Jump to content

SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion I'd like to say, Soccerwiki is the worst website I've ever had the misfortune to sign up to. It is a hateful website of complete frustration. If I coul

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion Many years of experiencing SM implementations leave me with no confidence in SM anymore. "Out of Frying Pan into Fire" comes to mind. If it's the almi

Respuesta: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion I've found all the ideas really interesting, buy i don't feel really comfortable about lowering rates depending on concerns level. I know that

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

I hope the list is sorted according to their importance with the match engine the top priority. I will even argue that soccerwiki's ratings are more pressing than cheating. To me cheating is like crime in the world, it is always there, you tighten the rules and there will those who bend them, it will never end. SM can only reduce the amount of cheaters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

I hope the list is sorted according to their importance with the match engine the top priority. I will even argue that soccerwiki's ratings are more pressing than cheating.

They'll all be worked on in the coming weeks as we now have two teams of devs' date=' one for SM15 and the other for SM Worlds. You'll start to see changes / improvements before Christmas and the new match engine will be transferred over into a test environment in the New Year prior to being rolled out across all GWs.

To me cheating is like crime in the world, it is always there, you tighten the rules and there will those who bend them, it will never end. SM can only reduce the amount of cheaters.

Couldn't agree more with this as it's been like this since the early days. No matter what you do or put in place there will always be those that try and flaunt the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riferimento: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

PRIORITY

1) Match Engine . Well awake! This is a lack to be fixed soon.

2) Ratings - It 'a very serious problem, please return the system to a few years ago. Only few days ago you have evaluated the French teams.

For several players was not made the review (example, Florian Thauvin). Need competence.

3) Cheating and SMFA - Well done

Points 1, 2 and 3 are a priority, if not arranged WELL these, the other points of the list you can also forget them, please do not waste any more time. Stop graphic layout change. Take care of more important things, holy god!

4) Player Concerns - The current system NOT is too slow. It's a plague.

5) Manager Activity / Inactive managers and Transfer Offers - And if someone goes to the hospital for treatment? This is the least of the problems.

Did you know that you have lost many users? I speak for many italian users, we are very angry with the unprofessional behavior that you have taken so far. Too often you asked for suggestions and then you are gone without a word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

The list is excellent and I believe you have identified the top issues.

My only issue would be about the player concerns and the reduction of ratings. I understand concerns are a necessary evil to reduce player hogging, however I believe the following is the main flaw with them.

You have a first team consisting of players rated 92 to 95 (you may have spent several years building this squad). In the team may be a player coming to the end of his career and will start dropping within a year or 2 (Xavi,Pirlo,Drogba etc). At the moment it is impossible to have any reserves above an 88 rating because concerns build quickly and you cant give them enough game time without the first team developing concerns.

Therefore as it stands now, an injury has a dramatic effect on your first team rating and should you identify a replacement for your ageing player, its impossible to keep him once he gets past 88 and the gap between 88 and 92 is too large when it now takes ages for their rating to rise.

I believe your proposal would make this even worse. So unlike in real life, its impossible to have a bigger first team squad of 11 of decent players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Match Engine - This needs to be fixed / addressed but this is already well documented.

Good

SMFA - Needs to be more dynamic. Can’t have a one system fits all. Each Game World is unique.

Good

Soccer Wiki - This is well documented. Inform users of current batch of changes and next changes

Managers don't need to know the next players to be reviewed. It creates a situation were managers buy just before they rise and sell imediately after tb is up which makes it too easy.

Communication from SM - Need to considerably improve how we interact with and update our customers in all aspects of the game.

Definitely and with imediate effect I hope

Player Concerns - The current system is just too slow. Takes a few seasons in before a player demands a transfer. Even then a manager can address the concerns and that’s a kop out.

Absolutely. I would hope to see this introduced very soon as its merely tweaking the time befpre a player gets unhappy.

Squad Sizes - Need to reduce the current cap of 255 or put in measures to have an unofficial cap by ways of concerns, finances etc.

