Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KopStar

Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Recommended Posts

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

It looks like they may have reverted back to the reviewing league by league and i hope that's the case' date=' it may not be perfect but compared to what we have been subjected to recently it's a step back in the right direction.[/quote']

I'm generally a voice of doom and gloom against SW/SM rating system but I am pleased that in recent days the handbrake has come off and ratings are happening. I also like it that they appear to be looking at a league a bit more as a whole than the scatter gun approach we were getting. Its a much better way of making sure the database is up to date and done fairly.

I don't mind if we don't know what leagues are about to be reviewed as to me it is largely irrelavant I scout when I feel like it and I think most good scouts do too rather than relying on last minute shopping.

Its a positive sign and I hope not only it continues but is improved upon :) My fear is we have seen spurts of activity like this before that don't last long before long periods of inactivity again. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Soccer Wiki wont be binned as the new match engine is based on using the player stats as well as an overall rating' date=' how to get a balance with soccer wiki that suits everyone im not so sure, as it was very predictable before 5 days before say the EPL changes there would be about 20 threads a day asking who to buy and everyone would be buying up the risers, boring! but agree the system on how players rise needs tweeking:D[/quote']

This is a regular argument that is used in the defence of Soccer Wiki, I would just like to try and explain what I have seen since I started playing in February 2008. (Dates/Numbers are approx)

2008 to 2010

A published ratings schedule with a Winter and Summer program. This included the 30/40 biggest leagues in the world.

Pro's - The leagues that contained the vast majority of the players that people use in their first teams were done on a regular basis. The bigger leagues done twice a year.

We knew when a player would get reviewed and could plan our buying accordingly. You could buy risers before the scramble when a league was announced. Scouts had an advantage.

The forum wasn't full of threads discussing 'when will this player rise' or 'its better now than it was', but was full of interesting posts discussing player ratings / risers.

Cons - It was possible to get easy pickings when the riser threads appeared on the forum.

The smaller leagues (Estonia/Malta/Kuwait etc) only done every 2/3 years.

2011

The decision was taken to do away with the schedule and not to announce leagues.

Pro's - This would stop the scramble when a league was announced.

Con's - Lot's of confusion

The player ratings threads died out to be replaced with negative discussions on the new system.

There was long periods when no ratings were done. In my opinion this was when resources were taken away to set up Soccer Wiki, much as we have seen resources recently diverted into single player.

2012 to 2014

Introduction of Soccer Wiki.

Pro's - This would stop the scramble when a league was announced.

The potential for any player to rise at any time,

Occasionally we see a 'league by league' review added.

Con's - A lot less players being re-rated than with the structured schedule meaning from a ratings perspective, the database getting more and more out of date.

Database imbalanced when players are rated individually, teams look odd when some players have been done and others not. Must be very confusing for new players when they try to understand the ratings of a team.

Although they have tried to do away with a schedule, for example, they always do the 'big 5' between Nov and Feb (3 months to do 5 leagues :eek:). This appears to go against the argument.

Some players from the minor leagues still not been reviewed for 2 years. Risers bought are having to be sold off because of concerns before they get their deserved rise. This makes the challenge of taking a small team to the top virtually impossible in a reasonable time frame and has removed one way to play SM. We have seen lots of scouts leave because of this.

Even more confusion and even more negative threads on the forum.

My Conclusions

The only defence of Soccer Wiki we get appears to be the one about hoovering up risers. This argument is 3 years out of date!!!

There are many more Con's than Pro's with Soccer Wiki.

Are people asking for a return to an announced schedule? No! They are asking for a system that gets more players re-rated.

My preference? Much as we have seen over the last 2 weeks. An un-announced 'League by league' doing the major leagues and the minor players picked up randomly, however it needs to be faster to get the database back in shape and to be sustained, Do I believe this will happen? Not on past experience!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

This is a regular argument that is used in the defence of Soccer Wiki' date=' I would just like to try and explain what I have seen since I started playing in February 2008. (Dates/Numbers are approx)

2008 to 2010

A published ratings schedule with a Winter and Summer program. This included the 30/40 biggest leagues in the world.

