Jump to content

Extolite

Members
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Extolite got a reaction from Neller in Chairman Expectations   
    Re: Chairman Expectations
  2. Like
    Extolite got a reaction from DanW in Key Game Improvements   
    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.
  3. Like
    Extolite got a reaction from Machine in Gold Championship Game World Economies   
    Re: Gold Championship Game World Economies
    Well, I'm done debating for now. Spent enough time haven't we Yankee and Mark.
    We may disagree on the change itself. I see the benefit in itself and the potential it has to further improve the game down the road, and am willing to give SM the benefit of the doubt that these future changes will come.
    As far as the methodology in not letting it be known to the SM community first is a further grey area. But this is small potato's compared to the bigger issue. Let it be known that I agree that some clubs got screwed with the timing and not knowing of the incoming change, but clubs were going to get screwed either way... but it was for the greater good of the game.
    Some disagree with this change, but every change SM have made has been oppossed by a number of managers and yet we all come back, and later forget why we oppossed it. This may be a major change, but it's the major changes that can make the biggest difference.
  4. Like
    Extolite got a reaction from Richard Wallace in Gold Championship Game World Economies   
    Re: Gold Championship Game World Economies
    Studge - Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean everyone else has the same opinion. With less money, it stops clubs from buying up every player they see. They'll have to stop this if they want any hopes of buying a quality player.
    For example, with 20 million, a club can buy countless youth talents with just half of this, and still have 10 million. By taking the large amount of money away, clubs will be forced to only pay for players they really want.
    I had 15 million. I now have 4 million. With only 4 million, I'll only spend it on someone I actually want. That is how less money will help the economies of the GC setups.
    While it takes away your transfer kitty, it has done the same for everyone..... so Madrid, Milan, Man United, etc will not be bidding on 10 players at once, but rather on 1-2 players they actually want.
    It gives the smaller clubs an actual chance of signing a player.
  5. Like
    Extolite got a reaction from tecalee in 1 Minor Change to Solve Multiple Debates   
    I have 1 minor suggestion that could solve several of the key/major debates regarding SM.
    Raise the players salary per turn, either to realistic amounts or simply just raise them from what they are. Why?
    1) It would indirectly limit the squad sizes of clubs by forcing managers to be more financially accountable. A) Makes a majority of managers happy by limiting the squad size, while Keeping those who oppose squad caps happy as well as they still have the freedom to sign whoever or however many players they want, assuming they have the funds for it. They just have to do so with more financial responsibilities. This would also force managers into actively recruiting their youth talents instead of just buying up any youth they see.
    2) Makes money less abundant, and thus more valuable. Or better yet, doesn't make money less abundant, but it simply allocates more money to be paid to players salary instead of all the money going to bloated club budgets. It then wouldn't be worth it for clubs to have 90+ rated players sitting the bench, taking up large salaries. More of these "bench" players would be transfer listed. More transfers would be made for cash only, as swapping 1 excellent player for 2 good players still won't help your budget situation. Also, clubs with 50+ youth players would have large sums of their budget paying for players who will never see a game, and probably plunging a club with this size of a squad into debt.
    3) Increases the likelihood of players being sold for cash only, and in general. Mentioned in point above.
    4) Creates more potential for clubs to go into debt. With this, and the addition of a "manager sacking" application for excessive debt or debt over a certain period, managers will either be sacked for poor financial management or players will be automatically Transfer Listed, and bids accepted, by the chairman until club debts are wiped clean. This will either start when debt reaches a certain amount or if the club are in debt over a specific amount of time. The chairman could give the manager a 2 weeks notice before taking action.
    5) In continuation of #4, if a club is in debt, they obviously cannot purchase any new transfers, but they also will not be allowed to renew or re-negotiate player contracts. If in debt, any players whose contract expires at the end of the season is not automatically renewed, but instead Transfer Listed by the chairman. Players can then only be taken off the Transfer List when club debt has been removed.