There should be no cap. If someone can afford a big squad they shouldn't have penalised for being in that position. That said it needs to be a lot harder than it currently is to achieve a large squad. Anything over 100 should be really hard and long term unsustainable. Concerns would go a long way to fixing this.

Ratings - Linked to both Player Concerns & Squad Sizes. Ratings should change within a Game World based on concerns, playing time, form etc.

Woah!:eek: Very interesting idea.

Player Hogging - Linked to both Player Concerns & Squad Sizes.

Yep

Free Agents - Established clubs / long term managers can no longer purchase / compete for some of the best free agents.

Good

Manager Activity / Inactive Managers - Established managers shouldn’t be allowed to log in at least once a month to keep control of their team. This ruins the enjoyment for those that are active within the Game World.

Hurrah!

Transfer Offers - There are many occasions when managers simply fail to respond to your transfer offer before it is rejected automatically after 14 days. This isn’t good for established managers and even worse for new managers.

Yep

Offer Club - This feature is misused by certain managers to collapse transfers because they’ve either missed out on a player or don’t have the required funds.

Yeah

Proposed Solutions

Issue 1: Match Engine

Changes and improvements that went into Soccer Manager 2015 to be transferred over in the early weeks of 2015 after rigorous testing.

Issue 2: Cheating and SMFA

The SMFA is meant to catch cheats but inadvertently catches non-cheats. Therefore when caught cheating, no deals between the two managers for a week. That way those who might've fallen foul innocently of the SMFA won't be unable to conduct transfers with their friends. The SMFA will use the "game value" mentioned below taking player potential into consideration, to make it more accurate.

Offer a club to a friend will no longer prevent other managers from taking it over or making / collapsing transfer offers. This will change to suggest club to a friend. This will mean that multiple managers will be able to suggest an available club to a friend but it won't collapse current or future transfer offers.

Good

Issue 3: Soccer Wiki

Introduce a schedule by league, but not put set dates on it. For example Spanish Division 1 and Portuguese Division 2 are currently being updated and transferred over from the Soccer Wiki. This message is to appear in the Game World News Feed and within our social media. However, a player can still have an edit at any time outside of their league being updated.

Finally common sense prevails and a league schedule is back. There really is no need to announce this though as Ive mentioned above earlier as you only dumb the game down and cause problems that existed in the past. Not telling us what was going to be reviewed and when was a good step forward don't take a step backwards.

Issue 4: Squad sizes, Player hogging and Free Agents

There are currently two tiers of transfer values, ones that managed clubs value the players at amongst themselves, "market value", and one that unmanaged/external clubs use, "game value". The unmanaged/external clubs need to be more intelligent in the transfer market. Therefore unmanaged/external clubs will consider players potential as well as considering a player's concern when coming to their "game value".

Sounds good

Remove the ability to pay off a player's concern.

If a player has a concern their rating drops. For example a 92 rated player on a Level 1 concern will drop to 90. If their concern then goes to Level 2 then the rating will then be 88 etc.

Great idea

The value of a squad and the club's balance is no longer considered when making an offer for a free agent. Therefore you'll be able to pay whatever you consider the player to be worth.

Good

Issue 5: Manager Activity / Inactive managers and Transfer Offers

Managers have to login at least once every 14 days to keep control of their clubs.

Transfers auto collapsed after 7 days instead of 14.

Good

Please dont take forever to start rolling these out. Some things are a no brainer and you should just proceed with.

Well done though with the ideas, it looks very promising for the future :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

The list is excellent and I believe you have identified the top issues.

My only issue would be about the player concerns and the reduction of ratings. I understand concerns are a necessary evil to reduce player hogging' date=' however I believe the following is the main flaw with them.

You have a first team consisting of players rated 92 to 95 (you may have spent several years building this squad). In the team may be a player coming to the end of his career and will start dropping within a year or 2 (Xavi,Pirlo,Drogba etc). At the moment it is impossible to have any reserves above an 88 rating because concerns build quickly and you cant give them enough game time without the first team developing concerns.