Pro's - The leagues that contained the vast majority of the players that people use in their first teams were done on a regular basis. The bigger leagues done twice a year.

We knew when a player would get reviewed and could plan our buying accordingly. You could buy risers before the scramble when a league was announced. Scouts had an advantage.

The forum wasn't full of threads discussing 'when will this player rise' or 'its better now than it was', but was full of interesting posts discussing player ratings / risers.

Cons - It was possible to get easy pickings when the riser threads appeared on the forum.

The smaller leagues (Estonia/Malta/Kuwait etc) only done every 2/3 years.

2011

The decision was taken to do away with the schedule and not to announce leagues.

Pro's - This would stop the scramble when a league was announced.

Con's - Lot's of confusion

The player ratings threads died out to be replaced with negative discussions on the new system.

There was long periods when no ratings were done. In my opinion this was when resources were taken away to set up Soccer Wiki, much as we have seen resources recently diverted into single player.

2012 to 2014

Introduction of Soccer Wiki.

Pro's - This would stop the scramble when a league was announced.

The potential for any player to rise at any time,

Occasionally we see a 'league by league' review added.

Con's - A lot less players being re-rated than with the structured schedule meaning from a ratings perspective, the database getting more and more out of date.

Database imbalanced when players are rated individually, teams look odd when some players have been done and others not. Must be very confusing for new players when they try to understand the ratings of a team.

Although they have tried to do away with a schedule, for example, they always do the 'big 5' between Nov and Feb (3 months to do 5 leagues :eek:). This appears to go against the argument.

Some players from the minor leagues still not been reviewed for 2 years. Risers bought are having to be sold off because of concerns before they get their deserved rise. This makes the challenge of taking a small team to the top virtually impossible in a reasonable time frame and has removed one way to play SM. We have seen lots of scouts leave because of this.

Even more confusion and even more negative threads on the forum.

My Conclusions

The only defence of Soccer Wiki we get appears to be the one about hoovering up risers. This argument is 3 years out of date!!!

There are many more Con's than Pro's with Soccer Wiki.

Are people asking for a return to an announced schedule? No! They are asking for a system that gets more players re-rated.

My preference? Much as we have seen over the last 2 weeks. An un-announced 'League by league' doing the major leagues and the minor players picked up randomly, however it needs to be faster to get the database back in shape and to be sustained, Do I believe this will happen? Not on past experience!

still the whole things changing stats will count for alot more in the new match engine mate;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

The ratings have always been a contentious issue, if they could just find some happy medium between the old ratings system and the new erratic system, whole leagues would get done, players would get their rise or drop and everyone would be happy enough and only moaning on why this player is this rating compared to this players rating and we could all find something new to moan about as this issue is monotonous.

still the whole things changing stats will count for alot more in the new match engine mate;)

That new match engine that has been promised for many years, I will believe that when it happens, in other news a pigs ass still tastes like bacon.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

The problem with the ratings system currently is that it doen't work well with player concerns - so while your waiitng for example Sterling to rise a bit more which could take another 12 months currently to replace someone on the decline but higher rated, Sterling has time to go up to level 5 and leave.

The coalition between the 2 needs sorting out, and imo players need to be rated from the bigger leagues every 3 months or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

That new match engine that has been promised for many years' date=' I will believe that when it happens, in other news a pigs ass still tastes like bacon.;)[/quote']

You just have to ask the right person;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Redsky

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Soccerwiki doesn't work as a website. It's incredibly difficult to get reputation to be able to add in new players. I have a database for Germany/France and Spain and last time I checked there was about 20 players currently with playing minutes in Bundesliga/Ligue 1 and La Liga and not on the database.

Next comes the rating system. I've made myself a rating system as a side project to see just how difficult it is to make it automated depending on a few basic stats. It wasn't difficult to rig up and it's accurate and easy to implement whole leagues. So why does it take Soccerwiki so much time to update players?

I'm working by myself, one person... and yet Soccerwiki who has a whole team of people take far too long to go through Leagues. I've had Giesselmann and Benali for over a year now, two players that should have increased by a significant margin and yet players in Angola get rated more often than players in Bundesliga 2, Championship, Serie B, Ligue 2 and Liga 2.

