Jump to content

Player concerns - toughen up the rules


ratboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

This has been a relatively good improvement, making the game more realistic and more challenging.

But about time the process was speeded up. It takes too long to progress from level 1 to 5.

Also: surely about time that a player on any level refuses to sign a new contract unless that new contract meets the "address concerns" requirements.

In essence, an unhappy player should be allowed to run down their contract (even level one) and move for free when their contract expires

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

There are still major problems with the system. I've had players develop a concern about lack of first team opportunities the very day they were recalled from a loan. I've had a player go from level 2 to level 4 for lack of games over the course of a seven week injury... There are some cases where players are just unreasonable. Until these issues are fixed, it really shouldn't be a quicker process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

This has been a relatively good improvement' date=' making the game more realistic and more challenging.

But about time the process was speeded up. It takes too long to progress from level 1 to 5.

Also: surely about time that a player on any level refuses to sign a new contract unless that new contract meets the "address concerns" requirements.

In essence, an unhappy player should be allowed to run down their contract (even level one) and move for free when their contract expires[/quote']

You can read a very detailed debate regarding Player Concerns here. You will see that some people were complaining that the concerns system was too harsh after we tweaked it and if you read around the forum you will find that some people say that it is too lenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

You can read a very detailed debate regarding Player Concerns here. You will see that some people were complaining that the concerns system was too harsh after we tweaked it and if you read around the forum you will find that some people say that it is too lenient.

Yes, I did read that but I didn't see any reference to allowing (unhappy) players to run down their contracts and leave for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

There are still major problems with the system. I've had players develop a concern about lack of first team opportunities the very day they were recalled from a loan. I've had a player go from level 2 to level 4 for lack of games over the course of a seven week injury... There are some cases where players are just unreasonable. Until these issues are fixed' date=' it really shouldn't be a quicker process.[/quote']

Granted it can be annoying but it should be all part of a challenging game experience. I would even advocate random transfer demands. Say each club has a 10% chance every season for one player to demand a move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

Yea i think its too lenient still. At lest at the end of the season up to 6 player from each league should be putting in a transfer request to make the closed season more interesting and realistic.

You can still hog good and youth players by putting them out on loan.

Its too easy to exploit at the moment.

If you look in any league you can find very quickly many huge squads with happy players, doing nothing, not kicking any balls. This needs to be remedied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

Yes' date=' I did read that but I didn't see any reference to allowing (unhappy) players to run down their contracts and leave for free.[/quote']

You mentioned that a player on any level would be allowed to run down their contract and leave for free. However, you've not mentioned how this could be open to abuse and what could be done to stop that abuse?

If you look in any league you can find very quickly many huge squads with happy players' date=' doing nothing, not kicking any balls. This needs to be remedied.[/quote']

A solution to this is to have two forms of fitness, General Fitness and Match Fitness, and this contributes to an overall Condition. Obviously if a player didn't play, their Match Fitness would start to deteriorate and this would affect their overall Condition. Yes, this wouldn't solve everything, but it would ensure that managers would use their squads more, and if they didn't this would make an impact when they tried to use those players (for whatever reason) as fitness is key on matchday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

A solution to this is to have two forms of fitness' date=' General Fitness and Match Fitness, and this contributes to an overall Condition. Obviously if a player didn't play, their Match Fitness would start to deteriorate and this would affect their overall Condition. Yes, this wouldn't solve everything, but it would ensure that managers would use their squads more, and if they didn't this would make an impact when they tried to use those players (for whatever reason) as fitness is key on matchday.[/quote']

Love it! You should be on the Dev Team :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

A solution to this is to have two forms of fitness' date=' General Fitness and Match Fitness, and this contributes to an overall Condition. Obviously if a player didn't play, their Match Fitness would start to deteriorate and this would affect their overall Condition. Yes, this wouldn't solve everything, but it would ensure that managers would use their squads more, and if they didn't this would make an impact when they tried to use those players (for whatever reason) as fitness is key on matchday.[/quote']

I actually think you already do this, now come on SM DEV Steven ... please admit it ;)

I've seen teams left to play all season, go down to very low fitness still winning every game & fresh players with better ratings performing much worse when replacing the worn out ones!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

HAHAHA

I quit this game for couple of years when the game was broken. Now I'm back, but not so 'high' with this game like last time.

