
    For instance - just sold David Villa to Manchester United for Eriksen and Fischer. I have no doubt people will be reporting this because the Utd manager was recently appointed, and Eriksen will be considered by many in GC1 to have been his most valuable asset. The deal therefore seems to tick a number of the hallmarks of suspicious deals listed above. Should SM reverse it though? Obviously, I don't think so. The Utd manager has made a number of deals designed to improve the rating of his best XI and is not age focused. Evidenced by his deals with Barcelona. Utd manager might regret such decisions, or he might not. Either way he is entitled to do what he sees best for the club (as am I) and look at the short or long term as he pleases. As both managers acted in good faith and both chairmen were happy with the deals, the deal should stand I think.
    For me, regarding the deals I did with Betis recently, SM should have seen that we spent time negotiating by PM. They absolutely can check PM history between managers despite the suggestions I have seen saying they cannot. If they had checked that should have been the end of the story and the report should have been disregarded as I can't see many cheats bothering to fake a lengthy conversation.
    Sure it could be argued that Spartak did better in those deals than Betis, but the reverse can also be argued, so I can't blame anyone for reporting them (if they really thought something was fishy) just SM for making a poor decision that frustrates both managers and potentially makes us both less inclined to make deals with managed clubs going forward - which is surely the opposite to what SM would like to see.
    Sorry for the long post.
  15. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from SM Tony in Confusion with Loans & Concerns?   
    Re: Confusion with Loans & Concerns?
    Although it is correct to say that concerns do not affect performance, concerns are just an extension of morale. If a player has concerns his morale is generally low.
    Morale does affect performance. It is open to debate about how important it is though. Personally I think rating and condition is more important, there are other successful managers that would disagree.
    If his morale is low offering a new contract is normally the best way of boosting it.
    How low is his morale though? Unless it is below 80% I would not be that bothered myself although that's just my personal preference; nobody knows the scale by which morale impacts upon performance.
  16. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from Dannyb01y in New Finances (Loans / Contracts)   
    Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)
  17. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from KeyserSoze in New Finances (Loans / Contracts)   
    Re: Sm the wages of players on loan from shared between the two clubs
    Find this a bit of an unwelcome change in that I had hoped if SM were to touch the loan system it would be to allow people to negotiate the terms of a loan.
    This doesn't happen in real life, is not a fun addition to the game, and I don't recall seeing people asking for this change on the forum, so I don't see why this has been plucked out for action in this "community driven" game.
    As has been mentioned perhaps it is to hit people with lots of players out on loan. Speaking as one such monster, I can't really see this impacting upon me much due to the hugely inflated prices I can sell players for, so I think it is wide of the mark.
    Also a bit disappointed that SM don't announce changes like this to the community. We should not have to find out about these things by happening across a Club Message with a loan offer (or this thread)!
  18. Like
    tebthereb reacted to IOA in Championship Manager: Season 01/02   
    Re: Championship Manager: Season 01/02
    Apologies for the delay' date=' there you go
  19. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from SM Tony in Official Bundesliga Discussion Thread   
    Re: Official Bundesliga Discussion Thread
    Do you think he will stay?
    Just read this from Lewandowski
    "I have only one thing on my mind," he told TVN 24, referring to the Champions League final between Dortmund and Bayern on May 25.
    "A transfer is not the issue for me at the moment. You have to wait until the end of the season. I think everything will become clear."
    Not exactly committing himself to the club!
  20. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from Mia San Mia in Ideas to Improve SMFA   
    Re: Ideas to Improve SMFA
    The main things that concern me about the SMFA are:
    1) Reporting multiple accounts now appears to result in an automated and instant decision which clearly shows no human is actually reviewing the report and means the report is pointless.
    2) Evidence of similar automation problems when reporting individual deals. The OP mentioned what happens when reporting a random deal out of necessity and I have experienced the same.
    3) Clear failure by the SMFA (human or AI) to look at all relevant issues, such as whether managers need money, or whether time has been spent negotiating.