Therefore as it stands now, an injury has a dramatic effect on your first team rating and should you identify a replacement for your ageing player, its impossible to keep him once he gets past 88 and the gap between 88 and 92 is too large when it now takes ages for their rating to rise.

I believe your proposal would make this even worse. So unlike in real life, its impossible to have a bigger first team squad of 11 of decent players.[/quote']

I haven't managed top player for about a year now on the game but when i did i could juggle 40 players rated 90 or above and keep them happy. it was one of the reasons i quit that gw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

I haven't managed top player for about a year now on the game but when i did i could juggle 40 players rated 90 or above and keep them happy. it was one of the reasons i quit that gw.

Then you must produce a masterclass thread explaining how to do this as I dont see how that is possible.

If your first team squad requires to play 75% of games and your next tier requires 50% of games (which is how I understand it), even when using subs, I cant see how its possible to keep 40 high rated players happy, with no concerns at all, with how concerns stand at the moment without paying some off.

I might be useless at maths but cant make them figures work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Respuesta: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

I've found all the ideas really interesting, buy i don't feel really comfortable about lowering rates depending on concerns level.

I know that we must fight against player hogging, but if you want to go on with the concerns issue, you must take in count some important facts:

1. Nowadays, it's difficult to understand when and why a player will develop a concern. I think it's important to give basic information to all managers (especially new ones) about concerns engine.

2. Sometimes it's not so obvious to know what player must play more minutes, so I think that introduce a "level 0" of concern (in order to give an advice to the manager) will be a very useful idea.

I will thank any opinion about everything above (excuse gramatical mistakes).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Many years of experiencing SM implementations leave me with no confidence in SM anymore. "Out of Frying Pan into Fire" comes to mind.

If it's the almighty mess I expect you will make of it, then I'm gone & many others I expect that haven't left already. Please prove me wrong SM but I have very little faith you can implement what you say successfully.... :( We'll see...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Match Engine -

Glad to hear this as I, like many others are baffled by how it actually works ATM.

Will the fix stop those results where a team full of players at 50% or less fitness and low rated assistant manager replacements seem to win a stupid amount of games?

will the assistant manager actually pick decent replacements for injured players etc? (too often we see out of position players being picked by the assistant when called upon)

SMFA/Club offers-

Seems to make sense

Soccer Wiki -

your solution doesn't touch the major SW issue's

* no communication at all with soccer wiki. Even the admins are clueless as to what goes on there, when they could be your perfect middlemen between forum and SW.

* if a valid submission is rejected - the submitter gets punished with no way of resolving it

* tell us what actually happens when we suggest a rating change

* instead of a list of upcoming reviews, how about a promise to review the whole database at least once a year - maybe with a checklist of leagues already done that year. some leagues go too long without review

* a criteria players have to meet in order to be added, for example some players from utd etc get added without any game time, after just a squad call up(or less). Whereas players for teams like Milan etc don't. consistency is important

Communication from SM -

to be honest 97% of the time there is absolutely none, and 2.5% of the time it is incredibly generic or not followed up. this has to improve. apart from the time that all the devs vanished and left the forum in the wilderness, I've never known a time like this.

Player Concerns -

Before you start dropping ratings/speeding it up, you need to fix it, there are still some flaws(but not as bad as it was).

in one gameworld I have a 76 rated player upset at his lack of games when there are 8 players in their 90's who can play in his position, and at least 3 in their 80's. O.K. I could understand a concern about his future(that could be fixed with a reasonable number of sub appearances), but if I recall correctly I am going to have to play him in several games to shift the concern

Squad Sizes -

as you said needs a huge reduction from the 255.

I'd also like to see the option to reduce the squad cap even more in custom setups.