And this is what I get for returning

Players hogging at its best.

His first team, don't get me rap on his reserve:

WGyzpsk.png

YsnjmHB.png

Note: This is the setup where I left off. Good to be back, but.....

Player concerns? What's that? :D

dPzvWb1.png

SM you failed last time and you still fail!

But who cares when you're making money, right? :D

P.S. The manager had so much players, so much so, he ever overlooked M'VILA, Yann and AUGUSTO, Renato LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

HAHAHA

I quit this game for couple of years when the game was broken. Now I'm back' date=' but not so 'high' with this game like last time.

And this is what I get for returning

Players hogging at its best. Can't buy a s**t.

His first team, don't get me rap on his reserve:

[img']http://i.imgur.com/WGyzpsk.png[/img]

YsnjmHB.png

Note: This is the setup where I left off. Good to be back, but.....

Player concerns? What's that? :D

dPzvWb1.png

SM you failed last time and you still fail!

But who cares when you're making money, right? :D

P.S. The manager had so much players, so much so, he ever overlooked M'VILA, Yann and AUGUSTO, Renato LOL

WOW...Ive never in my years playing this game seen a squad like that! Surely this cant be a competitive setup? Like less than 10 managers or somein?

For me personally, SM cant concentrate on stale GW's...it has to be for the most competitive ones. Its almost impossible to come up with rules that would suit both I think??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

Players hogging at its best.

His first team' date=' don't get me rap on his reserve:

[img']http://i.imgur.com/WGyzpsk.png[/img]

YsnjmHB.png

Note: This is the setup where I left off. Good to be back, but.....

Player concerns? What's that? :D

dPzvWb1.png

SM you failed last time and you still fail!

P.S. The manager had so much players, so much so, he ever overlooked M'VILA, Yann and AUGUSTO, Renato LOL

WOW...Ive never in my years playing this game seen a squad like that! Surely this cant be a competitive setup? Like less than 10 managers or somein?

For me personally' date=' SM cant concentrate on stale GW's...it has to be for the most competitive ones. Its almost impossible to come up with rules that would suit both I think??[/quote']

I agree that it's always hard to comment when you don't know the full details of the Game World. You need to take factors into account like how many managers are in that Game World? How long has this manager been in the Game World? What is the turn over of other managers in that Game World? Are there any other long serving managers in that Game World? Look at their wage bill of 2.7M a Turn or 5.4M a week and as yourself is that sustainable? What is their balance? Have they been paying off concerns to keep certain players? These are only a few questions that need answering before you can even comment on the squad that you have flagged up.

We have tightened up what some of you call "player hogging" in the past, but this presented us with a massive backlash (as i've explained previously) with managers complaining that their squads that they've build up are now being destroyed because they have to sell player x etc.

We are open to suggestions on what you, our community, would like to see introduced and we will liaise with you on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

Of course there is a backlash but it doesn't make them right. Player hogging destroys competiveness. Player concerns has been a step in the right direction but it isn't severe enough.

There is no justification for squads above about 50 players. It's pure greed, selfishness and ruins SM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

Of course there is a backlash but it doesn't make them right. Player hogging destroys competiveness. Player concerns has been a step in the right direction but it isn't severe enough.

There is no justification for squads above about 50 players. It's pure greed' date=' selfishness and ruins SM[/quote']

I think they aren't harsh enough but that's just me. Anyway, it's worthwhile having a read back through this thread when you have time (and that goes for anyone else who'd like to debate this topic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

I have read it a few times, working my way through it all carefully.

I see nothing at all there that represents a credible defence of excessively large squads.

In many ways, those trying to defend huge squads come across as petulant.

We can all cite examples where managers kill game worlds by hogging players.