I can see the benefit for Soccermanager to use Soccerwiki as they can focus on Single Player development knowing that Soccerwiki will keep the multiplayer ticking over. The issue is that Soccerwiki is useless and is doing more harm than good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Soccerwiki doesn't work as a website. It's incredibly difficult to get reputation to be able to add in new players. I have a database for Germany/France and Spain and last time I checked there was about 20 players currently with playing minutes in Bundesliga/Ligue 1 and La Liga and not on the database.

Next comes the rating system. I've made myself a rating system as a side project to see just how difficult it is to make it automated depending on a few basic stats. It wasn't difficult to rig up and it's accurate and easy to implement whole leagues. So why does it take Soccerwiki so much time to update players?

I'm working by myself' date=' one person... and yet Soccerwiki who has a whole team of people take far too long to go through Leagues. I've had Giesselmann and Benali for over a year now, two players that should have increased by a significant margin and yet players in Angola get rated more often than players in Bundesliga 2, Championship, Serie B, Ligue 2 and Liga 2.

I can see the benefit for Soccermanager to use Soccerwiki as they can focus on Single Player development knowing that Soccerwiki will keep the multiplayer ticking over. The issue is that Soccerwiki is useless and is doing more harm than good.[/quote']

It's not that difficult to triple or quadruple the rating reviews, one person half a day 5 times a week, could more than quadruple it. I have always thought SM have intentionally slowed down the system. I can speculate on reasons:-Maybe they don't seem to like some managers, prepared to put the effort in & be much better than other managers, so they handicap them? Not wanting poor managers being discouraged. It's all about numbers of customers & advertising revenue for me.

Also, if you look at the player database & player changes page, it's quite often only about 25% of the total players are RISERS, positions, retirements & losers account for most changes. In fact many times a player is looked at and his position is changed but a long overdue increase in rating is carefully AVOIDED! It would be easy to change it at the same time (Time effective too) but NO it is avoided (quite possibly intentionally as it is foolish to do otherwise!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Next comes the rating system. I've made myself a rating system as a side project to see just how difficult it is to make it automated depending on a few basic stats. It wasn't difficult to rig up and it's accurate and easy to implement whole leagues. So why does it take Soccerwiki so much time to update players?

Can you elaborate on your rating system more please? It sounds automated? can you somehow show how it?

Also' date=' if you look at the player database & player changes page, it's quite often only about 25% of the total players are RISERS, positions, retirements & losers account for most changes. In fact many times a player is looked at and his position is changed but a long overdue increase in rating is carefully AVOIDED! It would be easy to change it at the same time (Time effective too) but NO it is avoided (quite possibly intentionally as it is foolish to do otherwise!)[/quote']

Totally agree not a lot of riser/dropper action percentagely or quantitatively on the player changes page and its retardedly inefficient when they change a players position to then not review his rating at the same time :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Redsky

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Can you elaborate on your rating system more please? It sounds automated? can you somehow show how it?

Totally agree not a lot of riser/dropper action percentagely or quantitatively on the player changes page and its retardedly inefficient when they change a players position to then not review his rating at the same time :rolleyes:

I've made several. The one I made last season as a lunch time project was a complicated beast:

database_004b.jpg?dl=0

This one gave weekly updates for each player based on real life statistics for each game. The rating was then averaged out for the last 10 games to produce a rating for each week. This worked brilliantly and was very accurate, the problem was that it took a little too much time to produce.

I then made another one which takes core statistics: Club, Minutes, Goals, Assists, Yellow Cards, Red Cards and produces a rating for each player. All you have to do is copy data from a website such as transfermarkt or soccerway and throw them into your spreadsheet and out would spawn a rating change for each player. Naturally there's far more to it than i'm suggesting as there are a lot of variables to consider. I think the first spreadsheet calculated 50 variables to produce a rating while the second one (more basic) only calculated around 20.

Using the new system I was able to rate all of the Russian league in an hour. The time consuming part was having to log in each players DoB and playing position. But obviously that wouldn't be an issue if you had access to the SW/SM database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

I've made several. The one I made last season as a lunch time project was a complicated beast:

database_004b.jpg?dl=0

This one gave weekly updates for each player based on real life statistics for each game. The rating was then averaged out for the last 10 games to produce a rating for each week. This worked brilliantly and was very accurate' date=' the problem was that it took a little too much time to produce.

