Jump to content

Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?


dancpoli
 Share

Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?  

  1. 1.



Recommended Posts

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

SM probably wonder why they have 566' date='663 managers and only 1,051,422 managed clubs ([b']average of just 1.8 clubs per manager when folk could have 3 for free)

i thot peeps can only get 2 clubs free with one account ... :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

Well I'm sorry but this is really ridiculous, just had a check and for EVERY single team I checked (about 10-15) in my league the concerns have gone trough the roof. At this rate we'll have to be doing transfers throughout the season, basically selling a player immediately when his TB comes off because by then he'll have concerns. And it also basically means that if you have built a top team over the years (which I have, brought my club in 2 years from an average 88 to 93) all that work was a bit for nothing because anyone rated 88 or higher will get concerns if he doesn't play at least 25 games a league (that seems to be kinda the minimum looking at the stats in the league, we're on game 34 now). And that means that if you have a great team with an average of 93, you're subs are going to have to be 87 or lower, so once you get a few long time injuries you can definately forget any wish of being competitive.. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I'll no doubt get criticised for pointing this out but i'll do it anyway! If you notice from the poll Steve Tebbutt (tebthereb) has voted no........Now anyone who has been on this game for longer than 10 minutes knows that Steve has built the biggest and best squad on SM and has had the team for over 6 years I believe. When I last looked nearly every single one of his players had concerns, most were even level 3 and 4 concerns but he still votes no.

Now, I am only speculating and he would have to confirm but I am guessing concerns have added to the game for him as prior to having to actually manage his squad all he had to do was use his charm to con unsuspecting managers out of their star youngsters for some useless offer he has sold to them as being Messi-like! Now, as Stewart (Machine) has pointed out he actually has to carefully monitor his team and concerns to ensure he doesn't lose the fringe players from his ridiculously good, star studied squad. Just to give those reading this an idea of how good the squad is, he generally loans out 50+ players a season and that includes the likes of Victor Valdes, Gonzalo Higuain, Carlos Tevez and so on. All this within the extremely competitive setup that is GC1!

Just to point out, this is merely an observation that someone that the concerns arguably affects more than anyone else says it doesn't detract from his enjoyment of the game. Also, not blowing smoke up Steve's behind because as good as his squad is he does not win enough with it and with any tactical sense he would win the SMFA Cup every year!! :D:D:rolleyes::);)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I'll no doubt get criticised for pointing this out but i'll do it anyway! If you notice from the poll Steve Tebbutt (tebthereb) has voted no........Now anyone who has been on this game for longer than 10 minutes knows that Steve has built the biggest and best squad on SM and has had the team for over 6 years I believe. When I last looked nearly every single one of his players had concerns' date=' most were even level 3 and 4 concerns but he still votes no.

Now, I am only speculating and he would have to confirm but I am guessing concerns have added to the game for him as prior to having to actually manage his squad all he had to do was use his charm to con unsuspecting managers out of their star youngsters for some useless offer he has sold to them as being Messi-like! Now, as Stewart (Machine) has pointed out he actually has to carefully monitor his team and concerns to ensure he doesn't lose the fringe players from his ridiculously good, star studied squad. Just to give those reading this an idea of how good the squad is, he generally loans out 50+ players a season and that includes the likes of Victor Valdes, Gonzalo Higuain, Carlos Tevez and so on. All this within the extremely competitive setup that is GC1!

Just to point out, this is merely an observation that someone that the concerns arguably affects more than anyone else says it doesn't detract from his enjoyment of the game. Also, not blowing smoke up Steve's behind because as good as his squad is he does not win enough with it and with any tactical sense he would win the SMFA Cup every year!! :D:D:rolleyes::);)[/quote']

what if he clicked on the wrong option? XD :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I'll no doubt get criticised for pointing this out but i'll do it anyway! If you notice from the poll Steve Tebbutt (tebthereb) has voted no........Now anyone who has been on this game for longer than 10 minutes knows that Steve has built the biggest and best squad on SM and has had the team for over 6 years I believe. When I last looked nearly every single one of his players had concerns' date=' most were even level 3 and 4 concerns but he still votes no.

