Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Re: Future Potential Rating Interesting idea, although it would be tough to have SM assign a "potential" value to each player as everyone has their own opinion of players and "potential" can have a very broad meaning. But I see the point you're trying to make with how players are valued by the chairman. I've had a few deals blocked myself as I offered a player of slightly higher value for a slightly less valued player, but in my opinion the lesser valued player has more upside and "potential" but my chairman doesn't comprehend that area... so it was blocked. Perhaps a "Volatile Rating" based on the interests the player receives in all GCs. The true "potential" talents will more likely be "shortlisted" or transfered in a majority of GC leagues. If Jack Wilshire is truly a world class potential, he will receive much more activity across the board than the average player of same age and skill at the moment. As in real life, the more publicity/attention a young player gets the more of a "prospect" he becomes.
  2. One of the big debates on SM is how you get a "big" club in the Gold Championships. At present, it is a first come, first serve basis. But I just wanted to throw out another possible way of distributing clubs in the Gold Championship(as most of us don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day checking to see when the league is open). A lottery. And there are a number of ways to run it. 1) Completely random. The league opens and you have 24 hours to apply. After 24 hours, the clubs are distributed among the applicants at random. 2) Clubs distributed randomly, but those with higher manager ratings have a better chance/higher percentage of getting a "big" club. 3) Clubs distributed randomly, but based on the quality of clubs you own in other GC's, you have a higher percentage chance of obtaining a "big" club if your other clubs are not big. And vice versa. Also, the system will factor the total number of GC clubs you have compared to other users applying. 4) When applying for a new GC league, managers are allowed to select in order which leagues they would like to manage in (improving their chances of managing in that league, but not guaranteed). In fact, SM could combine options #2-#4. But for each option, there is a 24 hour period to apply before the system allocates the clubs to managers. Obviously not everyone who apply's will get a club each time, but the percentages work in the favor of those with fewer and/or weaker clubs in Gold Championships. Interested in hearing your thoughts (for or against).
  3. Re: Chairman Expectations Giving cash ...... great idea(sarcasm)! SM just took a boat load of cash out of this game because there was WAY TOO much. So all of your suggestions is to put more cash into the game. Yea, you can argue it will be based on results.... but what clubs typically get the results? The richer, bigger clubs. Sooo, the richer/bigger clubs get richer. It's the lower level and unmanaged clubs that don't get the cash ........ just as the lower level and unmanaged clubs never had the players before. So what's the point? Burs - No, managers will not be getting sacked at the moment....... but it is a suggestion for the FUTURE. In how this COULD be implimented. No one's saying it has been. It could be an "Option" for Custom Setups. Just because something wasn't added to the game now doesn't mean it can't be added later. If we're suggesting rewards/punishments for meeting or not meeting chairman expectations, why not consider ALL the options for the future. Other than adding more money to the game or sacking managers, how about giving successful managers more control over transfers (fewer deals blocked by the chairman). With the AI added, players take into the managers success into consideration.
  4. Re: Chairman Expectations Final note at the moment: For those who have the argument that they "pay" for a gold account and would be upset if they were to be sacked and lose their club..... then I say this ..... I pay for my gold account as well and have done pretty well with a mediocre club (Panathinaikos) but do not get the opportunity to manage a "big" club because too many of them are run by bad managers who do not have to worry about being sacked, despite some being relegated and getting horrible results with World-class results. As the "OFFICIAL" competition of SM, the Gold Championships should be a competition where you get rewarded for being a quality manager, and disciplined for being bad. It is my opinion that many of the faultering "big clubs" are not down to the manager being bad, but simply not putting the time into that particular club. Not setting tactics, changing line-up, etc. As a "paying" customer, you can run the big clubs in a number of Custom setups without being sacked, thus giving you the opportunity to manage these clubs regardless of you skill as a manager. Big clubs are the prized possessions of the GC. In the GC, ALL managers are "paying" customers. As a "paying" customer in the SM's premiere competition, I expect a managers skill to match that of the club he is at. If you can't prove yourself at a big club, then a "paying" customer who has demonstrated managerial skill at a smaller club should be given the opportunity. Perhaps SM would offer the "outgoing" manager of the big club the job at the club of the "incoming" manager. For example, if I am at Panathinaikos and you're at AC Milan. You suck and I'm doing wonders with my smaller club. SM offer me the Milan job and I accept. Then you're offered the job at Panathinaikos, instead of being kicked out of that GC altogether. If you refuse, then that's your choice and without a club. But as someone stated, this kind of change should be implimented in NEW GC Setups. As far as the existing GC Setups..... if this is to be implimented, you would have to give ALL managers atleast one full season before this takes place. Give every manager a chance to turn things around and make the necessary adjustments. Gold Championships are the PREMIERE competition in this game. Many of the best managers are not allowed to realistically excel in GC because they are stuck at lower clubs because bad managers simply won't give up their big clubs. As a "PAYING" customer, I think this is unfair. "Paying" customers can have it their way in Custom Setups with big clubs, but in GC.... it should be the managers who demonstrate skill that are given the best opportunities.