I then made another one which takes core statistics: Club, Minutes, Goals, Assists, Yellow Cards, Red Cards and produces a rating for each player. All you have to do is copy data from a website such as transfermarkt or soccerway and throw them into your spreadsheet and out would spawn a rating change for each player. Naturally there's far more to it than i'm suggesting as there are a lot of variables to consider. I think the first spreadsheet calculated 50 variables to produce a rating while the second one (more basic) only calculated around 20.

Using the new system I was able to rate all of the Russian league in an hour. The time consuming part was having to log in each players DoB and playing position. But obviously that wouldn't be an issue if you had access to the SW/SM database.[/quote']

That genuinely sounds amazing! Keep up the good work. Could we have a few screenshots if possible please?

It would be nice if at some point in the future SM implemented a system were the ratings would change on a regular basis dependent on real life performances. Of course they'll be flaws to this but we'll always have good people willing to work around these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

That genuinely sounds amazing! Keep up the good work. Could we have a few screenshots if possible please?

It would be nice if at some point in the future SM implemented a system were the ratings would change on a regular basis dependent on real life performances. Of course they'll be flaws to this but we'll always have good people willing to work around these issues.

Sometimes i think i'm being too hard on SM about player ratings but then i sit there and consider that all it would take is to have someone working solely on this for a few hours each day.

I mean i don't know how many staff they have working at SM but surely they could afford to hire someone to just take care of player rating's?

According to Webuka SM make around $30k a month from advertising. Now i don't how accurate that is but i'm guessing it probably isn't too far off the mark, considering how popular the website is (and the amount of bloody ads!). So when you factor in the 300K they have just received from investors and the money they make from gold coins (anyone know roughly how much that is), why are they letting player rating's go neglected?

I know some people defend SM regarding this, but really, i mean most of us on here spend alot of time scouting, anyone of us could go through a league, being extremely thorough and it would probably only take about 2-3 hours to review it completely (perhaps even less with the kind of system Redsky mentions below).

I mean that's not acceptable is it? Sure they say they are busy with single player, well then if that's the case employ someone to cover the player ratings. Perhaps the cut into profits will be to much to take.

I know it seems like i moan alot about this but SM is a business after all, this isn't some non-profit charity organisation. I paid for a service and part of that service was allowed to decline, now i'm receiving an inferior service for my money and i'm meant to be understanding about this?

Things have picked up regarding rating's over the past few weeks, which is good news, but the level of work that is required is quite shocking. Player's who deserve an increase get most of the headlines but oh lord if you look at the amount of players who should have there rating's decreased its scary.

Anyway i bore myself moaning about this nonsense. I admire anyone who chooses to give SM the benefit of the doubt regarding this, you obviously have a great love for the game, which i certainly understand.

A simple problem that could be solved easily, that's the frustrating part, and it's just not acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

I've made several. The one I made last season as a lunch time project was a complicated beast:

database_004b.jpg?dl=0

This one gave weekly updates for each player based on real life statistics for each game. The rating was then averaged out for the last 10 games to produce a rating for each week. This worked brilliantly and was very accurate' date=' the problem was that it took a little too much time to produce.

I then made another one which takes core statistics: Club, Minutes, Goals, Assists, Yellow Cards, Red Cards and produces a rating for each player. All you have to do is copy data from a website such as transfermarkt or soccerway and throw them into your spreadsheet and out would spawn a rating change for each player. Naturally there's far more to it than i'm suggesting as there are a lot of variables to consider. I think the first spreadsheet calculated 50 variables to produce a rating while the second one (more basic) only calculated around 20.

Using the new system I was able to rate all of the Russian league in an hour. The time consuming part was having to log in each players DoB and playing position. But obviously that wouldn't be an issue if you had access to the SW/SM database.[/quote']

Sounds really good and helps show that using something like this could be the right way to go. If you can manage to get this far in your lunch break on your own then just imagine what SM should be capable of with their resources.