The solution should almost be implemented overnight as a fait acccompli: perhaps an interim squad size of 75 as a trial, followed by a reduction to 50.

Player concerns reduced to 3 levels and random transfer demands brought in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

I have read it a few times' date=' working my way through it all carefully.

I see nothing at all there that represents a credible defence of excessively large squads.

In many ways, those trying to defend huge squads come across as petulant.

We can all cite examples where managers kill game worlds by hogging players.

The solution should almost be implemented overnight as a fait acccompli: perhaps an interim squad size of 75 as a trial, followed by a reduction to 50.

Player concerns reduced to 3 levels and random transfer demands brought in.[/quote']

You can argue that finances restrict your squad size and therefore a cap isn't needed. This is because a very large squad isn't financially feasible as the wage bill will cost your club to lose money on a weekly basis (paying wages out twice a week). Just look at the example that Meis flagged up. That manager has a total outlay of 5.4M a week. Is that sustainable? Some would argue that you can just sell off fringe players to cover the loss, but those players may very well be first choice for others.

One of the main complaints that i've seen isn't to do with a squad size (as a cap of 50 for example would still allow you to "hog" some of the best players), but to do with "player hogging". For example someone has a 94 rated GK and then has a 91 rated as back or even to replace the former when they eventually retire. Now the latter would be first choice for a lot of other managers as there aren't many 90+ rated keepers around.

Think about this. I join your GW and need a GK. I see that you have the aforementioned players. So I ask to buy your backup and get told he's not for sale or he is for p/e. However, I don't have a good squad and therefore I have no one of interest for you to offer in exchange. I then approach another manager who has a 95, 94, 94, 92 and then several 88-90 rated CBs. I ask if any of the 88-90 CBs are for sale and get told the same or even that they won't sell because they're all young and future stars set to replace the older yet higher rated ones (who've still got years left in them).

Now think about this. Would I remain in your GW? The answer is more than likely I wouldn't. Hence why in some GWs you probably see managers joining and then leaving within a very short space of time.

What's the solution to this problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

What's the solution to this problem?

Introduce training and remove the link between real life performance and in game ratings, so any player in the game can potentially end up 90+ rated if they are trained right and play well ;)

While the only way to get 90+ rated players is to buy the same 50+ players in any game world, because they are the best players in the real world, then you're going to have the situation where everyone in every game world wants Messi, Ronaldo, Iniesta, Neuer, etc

There are tens of thousands of players in the database, but only a handful that will ever be rated 90+ because of the link to real life performance.

Of course, the database overheads would shoot up dramatically, and you'd have to code the whole training aspect, fluctuating ratings depending on performance, etc, which would wind up being more of a pain to get right so everyone's happy than the current system :)

The point still stands though - while ratings are linked to real life performance, you narrow the field of demand to the same core players and "next gen superstars of the future" in each game world, so you're going to see hogging and hoarding.

If you knew you may be able to take a random 75 at a lower league team and with careful training and nurturing turn him in to a 90 within a few seasons, you would open up the field of demand to the whole database, not just a small percentage of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

What's the solution to this problem?

Put simply...there isnt! Any good manager has always got one eye on the future..well if they plan to stick around anyways...

The problem lies when the aforementioned clubs' date=' dont accept bids/not interested in selling their 82-86 risers. Of course, its all about the type of manager you are I guess. I like playing the long game, it was the only way to crack the monopoly that was going on in this GW I was in....I started with Plymouth, in Div4 an made a rule for myself to only sign players below 88 rating. Mostly players around 85/86 rated. That way by the time id advanced through the divisions, they should be 88-90+. Of course it ALL didnt go to plan, but it did work in the end :P Currently sitting top of Div1 by 4pts. My team isnt that great, but at the moment it is more than holding its own :)

I do have to admit, it wasnt a really competitive EC, around 20 managers, all in the top 2 divisions. So I could go about my business, under the radar, an not really compete for transfers :) I also do have to admit, the talent pool was there from the start...I signed players like- De Bruyne, Draxler, Hosogai, Seamus Coleman, Markovic that are all still playing for me now! I sold some as a feeder to the BIG teams (£20.0M - Christian ERIKSEN to Sheffield Wednesday (18 Jun 2012)). UMM..OK..Ive completely forgotten what this was about...forget all that.