Now, I am only speculating and he would have to confirm but I am guessing concerns have added to the game for him as prior to having to actually manage his squad all he had to do was use his charm to con unsuspecting managers out of their star youngsters for some useless offer he has sold to them as being Messi-like! Now, as Stewart (Machine) has pointed out he actually has to carefully monitor his team and concerns to ensure he doesn't lose the fringe players from his ridiculously good, star studied squad. Just to give those reading this an idea of how good the squad is, he generally loans out 50+ players a season and that includes the likes of Victor Valdes, Gonzalo Higuain, Carlos Tevez and so on. All this within the extremely competitive setup that is GC1!

Just to point out, this is merely an observation that someone that the concerns arguably affects more than anyone else says it doesn't detract from his enjoyment of the game. Also, not blowing smoke up Steve's behind because as good as his squad is he does not win enough with it and with any tactical sense he would win the SMFA Cup every year!! :D:D:rolleyes::);)[/quote']

I'm not suprised the likes of Valdes, Higuain and Tevez got concerns. So he should be voting no cause damn right they should have concerns. But they would have gained concerns before the changes to the system were made anyway! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

SM probably wonder why they have 566' date='663 managers and only 1,051,422 managed clubs (average of just 1.8 clubs per manager when folk could have 3 for free) - stands to reason the more interesting players that are available the more gameworlds there will be that get filled or at least see an increase in managed clubs.[/b']

Long-standing gameworlds that are full are in the extreme minority and are an exception, most are half-managed (at best) "closed shops" as generally speaking 90% of the best talent (both high-rated and high-potential) will be at 25% of the clubs.

If SM can get that closer to 75% of the talent at 50% of the clubs then they'll appeal to the "casual" manager which helps the gameworld thrive.

just keep dreaming!...keeps dreams, big mistake in my eyes they have them now not, and they will not ever ,ever have !....

I look around in the world standard,who are the hardest hit of all ,how many quit there every day,!!! take a look see at yourself... have now 15 worlds, there were many more world's but have guit a lot way no managers more in, in 3 weeks is more than half gone or better more than 75% IN SOME WORLD'S not without some before their players to sell to one or the other flute team - so now I sit with 15 worlds with almost no managers 5 to 10, have already stopped some where no one reads good ... well, almost everyone has resigned ,where there used to be 30 to 45 , team with more than 20 players with worry, there are only a few stay .... the new managers who have coming in, the same minuut the guit already in these 3 weeks time there is not ONE BUT REALLY NOT ONE NEW MANAGER STAY in my 15 worlds left, where all the major teams includede the big 5 are free in some for weeks.... but all with concerns too many players whit concerns or the manager before who has play for season, have sell his players too these unmanaged team's!...now i have 15 world's left who are worthless,really worthless..just als the others that i have already quit....thanks SM

with almost no managers, too many players with concerns, all the big teams are free ... no one remains .... what are my options .... dreamer! now playing in a crappy world after so many good seasons, with good managers, which is now less than 5% continued to play ..... then stop it for me too .. after 3 weeks no one came .... and much, much more that will happen, these stop and start again a brand new world....after a few monds my world maybe these sold players sit back in their team,but what about the other hundreds..yes hundreds of players at level 2 and 3 and others at 4 without a manager ,well tell me dreamer what will happed.... wrecked that they did.

so just keep dreaming never or never the will get more peopble in,the come and the go...maybe if they upgrade the game completely, then maybe .... but now if they are not careful, they can have one day a surprised that the have not expected ...you will see it just wait.

and yes it is managed a team...and i do ,but i do also not buy any player from 90+, and don't have a big team, so i don't have worry's ,only whit young players from 70 to 85....and some who has a long time injuried....don't give what others think ..but I see what happed now in my world's these standard world's, if it happed in 30 world's than also in others too....you can put these other 15 whit the trash now....don't go to wait to till there are more managers come in after 3 weeks and more....it is only gone downhill, and no team is not more the same als before, every day players are sold whit concerns to others unmanged team...

I think you are saying that gameworlds have fewer managed clubs because of player concerns?

Without player concerns the majority of gameworlds sit half-empty anyway so SM probably think it can't hurt to try things a different way and see if things change.

I could understand the uproar if the player concern increase rate was artificially high, but people need to remember that most gameworlds are a 20 week season as opposed to a real-life 40 week season.

I've read people unhappy that concerns are going up 1 level every month but surely that would be about right?

Isn't it realistic to say that a player will increase in concern in real-life every 2 months if they are unhappy?