Out of interest did you do an experiment running the short version and the long version on the same league at all? Did the suggested ratings come out much different? I'd assume the long version was more reliable for a suggested rating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Redsky

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Sounds really good and helps show that using something like this could be the right way to go. If you can manage to get this far in your lunch break on your own then just imagine what SM should be capable of with their resources.

Out of interest did you do an experiment running the short version and the long version on the same league at all? Did the suggested ratings come out much different? I'd assume the long version was more reliable for a suggested rating?

Well' date=' the long version allowed for weekly rating updates. (as shown in the screenshot). The long version had a very complicated calculation matrix and took match data from espn matchdays. It was more reliable and allowed fast rating changes for young players.

The simplified version was designed for other smaller leagues that wouldn't warrant weekly updates and the calculation process was much different. But if you used this system for all leagues, you could therefore review the main leagues 3/4 times a season as well as using it for the other leagues.

Annoyingly I'd show you screenshots of the new version, but my pc is currently dead. But when my new one arrives on Thursday I can show some screenies. I'll be honest, I'm a bit surprised that SM/SW doesn't use such a system. The current system seems so flawed, all the popular/famous players get rating changes while players don't tend to go down much.

Feel free to contact me SM/SW :P

edit: I just realised the screeny I posted was using a faulty link.

As you can see by the dates, this was a while ago I built the long complicated one!

[img']https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/1/AADY1E2MZnUtdOJftVLdkaIruUeDhtpa1aR4cmm7k0HNZg/12/30654692/jpeg/1024x768/3/1414368000/0/2/database_004b.jpg/T3BeTR5Q3zx45HknDhuydKEbJ_TFZLlK_hN7KeLFDrg[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Well' date=' the long version allowed for weekly rating updates. (as shown in the screenshot). The long version had a very complicated calculation matrix and took match data from espn matchdays. It was more reliable and allowed fast rating changes for young players.

The simplified version was designed for other smaller leagues that wouldn't warrant weekly updates and the calculation process was much different. But if you used this system for all leagues, you could therefore review the main leagues 3/4 times a season as well as using it for the other leagues.

Annoyingly I'd show you screenshots of the new version, but my pc is currently dead. But when my new one arrives on Thursday I can show some screenies. I'll be honest, I'm a bit surprised that SM/SW doesn't use such a system. The current system seems so flawed, all the popular/famous players get rating changes while players don't tend to go down much.

Feel free to contact me SM/SW :P

edit: I just realised the screeny I posted was using a faulty link.

As you can see by the dates, this was a while ago I built the long complicated one!

[img']https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/1/AADY1E2MZnUtdOJftVLdkaIruUeDhtpa1aR4cmm7k0HNZg/12/30654692/jpeg/1024x768/3/1414368000/0/2/database_004b.jpg/T3BeTR5Q3zx45HknDhuydKEbJ_TFZLlK_hN7KeLFDrg[/img]

So, after 3 or 4 months your system looks at the average rating and that will be the new players rating? If so, looks pretty good.

Weekly scores are based on stats from other sites I guess? Can you give an example pls? Let's say van Persie's first score (oct, 2012). Why 94 score?

( "players rating algorithm" the most difficult and most important part).

Thnx in advance.

Biblis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Redsky

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

So' date=' after 3 or 4 months your system looks at the average rating and that will be the new players rating? If so, looks pretty good.

Weekly scores are based on stats from other sites I guess? Can you give an example pls? Let's say van Persie's first score (oct, 2012). Why 94 score?

( "players rating algorithm" the most difficult and most important part).

Thnx in advance.

Biblis.[/quote']

The Complicated System (as seen in the screenshot):

It's the last 10 games played (league games). So what happens is that the rating system checks the last 10 games and averages the rating. This includes the previous seasons results. I was using stats taken from the espn site. If more than 1 game was played in the week, then both game scores would be averaged.

The Simple System:

I copy the data for a clubs entire season thus far from Transfermarket. The rating is determined by the amount of games the player could have played in that time.