I guess what im saying is, If you want instant success, an the wealth of talent for you to sign..join a new GW an preorder one of the big clubs...

If you dont want to do it like this (like myself), join the queue an stop cryin about it :P. Because this is what it ALL boils down too ;)

Introduce training and remove the link between real life performance and in game ratings, so any player in the game can potentially end up 90+ rated if they are trained right and play well

While the only way to get 90+ rated players is to buy the same 50+ players in any game world, because they are the best players in the real world, then you're going to have the situation where everyone in every game world wants Messi, Ronaldo, Iniesta, Neuer, etc

There are tens of thousands of players in the database, but only a handful that will ever be rated 90+ because of the link to real life performance.

Of course, the database overheads would shoot up dramatically, and you'd have to code the whole training aspect, fluctuating ratings depending on performance, etc, which would wind up being more of a pain to get right so everyone's happy than the current system :)

The point still stands though - while ratings are linked to real life performance, you narrow the field of demand to the same core players and "next gen superstars of the future" in each game world, so you're going to see hogging and hoarding.

If you knew you may be able to take a random 75 at a lower league team and with careful training and nurturing turn him in to a 90 within a few seasons, you would open up the field of demand to the whole database, not just a small percentage of it.

NOOOOOOOOOOO! Dont do this SM....if I wanted ALL that, id just go play Football Manager! The link with RL is surely the main selling point of this game. Me personally, would lose all interest in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

There probably are several measures that need to be introduced to deliver the minimum baseline, which is a competitive, fair game world.

The first requirement is to punish the pig ignorant managers who do not acknowledge a transfer bid.

Scenario: a new manager joins a game world and makes a series of bids but his bids remain completely unacknowledged. He might be new to SM and unfamiliar with relative valuations and that managers routinely hog players. He waits and waits for 2 weeks (until SM auto rejects the bid). This means the new manager is completely uncertain whether or not to bid for other players. Remember keeping a new manager in GW depends almost entirely on keeping them motivated for the first few weeks. We all know some managers may be away for some reason but one can see that managers have been online recently.

Solution: if a manager logs in twice but does not acknowledge a bid then when he logs out for the 2nd time, the club automatically accepts the bid, no matter for which player and no matter how much. This will teach managers some manners. It takes a matter of seconds to reject bid, so the bidding manager knows he has to move on to other targets.

Managers need to be able to build a squad. Even if they start with youngsters. Currently, player hogging prevents this. I am in a GW where I enjoy scrabbling around trying to find bargains but new managers aren't going to do this until they understand how the game works.

Player concerns and financial constraints have been good introductions but their impact isn't sufficient. It is taking too long for players to hit Concern 5 and managers with big squads can sidestep financial constraints because, by definition, a big squad enables them to sell and buy to offset losses. The ability to loan out huge numbers undermines the new rules.

Solution: limit loans out to 20 players per club to enable financial measures to have the desired effect.

Player Concerns are taking too long.

Solution: reduce concerns to 3 levels.

Solution 2: players on any level of concern will refuse to sign a new contract unless it meets their "Address Concerns" requirements.

Example: I have Jack Wilshere on Level One. He just signed a new contract. In reality, why would an unhappy player sign a new contract. He would see out his contract and leave for free.

Solution: allow clubs to approach unhappy players in the last year of their contract, when they have 6 months left.