    4) Too much cloak and not enough dagger. Too much has to be kept quiet and too few people actually get punished these days. This means nobody has a clue what deals are "acceptable" and not enough people are punished for deliberate misdoings.
    5) Too much workload. SM can't possibly take time to look at each deal individually in as much details as we like. There are too many taking place every day.
    Solutions?
    I would like to see one main change. Transparency.
    For too long SM have guarded the cheat prevention system (CPS) like it is some sort of holy grail. This is completely unnecessary.
    Make it clear what SM consider a "dubious" or "illegal" transfer and people will make their deals to fit this. Clearly, the concern is that people will "abuse the system" but this is irrational. If SM set out the conditions they wish to judge people on, and someone uses these conditions to force a deal through, then what is the big problem? They have met the conditions, so by SM's own definition the deal is fine. As long as the conditions are thorough then deliberately constructing a deal that meets them can actually be positive.
    Even if it is really two people in the gameworld moving players between accounts, if their deal carries none of the hallmarks of cheating besides their linked accounts, and satisfies their chairmen (see below), then what is the real problem seeing as the club does not suffer? There is the option to report multiple accounts anyway to cover this situation if there is real funny business.
    This leads on to some subsidiary changes I would like to see which are:
    a) A more intelligent chairman and
    Re-evaluations of player values
    c) Tweaks to the other reporting methods
    If a deal is suitable to both chairmen, who are taking everything into account, then again it really matters very little about the motives behind the deal and the CPS becomes more redundant which is only a good thing in my opinion - the CPS should be looking at circumstances and letting the chairmen worry about whether a deal is good.
    Chairmen need to take into account factors such as how much money they have (i.e. if they have loads, they should really undervalue cash offers) and how many players they have (if they have a huge squad, they should be more interested in selling for cash) when making a decision. Sure this will mean some people can't do certain deals they want to do, but as long as we have transparency over why a deal is not possible is then people will work to what they have and can't really complain.
    With player values, it is ridiculous that the game seems to treat a CB as a LB or RB. We need the game to recognise individual positions, not just defenders/midfielders/attackers as I believe it does right now. This will allow deals to better reflect what people need.
    Youth values also need looking at. People go crazy for youth. The scouting facility suggests that the game recognises some youth are more valuable than others due to potential and it would be great if this was built in to the chairman's valuation of players owned and sought after. If this is not possible the values just need to be scaled differently based upon age.
    When SM do receive a report of multiple accounts or match fixing they need to actually look at these in more detail or effectively outsource this to the community (maybe that should read "insource") to deal with. The only way I could see this working is to flag any reports to the gameworld (excluding the subjects of the report) and offering people the opportunity to vote. Provided the report is seconded and thirded or receives a majority vote this could then be escalated back to a human at SM to look at who could then decide and give the basis for their decision.
    SM also need to take bug tickets more seriously when someone reports something that the reporting tools don't cover. It is hugely frustrating to spend time highlighting an issue and then have the ticket closed and be told "this is not a bug" and/or "we cannot discuss this". Nobody is asking for trade secrets and as above there is no need for all the secrecy. I don't see a problem with SM closing a ticket where someone just disagrees with a decision but SM need to look closely when someone is just providing an example that illustrates a wider issue.
    As has been said it should be possible to report a deal that already has been reported. It is madness that you cannot. Sometimes circumstances unfold that make it more obvious a deal has been dubious. There are always going to be circumstances that transparency and super-intelligent chairmen won't cover so the report system needs to stand and be taken seriously.
    I don't think that the community policing transfers entirely would work very well as there are too many agendas, even on a vote basis. In my favourite gameworld, GC1, I am pretty sure the majority would vote against my deals just because there is so much dislike of me in that gameworld. Even if it worked by escalating transfers to SM (as I am suggesting above with multi-accounts) it would be too easy to ensure this happened everytime to deals undertaken by someone you didn't like.
  21. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from KeyserSoze in Ideas to Improve SMFA   
    Re: Ideas to Improve SMFA
    The main things that concern me about the SMFA are:
    1) Reporting multiple accounts now appears to result in an automated and instant decision which clearly shows no human is actually reviewing the report and means the report is pointless.