The calculations for both systems are extremely complicated and has a very complicated matrix system. League, Cup and European games all have different variables. It's tricky to balance and requires lots of testing (with different leagues and different clubs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Sometimes i think i'm being too hard on SM about player ratings but then i sit there and consider that all it would take is to have someone working solely on this for a few hours each day.

I mean i don't know how many staff they have working at SM but surely they could afford to hire someone to just take care of player rating's?

According to Webuka SM make around $30k a month from advertising. Now i don't how accurate that is but i'm guessing it probably isn't too far off the mark' date=' considering how popular the website is (and the amount of bloody ads!). So when you factor in the 300K they have just received from investors and the money they make from gold coins (anyone know roughly how much that is), why are they letting player rating's go neglected?

I know some people defend SM regarding this, but really, i mean most of us on here spend alot of time scouting, anyone of us could go through a league, being extremely thorough and it would probably only take about 2-3 hours to review it completely (perhaps even less with the kind of system Redsky mentions below).

I mean that's not acceptable is it? Sure they say they are busy with single player, well then if that's the case employ someone to cover the player ratings. Perhaps the cut into profits will be to much to take.

I know it seems like i moan alot about this but SM is a business after all, this isn't some non-profit charity organisation. I paid for a service and part of that service was allowed to decline, now i'm receiving an inferior service for my money and i'm meant to be understanding about this?

Things have picked up regarding rating's over the past few weeks, which is good news, but the level of work that is required is quite shocking. Player's who deserve an increase get most of the headlines but oh lord if you look at the amount of players who should have there rating's decreased its scary.

Anyway i bore myself moaning about this nonsense. I admire anyone who chooses to give SM the benefit of the doubt regarding this, you obviously have a great love for the game, which i certainly understand.

A simple problem that could be solved easily, that's the frustrating part, and it's just not acceptable.[/quote']

I agree with you wholeheartedly here and yes, it's unacceptable really.

From what you wrote I figure out what the main problem is in the aspect of business and it seems to me that SM are just a bit too big for their boots!

There are too little staff working on too big a game.

30K from advertising a month alone is easily an annual salary for a game programmer. I think more employees should be working on different parts of the game E.g. Single player, Multiplayer, Ratings system, etc...

Once they have this issue sorted then I believe the game will pick up much faster. Honestly, if I could code, I wouldn't hesitate to help them out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Sometimes i think i'm being too hard on SM about player ratings but then i sit there and consider that all it would take is to have someone working solely on this for a few hours each day.

I mean i don't know how many staff they have working at SM but surely they could afford to hire someone to just take care of player rating's?

According to Webuka SM make around $30k a month from advertising. Now i don't how accurate that is but i'm guessing it probably isn't too far off the mark' date=' considering how popular the website is (and the amount of bloody ads!). So when you factor in the 300K they have just received from investors and the money they make from gold coins (anyone know roughly how much that is), why are they letting player rating's go neglected?

I know some people defend SM regarding this, but really, i mean most of us on here spend alot of time scouting, anyone of us could go through a league, being extremely thorough and it would probably only take about 2-3 hours to review it completely (perhaps even less with the kind of system Redsky mentions below).

I mean that's not acceptable is it? Sure they say they are busy with single player, well then if that's the case employ someone to cover the player ratings. Perhaps the cut into profits will be to much to take.

I know it seems like i moan alot about this but SM is a business after all, this isn't some non-profit charity organisation. I paid for a service and part of that service was allowed to decline, now i'm receiving an inferior service for my money and i'm meant to be understanding about this?

Things have picked up regarding rating's over the past few weeks, which is good news, but the level of work that is required is quite shocking. Player's who deserve an increase get most of the headlines but oh lord if you look at the amount of players who should have there rating's decreased its scary.

Anyway i bore myself moaning about this nonsense. I admire anyone who chooses to give SM the benefit of the doubt regarding this, you obviously have a great love for the game, which i certainly understand.

A simple problem that could be solved easily, that's the frustrating part, and it's just not acceptable.[/quote']

Not only player ratings are unrealistic and out of date.....the players positions part is a disaster as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

I agree with you wholeheartedly here and yes' date=' it's unacceptable really.

From what you wrote I figure out what the main problem is in the aspect of business and it seems to me that SM are just a bit too big for their boots!