Think of it this way:

August: real-life season starts (SM season starts)

September:

October: "boss I'd like to play more" (Level 1 after 4 weeks/ 8 games)

November:

December: "boss I really need to be playing more" (Level 2 after 8 weeks/ 16 games)

January:

February: "boss I'm still not playing enough!" (Level 3 after 12 weeks/ 24 games)

March:

April: "boss if I don't play more then I want a move!" (Level 4 after 16 weeks/ 32 games)

May:

June: "right boss that's it I'm off!" (Level 5 after 20 weeks/ 38ish games)

i thot peeps can only get 2 clubs free with one account ... :confused:

You may well be right - I'm an old timer who has had gold membership for years but I'm sure when I started out you could have 3 clubs :o:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I've read people unhappy that concerns are going up 1 level every month but surely that would be about right?

Isn't it realistic to say that a player will increase in concern in real-life every 2 months if they are unhappy?

Think of it this way:

August: real-life season starts (SM season starts)

September:

October: "boss I'd like to play more" (Level 1 after 4 weeks/ 8 games)

November:

December: "boss I really need to be playing more" (Level 2 after 8 weeks/ 16 games)

January:

February: "boss I'm still not playing enough!" (Level 3 after 12 weeks/ 24 games)

March:

April: "boss if I don't play more then I want a move!" (Level 4 after 16 weeks/ 32 games)

May:

June: "right boss that's it I'm off!" (Level 5 after 20 weeks/ 38ish games)

So what you;re saying is that you feel it would be acceptable for a player to build up to a level 5 concern within 5 months on SM?

Surely this would only have a negative impact amongst the community of SM users.

I'm not all then keen on the game being as realistic as possible, it's aim as a game is surely to be an enjoyable experience.

Heck, if we want realism then why do we have teams like Leyton Orient with Messi and Ronaldo within their ranks?

There needs to an emphasis in making the game appealing to users, constantly having to battle with player concerns doesn't sell the game too well in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

So what you;re saying is that you feel it would be acceptable for a player to build up to a level 5 concern within 5 months on SM?

Surely this would only have a negative impact amongst the community of SM users.

I'm not all then keen on the game being as realistic as possible' date=' it's aim as a game is surely to be an enjoyable experience.

Heck, if we want realism then why do we have teams like Leyton Orient with Messi and Ronaldo within their ranks?

There needs to an emphasis in making the game appealing to users, constantly having to battle with player concerns doesn't sell the game too well in my opinion.[/quote']

That's my point; 5 months on SM is an entire season so you wouldn't find too many players in real-life happy to rot on the bench for much more than that.

SM aren't in my opinion going overboard on realism - as you say Leyton Orient can eventually have Ronaldo and Messi, GK's still never get injured, Barcelona youths can be bought for £300k, external AI is thick when it comes to player exchanges, etc etc.

But all of that must be couched in some kind of realism - if we don't have player concerns then why bother with fitness? Why bother with injuries?

Or morale? (Lol ok maybe not go there on the morale issue!)

I think a lot of folk are taking this as a personal attack however bear in mind this affects everyone so in the longer term a shrewd manager will gain from the poor management of others over concerns more than they will lose.

What it will undoubtedly mean is that there will be a much more dynamic transfer market....just think of it as SM cranking the difficulty level up for everyone and now it's time to see who sinks and who swims...! :D:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

Has anyone given much thought to how these "concerns" could result in people opening secondary accounts, taking over a team, and when there primary teams players develop concerns they then sell them on to there secondary team.

I see it happening already and the most annoying thing is absolutely nothing will be done about the people who cheat the system this way.

Whereas I have many squads that I have completely overhauled by devoting many hours to scouting for players as well as using negotiating skills to purchase the best players, for what?

I have seriously considered leaving soccer manager as I am finding the gaming experience less and less enjoyable by the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I think a lot of folk are taking this as a personal attack however bear in mind this affects everyone so in the longer term a shrewd manager will gain from the poor management of others over concerns more than they will lose.

What it will undoubtedly mean is that there will be a much more dynamic transfer market....just think of it as SM cranking the difficulty level up for everyone and now it's time to see who sinks and who swims...! :D:)

It's possible that in the long run managers may benefit from others inability to manage their squads. But I feel SM are not allowing enough time between player concern reviews for any manager to actually manager the concerns highlighted.