    2) Evidence of similar automation problems when reporting individual deals. The OP mentioned what happens when reporting a random deal out of necessity and I have experienced the same.
    3) Clear failure by the SMFA (human or AI) to look at all relevant issues, such as whether managers need money, or whether time has been spent negotiating.
    4) Too much cloak and not enough dagger. Too much has to be kept quiet and too few people actually get punished these days. This means nobody has a clue what deals are "acceptable" and not enough people are punished for deliberate misdoings.
    5) Too much workload. SM can't possibly take time to look at each deal individually in as much details as we like. There are too many taking place every day.
    Solutions?
    I would like to see one main change. Transparency.
    For too long SM have guarded the cheat prevention system (CPS) like it is some sort of holy grail. This is completely unnecessary.
    Make it clear what SM consider a "dubious" or "illegal" transfer and people will make their deals to fit this. Clearly, the concern is that people will "abuse the system" but this is irrational. If SM set out the conditions they wish to judge people on, and someone uses these conditions to force a deal through, then what is the big problem? They have met the conditions, so by SM's own definition the deal is fine. As long as the conditions are thorough then deliberately constructing a deal that meets them can actually be positive.
    Even if it is really two people in the gameworld moving players between accounts, if their deal carries none of the hallmarks of cheating besides their linked accounts, and satisfies their chairmen (see below), then what is the real problem seeing as the club does not suffer? There is the option to report multiple accounts anyway to cover this situation if there is real funny business.
    This leads on to some subsidiary changes I would like to see which are:
    a) A more intelligent chairman and
    Re-evaluations of player values
    c) Tweaks to the other reporting methods
    If a deal is suitable to both chairmen, who are taking everything into account, then again it really matters very little about the motives behind the deal and the CPS becomes more redundant which is only a good thing in my opinion - the CPS should be looking at circumstances and letting the chairmen worry about whether a deal is good.
    Chairmen need to take into account factors such as how much money they have (i.e. if they have loads, they should really undervalue cash offers) and how many players they have (if they have a huge squad, they should be more interested in selling for cash) when making a decision. Sure this will mean some people can't do certain deals they want to do, but as long as we have transparency over why a deal is not possible is then people will work to what they have and can't really complain.
    With player values, it is ridiculous that the game seems to treat a CB as a LB or RB. We need the game to recognise individual positions, not just defenders/midfielders/attackers as I believe it does right now. This will allow deals to better reflect what people need.
    Youth values also need looking at. People go crazy for youth. The scouting facility suggests that the game recognises some youth are more valuable than others due to potential and it would be great if this was built in to the chairman's valuation of players owned and sought after. If this is not possible the values just need to be scaled differently based upon age.
    When SM do receive a report of multiple accounts or match fixing they need to actually look at these in more detail or effectively outsource this to the community (maybe that should read "insource") to deal with. The only way I could see this working is to flag any reports to the gameworld (excluding the subjects of the report) and offering people the opportunity to vote. Provided the report is seconded and thirded or receives a majority vote this could then be escalated back to a human at SM to look at who could then decide and give the basis for their decision.
    SM also need to take bug tickets more seriously when someone reports something that the reporting tools don't cover. It is hugely frustrating to spend time highlighting an issue and then have the ticket closed and be told "this is not a bug" and/or "we cannot discuss this". Nobody is asking for trade secrets and as above there is no need for all the secrecy. I don't see a problem with SM closing a ticket where someone just disagrees with a decision but SM need to look closely when someone is just providing an example that illustrates a wider issue.
    As has been said it should be possible to report a deal that already has been reported. It is madness that you cannot. Sometimes circumstances unfold that make it more obvious a deal has been dubious. There are always going to be circumstances that transparency and super-intelligent chairmen won't cover so the report system needs to stand and be taken seriously.
    I don't think that the community policing transfers entirely would work very well as there are too many agendas, even on a vote basis. In my favourite gameworld, GC1, I am pretty sure the majority would vote against my deals just because there is so much dislike of me in that gameworld. Even if it worked by escalating transfers to SM (as I am suggesting above with multi-accounts) it would be too easy to ensure this happened everytime to deals undertaken by someone you didn't like.