Ratings -

already covered my view on concerns and ratings. but a bit wary about the gametime improving rating idea. maybe as an option in customs and in some gameworlds, but part of the game is buying and selling according to how SM are going to rerate them(if they ever do), and I wouldn't want that to go.

lets sort out rating reviews before moving on to this

Player Hogging -

sorting out squad size and concerns correctly will help this to a degree. unless the squad cap is tiny it will never be eradicated though, but I've never found it an issue

Free Agents -

your solution would level the playing field a bit, but will see the return of 99mil transfers in some gameworlds.

I personally would like to see the removal of the mass transfer to free agents from externals at the start of each season. for example I manage arsenal and sell Ozil external at the start of the season. when the next season starts, if his TB is up he becomes a free agent.

Manager Activity / Inactive Managers -

Not sure of your 14 day idea. a lot of people take 2 week holidays and unless they are gold managers they risk losing all their clubs(or is this a way to get more gold managers?) maybe extend it to 16/17 days and I think it will be safer.

Transfer Offers -

7 day auto collapse seems fine to me

Offer Club -

again happy with the solution

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Please dont take forever to start rolling these out. Some things are a no brainer and you should just proceed with.

We intend to start work on them this coming week.

Well done though with the ideas' date=' it looks very promising for the future :[/quote']
The list is excellent and I believe you have identified the top issues.

The problems are ones that you' date=' our community have raised across all of our mediums and the solutions are a mixture of yours and ours.

Points 1, 2 and 3 are a priority, if not arranged WELL these, the other points of the list you can also forget them, please do not waste any more time. Stop graphic layout change. Take care of more important things, holy god!

Please reread my opening post:

"We will not be introducing any new features into SM Worlds until we've addressed the issues within this post."

My only issue would be about the player concerns and the reduction of ratings. I understand concerns are a necessary evil to reduce player hogging' date=' however I believe the following is the main flaw with them.

You have a first team consisting of players rated 92 to 95 (you may have spent several years building this squad). In the team may be a player coming to the end of his career and will start dropping within a year or 2 (Xavi,Pirlo,Drogba etc). At the moment it is impossible to have any reserves above an 88 rating because concerns build quickly and you cant give them enough game time without the first team developing concerns.

Therefore as it stands now, an injury has a dramatic effect on your first team rating and should you identify a replacement for your ageing player, its impossible to keep him once he gets past 88 and the gap between 88 and 92 is too large when it now takes ages for their rating to rise.

I believe your proposal would make this even worse. So unlike in real life, its impossible to have a bigger first team squad of 11 of decent players.[/quote']

We've read numerous posts on this subject and know that this is an area which divides opinion and therefore we'll be treading carefully with any changes that are introduced. However, i'll state that the majority of posts that we've read within our communications are along these lines. Re your last response i've dropped you a PM.

I've found all the ideas really interesting' date=' buy i don't feel really comfortable about lowering rates depending on concerns level. I know that we must fight against player hogging, but if you want to go on with the concerns issue, you must take in count some important facts:

1. Nowadays, it's difficult to understand when and why a player will develop a concern. I think it's important to give basic information to all managers (especially new ones) about concerns engine.

2. Sometimes it's not so obvious to know what player must play more minutes, so I think that introduce a "level 0" of concern (in order to give an advice to the manager) will be a very useful idea.

I will thank any opinion about everything above (excuse gramatical mistakes).[/quote']

I'll flag up your suggestion about possibly displaying what percentage of games a player expects to play during the course of the season.

Managers don't need to know the next players to be reviewed. It creates a situation were managers buy just before they rise and sell imediately after tb is up which makes it too easy.

I can understand your concern but we believe the following will counter this:

"There are currently two tiers of transfer values' date=' ones that managed clubs value the players at amongst themselves, "market value", and one that unmanaged/external clubs use, "game value". The unmanaged/external clubs need to be more intelligent in the transfer market. Therefore unmanaged/external clubs will consider players potential as well as considering a player's concern when coming to their "game value"."[/i']

Many years of experiencing SM implementations leave me with no confidence in SM anymore. "Out of Frying Pan into Fire" comes to mind.