I also feel the criteria behind the player concern system is flawed as it should not merely be based on a players rating, I feel it should be set by the ratings of the best players from each position or an average of the top three players from each position.

It should also be visible to see what percentage of games every player has played in order for a manager to filter % games played (excluding games missed via injuries and suspensions) in order to make a decision on who he should or should not include in their starting line-ups.

As you can see, the game is leaning towards a game that is all about keeping players happy rather than picking your best XI in order to win trophies....this isn't what the game should be about

Additionally, surely SM are wanting to attract the short term users into staying that little longer or even sign up to gold memberships and become a valued customer

New managers that inherit squads which will only become depleted by player concerns is only going to deter them from staying long term.

Again, I believe SM need to be a little more proactive and publicly ask their users what they feel about the player concerns, I'm sure this could be done via their Facebook page or some other means (splash page asking to vote when users log in)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

It's possible that in the long run managers may benefit from others inability to manage their squads. But I feel SM are not allowing enough time between player concern reviews for any manager to actually manager the concerns highlighted.

I also feel the criteria behind the player concern system is flawed as it should not merely be based on a players rating' date=' I feel it should be set by the ratings of the best players from each position or an average of the top three players from each position.

Additionally, surely SM are wanting to attract the short term users into staying that little longer or even sign up to gold memberships and become a valued customer

New managers that inherit squads which will only become depleted by player concerns is only going to deter them from staying long term.

Again, I believe SM need to be a little more proactive and publicly ask their users what they feel about the player concerns, I'm sure this could be done via their Facebook page or some other means (splash page asking to vote when users log in)[/quote']

I suggested ages ago that when a new manager takes over all existing player concerns at the club should drop by one level, kinda replicating the "new start" effect teams get when a new manager comes in.

I was told at the time it'd be open to abuse but it's a brave manager who quits their team just to con the system as they may not be able to instantly re-join the gameworld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

That's my point; 5 months on SM is an entire season so you wouldn't find too many players in real-life happy to rot on the bench for much more than that.

Only difference is that in real life a player won't be sold automatically because he's ****** off enough and placed on the transfer list so if he's got a 3 year contract and he's not happy he'll have to deal with it or find a club willing to pay enough, otherwise he might be stuck on the bench for three years. While in this game, well you know how it works..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

Only difference is that in real life a player won't be sold automatically because he's ****** off enough and placed on the transfer list so if he's got a 3 year contract and he's not happy he'll have to deal with it or find a club willing to pay enough' date=' otherwise he might be stuck on the bench for three years. While in this game, well you know how it works..[/quote']

....it works that when top players in a competitive gameworld hand in a transfer request the selling team often get more cash than they would if selling of their own choice.

I've yet to see any player rated 89+ sell for bare minimum CV through concerns.

The contract thing maybe needs looked at though; why would a player with a level 4 concern for not enough games sign a 5 year contract?

Modric and Diego in real life are effectively "Level 5" concern whilst under contract but they'll be sold rather than keep them and have them play poorly as they're in a huff.

I'm sure SM could work it so that a 90 at Level 5 concern isn't automatically transfer-listed but instead plays like a 80 (the same way a player at lower fitness will play as if rated lower), but that doesn't benefit anyone as then you're paying £50,000 a week for a 80 rated player.

If SM were being super-realistic they could start introducing concerns for the team failing to qualify for europe, or being relegated, or playing defensive tactics etc etc so really you could say that we're getting off lightly :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

....it works that when top players in a competitive gameworld hand in a transfer request the selling team often get more cash than they would if selling of their own choice.

I've yet to see any player rated 89+ sell for bare minimum CV through concerns.

The contract thing maybe needs looked at though; why would a player with a level 4 concern for not enough games sign a 5 year contract?

Modric and Diego in real life are effectively "Level 5" concern whilst under contract but they'll be sold rather than keep them and have them play poorly as they're in a huff.