  22. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from evoked87 in Ideas to Improve SMFA   
    Re: Ideas to Improve SMFA
    The main things that concern me about the SMFA are:
    1) Reporting multiple accounts now appears to result in an automated and instant decision which clearly shows no human is actually reviewing the report and means the report is pointless.
    2) Evidence of similar automation problems when reporting individual deals. The OP mentioned what happens when reporting a random deal out of necessity and I have experienced the same.
    3) Clear failure by the SMFA (human or AI) to look at all relevant issues, such as whether managers need money, or whether time has been spent negotiating.
    4) Too much cloak and not enough dagger. Too much has to be kept quiet and too few people actually get punished these days. This means nobody has a clue what deals are "acceptable" and not enough people are punished for deliberate misdoings.
    5) Too much workload. SM can't possibly take time to look at each deal individually in as much details as we like. There are too many taking place every day.
    Solutions?
    I would like to see one main change. Transparency.
    For too long SM have guarded the cheat prevention system (CPS) like it is some sort of holy grail. This is completely unnecessary.
    Make it clear what SM consider a "dubious" or "illegal" transfer and people will make their deals to fit this. Clearly, the concern is that people will "abuse the system" but this is irrational. If SM set out the conditions they wish to judge people on, and someone uses these conditions to force a deal through, then what is the big problem? They have met the conditions, so by SM's own definition the deal is fine. As long as the conditions are thorough then deliberately constructing a deal that meets them can actually be positive.
    Even if it is really two people in the gameworld moving players between accounts, if their deal carries none of the hallmarks of cheating besides their linked accounts, and satisfies their chairmen (see below), then what is the real problem seeing as the club does not suffer? There is the option to report multiple accounts anyway to cover this situation if there is real funny business.
    This leads on to some subsidiary changes I would like to see which are:
    a) A more intelligent chairman and
    Re-evaluations of player values
    c) Tweaks to the other reporting methods
    If a deal is suitable to both chairmen, who are taking everything into account, then again it really matters very little about the motives behind the deal and the CPS becomes more redundant which is only a good thing in my opinion - the CPS should be looking at circumstances and letting the chairmen worry about whether a deal is good.
    Chairmen need to take into account factors such as how much money they have (i.e. if they have loads, they should really undervalue cash offers) and how many players they have (if they have a huge squad, they should be more interested in selling for cash) when making a decision. Sure this will mean some people can't do certain deals they want to do, but as long as we have transparency over why a deal is not possible is then people will work to what they have and can't really complain.
    With player values, it is ridiculous that the game seems to treat a CB as a LB or RB. We need the game to recognise individual positions, not just defenders/midfielders/attackers as I believe it does right now. This will allow deals to better reflect what people need.
    Youth values also need looking at. People go crazy for youth. The scouting facility suggests that the game recognises some youth are more valuable than others due to potential and it would be great if this was built in to the chairman's valuation of players owned and sought after. If this is not possible the values just need to be scaled differently based upon age.
    When SM do receive a report of multiple accounts or match fixing they need to actually look at these in more detail or effectively outsource this to the community (maybe that should read "insource") to deal with. The only way I could see this working is to flag any reports to the gameworld (excluding the subjects of the report) and offering people the opportunity to vote. Provided the report is seconded and thirded or receives a majority vote this could then be escalated back to a human at SM to look at who could then decide and give the basis for their decision.
    SM also need to take bug tickets more seriously when someone reports something that the reporting tools don't cover. It is hugely frustrating to spend time highlighting an issue and then have the ticket closed and be told "this is not a bug" and/or "we cannot discuss this". Nobody is asking for trade secrets and as above there is no need for all the secrecy. I don't see a problem with SM closing a ticket where someone just disagrees with a decision but SM need to look closely when someone is just providing an example that illustrates a wider issue.
    As has been said it should be possible to report a deal that already has been reported. It is madness that you cannot. Sometimes circumstances unfold that make it more obvious a deal has been dubious. There are always going to be circumstances that transparency and super-intelligent chairmen won't cover so the report system needs to stand and be taken seriously.