If it's the almighty mess I expect you will make of it' date=' then I'm gone & many others I expect that haven't left already. Please prove me wrong SM but I have very little faith you can implement what you say successfully.... :( We'll see...[/quote']

I'm sorry to hear this but these are issues which you, our community have flagged up in our various mediums and now you have an opportunity to discuss them and help us implement them. Even once they've been introduced we'll listen to feedback and make changes based on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riferimento: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

You have no idea how to improve this game, Steven. You walk on fire.

Example:

"If a player has a concern their rating drops. For example a 92 rated player on a Level 1 concern will drop to 90. If their concern then goes to Level 2 then the rating will then be 88 etc."

Really?

Example: Falcao. Now, he drop at 90 for level 2 concern. How much to buy Falcao? Like 90 rating or 94? :rolleyes:

This is very confused for me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

First of all let me just say how pleased I am to hear that you are finally adressing the issues that have made so many forumers quit playing over the years.

I agree with most, but I can't make sense of this one:

Ratings - Linked to both Player Concerns & Squad Sizes. Ratings should change within a Game World based on concerns, playing time, form etc.

Does this mean it will work similar to how single player currently works?

If that's the case I'm not too fond of having that idea implemented.

F.ex. I had Glen Johnson rise from 91 to 93 within the first season (Cuz of form I suppose.) Whilst this should have been great for me, It actually made me enjoy the game less (and stopped playing), because I always liked this game for it's realism where it mirrors footballers in real life. And how they perform in real life is the one thing that reflects on their in game rating.

And I think we all know and can agree on how awful Glen is :P A 93 rating felt laughable.

So why not just tie rating/concerns togheter with morale and performance. i.e. the player always keeps his rating (following his real life performance) but make it so when the player gets concerned his morale gets lowered substantially, which in effect makes him perform worse when called upon.

This could also have effect on his market value, which could be lowered so it's not benefitial to sell off concerned players.

But perhaps this is the way to make the game move forward and grow?

If it is, I would respect that. Even though it would mean it's no longer the manager game I'm looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Match Engine

Glad to hear this as I' date=' like many others are baffled by how it actually works ATM.

Will the fix stop those results where a team full of players at 50% or less fitness and low rated assistant manager replacements seem to win a stupid amount of games?

will the assistant manager actually pick decent replacements for injured players etc? (too often we see out of position players being picked by the assistant when called upon)[/quote']

Play SM15 for yourself as that's where the new match engine has been implemented and this is the one that'll be transferred over to SM Worlds.

Soccer Wiki

your solution doesn't touch the major SW issue's

* no communication at all with soccer wiki. Even the admins are clueless as to what goes on there' date=' when they could be your perfect middlemen between forum and SW.

* if a valid submission is rejected - the submitter gets punished with no way of resolving it

* tell us what actually happens when we suggest a rating change

* instead of a list of upcoming reviews, how about a promise to review the whole database at least once a year - maybe with a checklist of leagues already done that year. some leagues go too long without review

* a criteria players have to meet in order to be added, for example some players from utd etc get added without any game time, after just a squad call up(or less). Whereas players for teams like Milan etc don't. consistency is important[/quote']

We're fully aware from the numerous posts we've read as well as feedback across all of our mediums of the problems that have been highlighted and these will be addressed going forward.

Communication from SM

to be honest 97% of the time there is absolutely none' date=' and 2.5% of the time it is incredibly generic or not followed up. this has to improve. apart from the time that all the devs vanished and left the forum in the wilderness, I've never known a time like this.[/quote']

There are numerous channels of communication and the forum is just one of many. All of these mediums will be utilised more and more going forward and in numerous languages as well.

Squad Sizes

as you said needs a huge reduction from the 255.

I'd also like to see the option to reduce the squad cap even more in custom setups.