    6) Not exactly the same idea, but another idea I had (maybe I'll post in anothere thread). Each club has a Total Budget, which is essentially the "Transfer Budget" + "Salary Budget". For example, AC Milan has 25 million cash. It is estimated that their yearly salary will be 10 million. Therefore, Milan have 15 million to spend on transfers. If they sell a player for 10 million, not only do they get 10 million added to their transfer budget, but they also get the amount of cash that was previously allocated for that players salary. To clarify, if Pato is the player who is sold at 10 million. Milan get that 10 million to their transfer budget. But Pato was also expected to get paid 1.2 million in salary for the remainder of the season. Since Milan no longer have to pay that 1.2 million to Pato, that 1.2 million goes to the transfer budget. Vice versa, if Milan buy Lampard for 10 million. That 10 million comes out of the transfer budget. Bringing the transfer budget down to 5 million. But also, Lampard is expected to make 1 million in salary for the rest of the year. So that 1 million comes out of the transfer budget and into the salary budget. Transfer budget now 4 million. Salary budget now 11 million. Total budget now 15.
    The PROS are obviously mentioned in the above points, but here are the CONS I could think of, and that are sometimes mentioned in these forums.
    1) Smaller clubs may be at a disadvantage for paying larger salaries (because of smaller stadiums). Solution: Proportionally this wouldn't change anything. Smaller clubs will always be at a disadvantage unless you unfairly give them benefits not allowed to other clubs. Basically, my suggestion to this is allow smaller clubs to increase their stadium capacity (to a limit) as they get promoted. You can put a limit of 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000, based on the division. If they get relegated, the capacity stays the same, but the number of supporters to the matches decrease.
    2) Taking over clubs already in debt. Solution: This is assuming managers can be fired for excessive or prolonged debt. New managers will have a 1-2 month "honeymoon" period to either reduce the debt or eliminate the debt. Clubs cannot accrue debt while managerless, nor can they increase revenue. However, if chairman are given the ability to Transfer List players to help pay off the debt, before the original manager leaves, you won't find clubs with massive debts as no club would stand for it. So this wouldn't even be a problem.
    In essence, this would help solve the over adundance of money problem, and indirectly limit the size of squads without infringing on the "player hoarders" so-called "right" to buy as many players as possible. Thirdly, it creates more player movement, limits player hoarding, and lop-sided leagues which is a big reason for managers leaving established leagues.
  6. Like
    Extolite got a reaction from tebthereb in Do player ratings/stats actually affect the outcome?   
    I've been on this game since May, and I've figured some stuff up to now, and some things not. I don't expect to "master" this game in short period of time by any means, but a few obvious things stand out that make no sense to me. Perhaps you in the forums can shed some light.
    I am trying to differentiate what actually matters and what is simply for "show" on this site.
    1) Post-Game Player Ratings - These online management games are run off of numbers (using statistics and chance to deliver a product). Do the player ratings at the end of a match actually mean anything or are they just a number randomly assigned to a player at the end of a match? In preparing for a few matches, I've noticed an opponents 72 rated CB playing at right-mid, and he is consistantly receiving ratings of 6-7. The rest of his team is upper 80's, and the same goes for his opponents. If upper 80 rated players are being rated 6-8, how does this player rated so much lower, and way out of position manage these same ratings? Which brings me to my next point?
    2) Player Positions - Do players positions actual have an affect? See my point above.
    3) Match Summary/Match Stats - I already know that the match summary is not accurate, as players who are subbed out continue to take shots. I've also noticed that the number of shots and shots on target in the match stats do not match the match summary. Recently, my opponent had 5 total shots, 4 shots on goal. My opponent scored 4 goals. A mathematical possibility, which I leave to poor luck on my teams behalf. However, in the match report, it indicates my opponent had many more shots on goal in which my goalie made several saves. I don't really pay much attention to the match summary, but should I pay attention to the Match Stats? Do they actually give a proper indication of how the match went, or is this also just a bunch of numbers thrown together to make the matches seem more realistic?
    4) Tactics - Mastering the tactics takes time, I understand this from other online games. My question, how much affect do tactics actually have? I notice in most cases, the better teams on this site tend to win, as they obviously have the better squads(which leads me to believe that, yes, player skill ratings do matter.... not to confuse this with post-game ratings). However, in my process of learning about tactics, I've often left my tactis as default/neutral when playing lesser teams and/or unmanaged teams so as not to screw myself. My players are better than my unmanaged opponent and I know their tactics will be default as well. Yet, the match outcomes to these matches seem to be completely random. Win some, lose some, draw some with no rhyme or reason. I try varying tactics against equal or superior opponents, with the same outcome.