    I don't think that the community policing transfers entirely would work very well as there are too many agendas, even on a vote basis. In my favourite gameworld, GC1, I am pretty sure the majority would vote against my deals just because there is so much dislike of me in that gameworld. Even if it worked by escalating transfers to SM (as I am suggesting above with multi-accounts) it would be too easy to ensure this happened everytime to deals undertaken by someone you didn't like.
  23. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from marcos vitorino in Gold Championship 1 News   
    Re: Gold Championship 1 News
    Seems to be a lot of unrest in GC1 lately due to deals getting reported and reversed left, right and centre, and lots of finger pointing and angry News Feed posts!
    Personally GC1 is still the gameworld that I lavish most attention on and I still think it is the best due to being so competitive. The transfer market is really tough and it is still all about player trades and spotting the risers; even harder with the way the rating system works these days.
    The Russian and Ukraine league has really hotted up lately with an influx of good managers. Spartak find themselves in 3rd place and 4 points off the pace despite only two defeats. They also dropped out the Shield after winning this the last four seasons on the bounce (9 of the last 11 seasons). The Torpedo and FK Moskva managers are really showing me up despite the more talented squad at my disposal, and have done a brilliant job.
    On the transfer front, Spartak have been relatively quiet. The last big deal saw Bonucci arrive but the price was high with Grosskreutz and Cambiasso going the other way. Talented youngster Zuparic has also joined recently and will hopefully improve with his real life move to Serie A.
    I am generally trying to bring in some younger faces, but then in GC1, it seems like everyone is! This does mean that some quality veterans like Terry, Maicon, Lescott, and Arteta are available for younger players. Sure these players are on the dark side of 30 but with their ratings I would have thought they could provide a lot of good mileage to a lot of managers yet. Also thinking of trading Pepe.
    I would listen to offers on anyone though so if anyone is keen to trade drop me a PM. I'm surprised not to receive more PMs, I am difficult to agree something with but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
  24. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from SM Tony in loan players playing against parent club   
    Re: loan players playing against parent club
    I think it should be added as part of the negotiation process when initiating a loan offer.
    At the moment I tend to agree by PM that people won't field the player against me. However, people forget, or claim to have forgotten, quite frequently so it would be great to have it automatically blocked (like a cup tie).
    No idea why SM have not done this, people have been asking for it for years.
  25. Like
    tebthereb got a reaction from mawriz in Game Engine.   
    Re: How about making a realistic game engine ?
    Yeah I find the same thing, my Spartak side in GC1 have a great first XI and squad depth so I play a fit great side in most SMFA cup games, but I have won the SMFA cup twice in 16 seasons.
    I don't expect to win every season, not by a long stretch, and I want to see underdogs winning (as I have teams that are not great in the SMFA cup too!) but shock underdog wins seem too commonplace in cups and more so in the SMFA. Yet more so at the knockout stages.
    I just lost 6-0 on aggregate with my Spartak side. 2-0 at home when I played an avg first XI of 94.28 to his 87.18, 4-0 away when I played a 94.45 avg XI to his 87.18. I appreciate an 87+ team is utterly competent but 94+ is absolute world class and need to have an off day or face huge over-achievement from most opposition not to win comfortably. Perhaps the other manager engineered a tactical masterpiece, hats off to him either way, but my issue is that I have no idea where I went wrong despite playing this game for 6+ years and giving some thought to my tactics for each leg.
    In the first leg I played a 5-4-1 to pack the midfield and secure possession. The midfield contained Yaya Toure, Iniesta, Rooney and Messi. Messi got 4/10 and the opposition had 61% possession which seems at odds with the quality of my midfield to his (an 86, 87, and 88) and my objective. Maybe I was too defensive and invited this.