More to follow but appreciate comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

Wll i dont accept transfers with humans cause SMFA i done few deals someone reports thats unfair..........cause some reason,then my acc become linked with that,cant join in same worlds,cant do transfers with that player,when they resolve that i will negotiate for players with human

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

I like playing the long game' date=' it was the only way to crack the monopoly that was going on in this GW I was in....I started with Plymouth, in Div4 an made a rule for myself to only sign players below 88 rating. Mostly players around 85/86 rated. That way by the time id advanced through the divisions, they should be 88-90+. Of course it ALL didnt go to plan, but it did work in the end :P Currently sitting top of Div1 by 4pts. My team isnt that great, but at the moment it is more than holding its own :)

I guess what im saying is, If you want instant success, an the wealth of talent for you to sign..join a new GW an preorder one of the big clubs...

If you dont want to do it like this (like myself), join the queue an stop cryin about it :P. Because this is what it ALL boils down too ;)[/quote']

starting small and working your way up is the best way to learn, especially as a new player, but I think a lot of people who complain are new players jumping straight in to a big club in a top division expecting to get Ronaldo, messi, etc instantly. They don't even consider the long game, taking a lower division club and building it up. They don't take any pleasure in the long game and building a team up gradually, it's instant gratification or nothing :)

Yes, it's frustrating joining a GW and finding you can't even get a 90+ because they're all taken by 4-5 teams, but as I said, that's the nature of the game when everyone is after the exact same top rated players because there's no variety in ratings across any game worlds.

NOOOOOOOOOOO! Dont do this SM....if I wanted ALL that' date=' id just go play Football Manager! The link with RL is surely the main selling point of this game. Me personally, would lose all interest in it.[/quote']

I wasn't saying change it! :) I was just trying to point out, IMHO, that the hoarding problem is mostly caused because there is no individual progression or rating for players based on game performance, as it's all linked to RL, everyone is after the same top players and future superstars.

If anyone new comes to SM thinking it was a "traditional" management game with training and alternating ratings based on game performance, it can be a bit of shock to find it's linked to RL performance - I didn't realise at first, and bought up what I thought were very good rated players for my team (at the time, a division 3 squad with average 82-83). It was only when they started randomly dropping instead of rising, despite winning most games, and I came to forums and found out it was RL linked that I started looking at a whole different bunch of players... Players that everyone else was also after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

I wasn't saying change it! :) I was just trying to point out' date=' IMHO, that the hoarding problem is mostly caused because there is no individual progression or rating for players based on game performance, as it's all linked to RL, everyone is after the same top players and future superstars.

If anyone new comes to SM thinking it was a "traditional" management game with training and alternating ratings based on game performance, it can be a bit of shock to find it's linked to RL performance - I didn't realise at first, and bought up what I thought were very good rated players for my team (at the time, a division 3 squad with average 82-83). It was only when they started randomly dropping instead of rising, despite winning most games, and I came to forums and found out it was RL linked that I started looking at a whole different bunch of players... Players that everyone else was also after.[/quote']

Ha sorry mate, I must of mis-read...which isnt unusual for me :P

@Ratboy (Young Splinter).

Couldnt agree more about ignorant manager's mate...Im about to leave a set-up because of this (Anyone interested, its one of the best rated customs), or at the end of the season anyways. Dont even get a simple NO. Wait & Wait...an try to be courteous to them on the forums..but patience wears thin, an its best to just hop off..an find another nice little pond to swim in...with better banter an communication :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

Not so much about player concerns, but about the finance side of things. If the club is constantly getting net losses week in week out, the chairman should sound off a warning to the manager to do something about and in due time sack the manager. Even if you have a huge sum of cash in the bank, the chairman could close an eye. But the club is in a negative balance, then something has to be done to clear up the mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Player concerns - toughen up the rules

I really think the player concerns should have more relation to condition.

I use a rotational system with both of my teams (both in my sig) and yet 2 players who play for Coventry City (Javi Martinez and Schmelzer), Martinez being my best player, have developed concerns even though they play regularly. This for me isn't fair as I play them regularly.

There should be system in place in which when players are below a certain condition percentage e.g. 97% or less, understand that they most likely won't be picked for that match and therefore rotated.

This would fix the problem of players who are good enough to get regular gametime not to get concerns so easily.

Just my idea.

What do you guys think?

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...