    I am just confused to a number of things on this site, and differentiating on what I should focus on and what I can ignore. I've read the tactics section on this site... it makes sense from a common-sense point of view, from someone coming from a football(soccer) back-ground.
    Some help please
  7. Like
    Extolite got a reaction from Dudeskin in Do player ratings/stats actually affect the outcome?   
    I've been on this game since May, and I've figured some stuff up to now, and some things not. I don't expect to "master" this game in short period of time by any means, but a few obvious things stand out that make no sense to me. Perhaps you in the forums can shed some light.
    I am trying to differentiate what actually matters and what is simply for "show" on this site.
    1) Post-Game Player Ratings - These online management games are run off of numbers (using statistics and chance to deliver a product). Do the player ratings at the end of a match actually mean anything or are they just a number randomly assigned to a player at the end of a match? In preparing for a few matches, I've noticed an opponents 72 rated CB playing at right-mid, and he is consistantly receiving ratings of 6-7. The rest of his team is upper 80's, and the same goes for his opponents. If upper 80 rated players are being rated 6-8, how does this player rated so much lower, and way out of position manage these same ratings? Which brings me to my next point?
    2) Player Positions - Do players positions actual have an affect? See my point above.
    3) Match Summary/Match Stats - I already know that the match summary is not accurate, as players who are subbed out continue to take shots. I've also noticed that the number of shots and shots on target in the match stats do not match the match summary. Recently, my opponent had 5 total shots, 4 shots on goal. My opponent scored 4 goals. A mathematical possibility, which I leave to poor luck on my teams behalf. However, in the match report, it indicates my opponent had many more shots on goal in which my goalie made several saves. I don't really pay much attention to the match summary, but should I pay attention to the Match Stats? Do they actually give a proper indication of how the match went, or is this also just a bunch of numbers thrown together to make the matches seem more realistic?
    4) Tactics - Mastering the tactics takes time, I understand this from other online games. My question, how much affect do tactics actually have? I notice in most cases, the better teams on this site tend to win, as they obviously have the better squads(which leads me to believe that, yes, player skill ratings do matter.... not to confuse this with post-game ratings). However, in my process of learning about tactics, I've often left my tactis as default/neutral when playing lesser teams and/or unmanaged teams so as not to screw myself. My players are better than my unmanaged opponent and I know their tactics will be default as well. Yet, the match outcomes to these matches seem to be completely random. Win some, lose some, draw some with no rhyme or reason. I try varying tactics against equal or superior opponents, with the same outcome.
    I am just confused to a number of things on this site, and differentiating on what I should focus on and what I can ignore. I've read the tactics section on this site... it makes sense from a common-sense point of view, from someone coming from a football(soccer) back-ground.
    Some help please
  8. Like
    Extolite got a reaction from BadBlueBoys in Substitution Fatigue   
    Maybe it's just my clubs, but I've noticed that a player who comes off the substitutes bench is never fatigued after the game, and a player who plays 90 minutes is just as fatigued as a player that was subbed at 45, 60, and 75 minutes. Not realistic. This area needs improving.
    Also, I've had a player sub OUT on 60 minutes, but in the game summary, this players was taking shots in the 80th, 86th, and 90th minute.
    I know this game is run merely by numbers and statistics, but stuff like this shouldn't be happening.
  9. Like
    Extolite got a reaction from Burrow27 in Buying Loan Players in your squad   
    I personally like the idea that Club A cannot make an offer on a player who is loaned out to Club B, from Club C. However, I think the club that currently has the player on-loan should be able to make transfer bids, as the only club to be able to do so.
    I've had a couple of situations where I had a player on loan(because I couldn't afford to buy him at the time), and agreed with the other manager to buy the player when I did have the money for a certain amount. To do so, I had to cancel the loan, sending the player back to his original club, proposing the bid, waiting for it to be accepted, and then waiting for SM to approve it.
    They player should be able to stay on loan at his current club until the transfer bid is completed, and then he is simply owned by the club he was loaned out to.
×
×
  • Create New...