    If I was too defensive the stats look a bit odd. I had 25 shots in the first leg (10 on target) and 27 in the second leg (18 on target) but failed to find the net. Sounds like his keeper played a blinder but only rated 7 in both games on performance. Perhaps my shots were limited to shots from distance by a superlative defensive display but 2 of his 3 defenders got 6/10 in the first leg, the other got 7 so I am baffled there too. In the second leg the three got 6, 7 and 8/10 so a bit more plausible I suppose.
    Perhaps my forwards were rubbish but I had the best strikers in the game up front at various points, Messi, Ibrahimovic, Villa, Rooney, Higuain. Perhaps they underperformed? Well Messi got 4/10 in the first leg as mentioned (but was primarily in midfield) and Higuain got 6/10 that game. Ibrah came on at half time and got 8/10 which suggests a decent game for the game's best rated striker aside from Messi. In the second leg Messi and Villa got 7/10 despite which suggests a solid performance, which does not fit with the other stats of 10/25 shots on target and 0/10 goals from shots on target (I am assuming my forwards are largely accountable). Oh, and Ibrah off the bench got an 8/10 in the second leg too.
    Perhaps I should realise that playing low condition players is a risk. Oh, hang on, I didn't. All of my players went into both games greater than 90% condition which is meant to mean that they have a greater than 90% chance of playing to full capacity if you take the Online Help literally. I don't know the opponent's condition going into the game but based on their condition after the game they were at a comparable level.
    Must be poor morale then. Nope, not that either. The player with the lowest morale over the two legs was, I believe, on 72%. This was not my 4/10 Messi who actually had around 90% morale for both games, it was Goetze who got 7/10 in the second leg. The opposition's lowest was on around 68%. Generally morale for both teams was high.
    Player form perhaps? Well, no. The AvP rating for all players involved from both sides, both legs, were all over 7/10. One of the reasons Higuain started my first leg was his AvP which is now 8.47. He scored 6/10 in a surprise change of form. The AvP of my players was generally high with many over 8/10. More players than the opponents.
    Form of the teams? Here we have something. I am experiencing one of my worst ever runs for reasons unknown to me (I have lost a few on the bounce after a decent size unbeaten streak, also confusing in itself as if team performance is important, great form should not implode so easily). The opponent is top of his division despite being lower rated than some so is clearly doing something right. I just don't know what. If team form has some bearing, how on earth is this addressed? I believe team form it is a reflection of past events rather than something that can impact on future performances.
    Tactics wise I have mentioned played 5-4-1 in the first leg. He played 3-5-2 which historically has not done well against 5-4-1. I had switched to a more attacking 3-5-2 of my own after being a goal down at 60 minutes (seems a reasonable decision under the circumstances) but they scored again at 72 minutes in. I threw men forward at 75 mins but alas nothing. The opposition made no changes unless tactical (no way of telling, a problem in itself).
    In the second leg I began with a 3-5-2, same as him. I played a normal 3-5-2 attacking down the flanks, in anticipation of a weakness here. The opposition did indeed play an 85 in the right CB position, an 86 in the left CB position, and an 86 on the right of midfield. These were there weakest players. I played 98 rated Ronaldo on one wing and 93 rated Marcelo on the other. I was 3-0 down at half time. I came forward more and conceded again at 46 minutes. Further tactical changes by me were ineffectual. The opposition again made no changes unless tactical (no way of telling, a problem in itself. Yes I am repeating myself... to make a point).
    Perhaps this just came down to awesome performances on the day, luck, whatever you want to call it. Well, only one of his players got more than 7/10 in the first leg despite beating a team rated an average of more than 7 points higher away from home. Surely such a result can only come from a superlative performance in most positions, yet that doesn't seem to the case here. In the second leg the opponent performance ratings were generally quite high although two of them got 6/10 and 10 of my 11 players got 7/10 or higher despite beating a team 4-0 that are rated more than 7 rating points lower. An awesome performance like this would usually draw the plaudits all over the pitch.
    Again, I really don't mind losing - I lose plenty and don't complain - but there is too much of a random element at times, too little consistency between results and stats and factors you would expect to be contributing to the result, too much mystery, and not enough tactical options.
    Well done anyone who read all that, hopefully one such person works for SM and can see where I am coming from...
×
×
  • Create New...