I'm sure SM could work it so that a 90 at Level 5 concern isn't automatically transfer-listed but instead plays like a 80 (the same way a player at lower fitness will play as if rated lower)' date=' but that doesn't benefit anyone as then you're paying £50,000 a week for a 80 rated player.[/b']

If SM were being super-realistic they could start introducing concerns for the team failing to qualify for europe, or being relegated, or playing defensive tactics etc etc so really you could say that we're getting off lightly :eek:

I don't even think the match engine takes fitness into account, I've seen some teams with players that have never missed a match all season on 1% and 0% fitness winning games by 3/4 goals. I think people give the match engine more credit then its due, so far I'd say it takes into account maybe 3/4 different factors (Ratings, Formations, Players in correct positions, ?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

That's my point; 5 months on SM is an entire season so you wouldn't find too many players in real-life happy to rot on the bench for much more than that.

i think a player should get to level 5 concern after two seasons and that too for a 85+ player ;) concerns should develop according to the players rating imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

....it works that when top players in a competitive gameworld hand in a transfer request the selling team often get more cash than they would if selling of their own choice.

I've yet to see any player rated 89+ sell for bare minimum CV through concerns.

So that justifies it? After all this is a game and if I want to choose that I do not want to sell a player because I need him even though he's not all that happy then that's my choice isn't it? Because if there's one thing I learned in this game its that money doesn't score goals and it doesn't win matches, players do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I don't even think the match engine takes fitness into account' date=' I've seen some teams with players that have never missed a match all season on 1% and 0% fitness winning games by 3/4 goals. I think people give the match engine more credit then its due, so far I'd say it takes into account maybe 3/4 different factors (Ratings, Formations, Players in correct positions, ?)[/quote']

100% Agree, the match engine is overrated and much more simplistic then it's made out to be (I could be wrong, but that's just how it looks to me).

To me it's a game first and foremost and all I want is for the post game stats to tally up with the result, it needs to make sense more than it does at the moment, I've lost count of the number of times I've looked at the result and then checked the game stats and thought to myself, how did that happen? It's too easy for the game to pretend it's being really, really clever and realistic and just randomly picking numbers for possession, shots, marks out of 10 etc.

Any player with less than 10% fitness should not be allowed to take part in a game and should be blocked from being picked or auto replaced for a similar player with better fitness levels, if a team can't replace with like for like then a new formation should be selected (4-4-2, 4-5-1 etc) as if they were a game managed team.

Does anyone actually read the match reports? They are pretty rubbish and a waste of time to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I don't even think the match engine takes fitness into account' date=' I've seen some teams with players that have never missed a match all season on 1% and 0% fitness winning games by 3/4 goals. I think people give the match engine more credit then its due, so far I'd say it takes into account maybe 3/4 different factors (Ratings, Formations, Players in correct positions, ?)[/quote']

My 84 average rated team beat a 90 average rated team 4-1 away last night...was all chuffed 'til realised the other teams fitness was all 25% and under so either it makes a difference or I'm a tactical genius! :D

So that justifies it? After all this is a game and if I want to choose that I do not want to sell a player because I need him even though he's not all that happy then that's my choice isn't it? Because if there's one thing I learned in this game its that money doesn't score goals and it doesn't win matches' date=' players do.[/quote']

The players are not slaves, so how can you expect them not to get annoyed and want to leave?

And if you "need" the player so much then why is he unhappy?

If you "need" him that badly then you'll play him, let's not confuse "need" and "want" ;):)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

Having more than one team in a gameworld is hard to detect I suppose with people able to have multiple email addresses on the same machine. Not sure how it can be stopped, but I'm no expert.

It is kind of hard to contact SM and let them know about your gaming experience (unless I'm being a bit thick that is). I think they want it all done via the forums.

I was a little bit surprised by the new achievements thing they introduced recently, don't get me wrong I think it's a good idea it's just that I wasn't informed by the game via a simple message about how it worked. I moaned at them about some of the achievements that I have already achieved recently and wasn't given credit for, if they'd of told us via an in game message about how it was meant to work I would of not needed to bother them about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

My 84 average rated team beat a 90 average rated team 4-1 away last night...was all chuffed 'til realised the other teams fitness was all 25% and under so either it makes a difference or I'm a tactical genious! :D

I did something similar against a full strength United team in one of my GameWorlds who have Messi, Ronaldo, Hazard and Neymar all playing at almost full percentage of fitness too! With my team that average rated at about 82! Also had 60% of possession but it was a scraped 1-0 win, never the less a fantastic result, yet unrealistic and shouldn't have happened. Proving flaws to the match engine, but this was back in May so maybe this new match engine has changed stuff like this! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

My 84 average rated team beat a 90 average rated team 4-1 away last night...was all chuffed 'til realised the other teams fitness was all 25% and under so either it makes a difference or I'm a tactical genius! :D

The players are not slaves' date=' so how can you expect them not to get annoyed and want to leave?