  5. Re: Chairman Expectations In response to the managers (or manager's "friend") who had very high quality clubs (Liverpool, Milan's, Madrid's, Barca, Man Utd), who say they did all they could and still had trouble winning...... then obviously you're not doing something right and in realistic terms you should be sacked. You would be in real-life. You might say but this is a game, but if you have some of the best players in the world and still can't win, you're obviously not on par as a manager with your players/club.
  6. Re: Chairman Expectations Manager's might not be sacked immediately for not meeting Chairman Expectations, but perhaps after 2 or more seasons of not meeting these expectations, depending on how far away they finish from those expectations. And/Or Along with Chairman Expectations, the chairman should also list what they will NOT stand for (relegation, debt, etc). This way, a manager has no excuses at the end of the season because they knew what the club/chairman would not tolerate.
  7. I know you can send a ticket into SM regarding new players, and that they have some criteria before they will add a player to the database. My question is, if I advise SM to a new player, am I informed somehow by SM that the player has been added, or do I need to check the Free Agent list every day?
  8. Re: Key Game Improvements Quick note (hopefully keeping it short): 1) Love the changes, or coming changes. Been preaching several of these for a time now. 2) Love how anytime SM implements changes in the game, a mass of users immediately cry "foul!", "no, it won't work", or "stupid changes", yet a few weeks or a month later, no one is complaining because it made the game better. Ex. Everyone complaining that their "hard earned" silly/fake money was taken away and threaten to cancel their gold membership or quit their GC teams. Money on SM was anything but "hard earned". You could go on vacation for 2 weeks and come back to 10-20 million extra in your budget. SM is simply taking away the ease at which money is earned, and making clubs actually earn money they get (either through selling of players, actual scouting of talent, or financial prudence). or Ex. "because you took all my money away, there's no way smaller clubs can compete. You're ruining the game." Love it! Sounds like a 5 year old throwing a fit. Taking money away forces the smaller AND the bigger clubs to be more responsible with their money. Bigger clubs will still have "buying" power because of their squad players and assets, but won't be able to buy up every decent player on an unmanaged club they see. Big clubs will now focus on real "star" players, which cost more. Smaller clubs now have a better chance with these decent players on unmanaged clubs, or the decent players being sold by the bigger clubs. Too many small club managers have dreams of signing Kaka, Ronaldo, Messi, Aguero, etc, and need to set realistic goals for themselves. 3) With money harder to come by, clubs will be forced to do some actual "scouting". By "scouting", I don't mean buying any youth talent you see. This will be throwing money away. "Scouting" entails knowing of the player in real life and knowing his potential, either through simply watching matches or doing research. Managers with real "scouting" abilities will be the ones without the massive youth squads, but have 5-15... and you'll notice them all rising, either to sell for a profit or become a first-teamer in the squad. If you earn the money, do with it as you will...but just buying up countless youths will leave you with a handful of under-performing, fall by the wayside, and no-real-potential players amounting to nothing. 4) Club debt is the only true way to give money value on this, or any game. Just making money less abundant doesn't mean I would rather have money over a player. Players will always be more valuable, until one of two things occurs ..... #1 The manager can be sacked for excessive or long-running debt ... or #2 The chairman selling off players without the manager's approval (which may or may not be the club's best players) in order to get out of debt. 5) Player and Club AI will do wonders for maintaining squad sizes and spreading player distribution out in a fair manner. I just hope managers don't run into instances where a manager has a legit reason for buying a player and he refuses. Ex. I've run into this with my chairman blocking deals too..... I want to buy a younger player who I know is doing wonders in real life. He is certain to increase in his rating, so I want to buy him before he increases or someone else signs him, only to find he refuses because I have a better player in his position (but that better player will soon be decreasing in rating). Here's the situation I've run in before. I wanted to buy Player A, a younger, less skilled player who was bound to rise for my Player B, my older but slightly more skilled player, who I knew was about to have his rating decreased. Player B was currently better than Player A, but I knew they were bound to swap places. Offer was accepted only for my chairman to block. I was trying to help my squad and chairman stopped it. That's all for now.