There are too little staff working on too big a game.

30K from advertising a month alone is easily an annual salary for a game programmer. I think more employees should be working on different parts of the game E.g. Single player, Multiplayer, Ratings system, etc...

Once they have this issue sorted then I believe the game will pick up much faster. [b']Honestly, if I could code, I wouldn't hesitate to help them out![/b]

If I could code (I can't) and could be arsed (an even bigger problem than me not being able to code) I would make my own :P

I'm surprised someone else hasn't to be honest. SM has a great USP but is making a mess of the game with bad decisions. I can't see how they can stop someone from copying the idea as they haven't really invented any technology for example that the game's USP is dependent on.

Come to think of it that's really what SM (or at least us the customers) needs is a competitor that is basically making the same game but trying to do it better. Hopefully one comes along :) Any forumer's good at coding? ;)

I know a forumer (can't remember who) made a game which was very similar to SM. Did any one try it? how where ratings done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

If I could code (I can't) and could be arsed (an even bigger problem than me not being able to code) I would make my own :P

I'm surprised someone else hasn't to be honest. SM has a great USP but is making a mess of the game with bad decisions. I can't see how they can stop someone from copying the idea as they haven't really invented any technology for example that the game's USP is dependent on.

Come to think of it that's really what SM (or at least us the customers) needs is a competitor that is basically making the same game but trying to do it better. Hopefully one comes along :) Any forumer's good at coding? ;)

I know a forumer (can't remember who) made a game which was very similar to SM. Did any one try it? how where ratings done?

The problem with copying SM is copyright. I don't know how they get over using "Brand Type" names ie Manchester United, Wayne Rooney etc. I think Wayne Rooney did actually sue someone (hazy memory) for using his name. Football Clubs are Brands in a way too, on stock markets etc. Getting permission from thousands of clubs & a million players, managers etc & using them to make money from advertising??? Even £30k a month!

Anyway, my 2nd point is as I've said before, it's not difficult for SM to quadruple their rating reviews if they wanted. I'm convinced they just don't want to. They feel it will lose them managers out skilled by better managers @ selecting risers. They handicap better managers in many, many ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

it costs alot of money to run a fantasy website within the law, i remember some members of Championship manager online looked into rights etc to buy the game before it closed and its was 100s of thousands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

it costs alot of money to run a fantasy website within the law' date=' i remember some members of Championship manager online looked into rights etc to buy the game before it closed and its was 100s of thousands[/quote']

I guarantee SM aint spending 100's thousands on it. Not sure how they get around it though as they don't generate that much money. We now download community database's to run the game so that perhaps side steps player names and to an extent images but club names seems to be directly put on the game by SM. Not sure how it worked legally before we had to download the updated database each day as that must have been even worse. Maybe and quite realsiticaly SM is too small for anyone to really care about suing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Vast improvement of Soccerwiki needed

Anyway' date=' my 2nd point is as I've said before, it's not difficult for SM to quadruple their rating reviews if they wanted. I'm convinced they just don't want to. They feel it will lose them managers out skilled by better managers @ selecting risers. They handicap better managers in many, many ways.[/quote']

We certainly need to investigate the reason why they willfully decide to let certain aspects of the game decay.

You could well be correct in your theory that it is done to even the playing field for the casual player. That would also explain why they have created the single player mode and also why they have spent alot of time redesigning the phone app, ahead of player ratings, match engine etc.

So the thinking is that obviously the one thing that will keep people playing and investing for aslong as possible is to make the game easier for the casual player. After all everyone wants to win, everyone wants the best players, best teams blah blah. So perhaps the neglect of player ratings and not improving the match engine was a simple delay tactic.

So once the single player mode is complete they will have a more friendly format for casual players who want to have a little bit of throw away fun whilst on there smart phones at work or on the bus or perhaps whilst taking a dump. They don't have the time or inclination to worry about bidding wars for top players or scouting the Finnish league for risers.

Game becomes more accessible, more popular, more money from advertising etc

Then i guess once that is taken care of they will update the player ratings and sort out the match engine for us sad mo fo's?

That may be true or might be absolute nonsense. Anyone else got any theories?

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...