And if you "need" the player so much then why is he unhappy?

If you "need" him that badly then you'll play him, let's not confuse "need" and "want" ;):)[/quote']

it's not about the players who get played once a season, i agree with players concernes, and the level it was set up to until a month ago or so was perfect, if a players didn't get used he would get upset, i see many teams that were hoggin all the best players get broken down a bit - this said, you should be able to maintain a decnent squad with rotation, regardless of if your manchester united or charlton, if you've done the work to get the best players, and your able to give them 50% of games - then this should be satisfactory, and then you can use the substitutions and when a player is injured/suspended as the opportunities to give the developing player or two some game time.

the previous concern level's basically allowed you to maintain 20 first team players, and a couple of 90/91's coming through (this is based on a top quality squad, a lower quality squad, then the youngster level would drop a bit accordingly).

also, any players under 21 and under 90 never got upset about game time, which was also important - if you have done the work to find the talant and get them while there young, you should not be forced to sell them because there at that tricky stage where there not good enough yet for the first team. if this had been introduced a year earlier, everyone who bought hazard or gotze or badstuber etc.. knowing they had a budding star would have had to either sell there current star, or let the new one go.

the only people who continued to complain about concernes (after the update about 18 months ago) were mostly new players who hadn't yet got to grips with the long term enjoyment of the game. That's where the real success of a game like this lies... the long term planning - these changes are ruining that, and taking all the 'gamer' aspect out of the game... what next random scorlines that dont involve anything to do withthe actual squads or tactics but give preference to new managers just to keep them happy??? oh, hold on, i think SM have already though of that...!

unless it's fixed very soon before my squads fall apart, i for one will not be renewing my membership and will not be playing this game come christmas.

I've already found another online football management game, where you manage your squad from the lowest division upwards, using all comp. gernerated players and real time transfer list - it's ONLY aimed at real gamers willing to play for the long term to establish there team, build up there revenue's and ammenities etc... also the games are played live in real time.

Additionally I've started playing an online empire game too, so all the game time I use to spend on here is now allocated elsewhere,

It was a great game while it lasted...

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Scrags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I am hating player concerns hardcore. I have a squad of 26 of which I have loaned out 5. Then I have 7 players with concerns over their lack of games. Due to these concerns I have played them all for more than 90% of games this season and four of them played between 20 and 26 games (out of 38) last season. I don't understand how we are supposed to have a decent squad with these concerns always popping up. Also, to add insult to injury, one of the seven with games concerns (de Gea) also has concerns about being loaned out even though he is my third choice keeper behind Lloris and Julio Cesar... why, just why?

The idea behind this system makes sense, however the process needs to be adjusted. I could understand if a couple of my players had concerns, because I probably don't play them as much as their rating deserves, although to have 7 in a team which is well-rotated is just ridiculous.

I've also got another side where Dzagoev has concerns even though he is 3 ratings lower than my worst starter.

Frustrating stuff....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I am hating player concerns hardcore. I have a squad of 26 of which I have loaned out 5. Then I have 7 players with concerns over their lack of games. Due to these concerns I have played them all for more than 90% of games this season and four of them played between 20 and 26 games (out of 38) last season. I don't understand how we are supposed to have a decent squad with these concerns always popping up. Also' date=' to add insult to injury, one of the seven with games concerns (de Gea) also has concerns about being loaned out even though he is my third choice keeper behind Lloris and Julio Cesar... why, just why?

The idea behind this system makes sense, however the process needs to be adjusted. I could understand if a couple of my players had concerns, because I probably don't play them as much as their rating deserves, although to have 7 in a team which is well-rotated is just ridiculous.

I've also got another side where Dzagoev has concerns even though he is 3 ratings lower than my worst starter.

Frustrating stuff....[/quote']

De Gea would get concerned if he was a 3rd choice keeper. At the very least sell one of you're other 2 there are only a few 90+ goalies out there so for you to have 2 of makes it perfectly reasonable that they get concerns.

However in answer to Dancpoli. For a year playing this I never got concerns at all, now I have a few problems. I wouldn't say its ruining the game for me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...