  9. Re: New gold member, and i see a sorry state of affairs And only SM can explain exactly why they chose not to make it known that large amounts of money would be taken away, but think what might have happened if they did. If SM gave a 2 day or weeks notice that this would happen, every single manager on the game would've spent all their money on buying every possible player from an unmanaged club, making even more clubs desolate of players. The very thing most are complaining about. You wouldn't have been able to buy players on managed clubs because no one would want your cash cause they were about to lose it. Now I understand the dissappointment in losing all that money, but it wouldn't have mattered if you had a notice or not that it was going to be taken away. It wasn't like clubs had to work hard to earn that money. No one earned that money. Clubs had outrageous sums of money simply from existing, not selling players. You could ignore your clubs for a week or two, come back and find 5-10 million extra cash in your budget. Hardly money earned. SM is taking away the ease at which money is earned and forcing clubs to earn it through selling of players. If clubs had earned all their money through transfers, then we wouldn't have clubs with massive senior squads of 40+ or youth squads of 50+. How else are clubs like these able to buy so many players without selling anyone? Because money was too easy to come by. Not anymore, with the changes SM are putting into place. Hope this helps.
  10. Re: New gold member, and i see a sorry state of affairs Beta - While it was not ideal for SM to have to take most of the money from all clubs, it was necessary. If SM implemented their new and coming changes WITHOUT removing this cash from the GC setup, then it would've been pointless. The system in place was not perfect, but to help solve the issue SM needed to take necessary steps. For example, one of the coming changes is to make club debt a reality, so that clubs with way too many players will be forced to sell unused players or go into debt. If clubs were allowed to keep their 200 million, then it would take them 3-5 seasons, if not longer, before they even came close to going into debt. If they had sold all their unused players right away, then these clubs would amass an even greater amount of money, still making it pointless cause they could offer outrageous amounts of money to clubs for players. It would'nt have solved the problem. As in real life, smaller clubs have less money and assets. But by taking this money away, the bigger clubs cannot scroll through the unmanaged clubs and by every decent player now. They will have to save if they want to purchase quality players. This will allow the smaller clubs a better opportunity to spend their hard earned money on decent players, who are no longer hogged by the big clubs, if not sold from the big clubs because they don't use the player. As a small club, you cannot compete with the big clubs in purchasing "star" players. They have too much leverage with exchanging their "star" players and cash from selling "star" players. It's is the challenge of the smaller clubs to buy younger, rising players for cheap, and either hold on to them as they increase in rating or sell them to the highest bidder as that players rating and popularity increase. There are other changes not mentioned here, but I tried to answer your question as to why the money had to be taken from clubs. Every club was affected, not just the small clubs. Bigger clubs still have the bigger squads and star players, but they will have to refocus their transfer efforts with their less money. To get more money, these large clubs will start to sell their unused players, making it possible for the medium to small clubs to improve themselves.
  11. Re: Listed Positions Does this mean nobody knows?
  12. Haven't been able to figure this one out yet through my matches. Does it matter if a player is listed as CM/DM or DM/CM, or AM/LM compared to LM/AM? For example, if Player A is listed as a CM/DM, I know they will perform best in one of these two positions better than anywhere else, but does this mean he prefers CM over DM more or are they the same to this player? If Player B is listed as a DM/CM.... and I play Player A and B as DM, does Player B statistically have a better chance of performing better? Been on SM for a year now and haven't figured this one out. In my Panathinaikos GC 14 side, I have 2 AM/LM that I rotate at AM and LM position. The player playing at LM usual gets the higher rating but the AM gets more of the goals(being closer to goal). Also, I play with 2 DM (3-2-2-2-1). I have a CM who routinely outperforms my players with a DM listing in the DM position. Could be coincidence, but it's been a season and a half and he stills does. He's even 1 rating lower at 87.
  • Create New...