We'll look into making changes to Custom Game Worlds during 2015 but first and foremost we need to make improvements to what has been raised in the opening post.

Player Hogging

sorting out squad size and concerns correctly will help this to a degree. unless the squad cap is tiny it will never be eradicated though' date=' but I've never found it an issue[/quote']

We've been reading many differing views on this and there is a very big thread that has been constantly added to over the years. We've come to the conclusion that you can make changes to bring in an unofficial cap without having an official one.

Free Agents

your solution would level the playing field a bit' date=' but will see the return of 99mil transfers in some gameworlds.[/quote']

Isn't it a simple case of you pay what you perceive the player to be worth? Plus with any young player, you are always taking a "punt" on them as only a handful turn out to live up to the hype. I've recently read an interesting article re this and i'll try and dig it out and link to it.

Manager Activity / Inactive Managers

Not sure of your 14 day idea. a lot of people take 2 week holidays and unless they are gold managers they risk losing all their clubs(or is this a way to get more gold managers?) maybe extend it to 16/17 days and I think it will be safer.

You can play SM Worlds on any device with an internet connection and there's also an app. Unless you are off back-packing in the Amazon i'd hazard a guess and say that you'll be able to access the internet. However' date=' i'll pass on your feedback re the 14 days.

You have no idea how to improve this game, Steven. You walk on fire.

You're probably right I don't, that's why i've spent a good while listening to what you, our community have to say in order to improve SM Worlds.

"If a player has a concern their rating drops. For example a 92 rated player on a Level 1 concern will drop to 90. If their concern then goes to Level 2 then the rating will then be 88 etc."

Example: Falcao. Now' date=' he drop at 90 for level 2 concern. How much to buy Falcao? Like 90 rating or 94? :rolleyes:

This is very confused for me[/quote']

In the example that you've highlighted the player's value would be that of an 88 rated player in your Game World.

I agree with most' date=' but I can't make sense of this one:

Does this mean it will work similar to how single player currently works?

If that's the case I'm not too fond of having that idea implemented.

F.ex. I had Glen Johnson rise from 91 to 93 within the first season (Cuz of form I suppose.) Whilst this should have been great for me, It actually made me enjoy the game less (and stopped playing), because I always liked this game for it's realism where it mirrors footballers in real life. And how they perform in real life is the one thing that reflects on their in game rating.

And I think we all know and can agree on how awful Glen is :P A 93 rating felt laughable.

So why not just tie rating/concerns togheter with morale and performance. i.e. the player always keeps his rating (following his real life performance) but make it so when the player gets concerned his morale gets lowered substantially, which in effect makes him perform worse when called upon.

This could also have effect on his market value, which could be lowered so it's not benefitial to sell off concerned players.

But perhaps this is the way to make the game move forward and grow?

If it is, I would respect that. Even though it would mean it's no longer the manager game I'm looking for.[/quote']

No it won't be the same as SM15. It'll be linked to a player's concern as mentioned above. So if player X is 92 rated and develops a L1 concern their rating will drop in that Game World to an 90. If that concern is addressed then the player will go back up to a 92.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

No it won't be the same as SM15. It'll be linked to a player's concern as mentioned above. So if player X is 92 rated and develops a L1 concern their rating will drop in that Game World to an 90. If that concern is addressed then the player will go back up to a 92.

Alright' date=' that sounds much better. But form was mentioned in your quote from the post aswell. How does that come in equation?

Ratings - Linked to both Player Concerns & Squad Sizes. Ratings should change within a Game World based on concerns, playing time, form etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Alright' date=' that sounds much better. But form was mentioned in your quote from the post aswell. How does that come in equation?[/quote']
Ratings - Linked to both Player Concerns & Squad Sizes. Ratings should change within a Game World based on concerns, playing time, form etc.

Could probably do with removing the part after concerns as form as just an internal discussion we had in that it could impact on a player's rating in the Game World.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

If it was just concerns I could accept that.

Another thing Id look at though is stadium building. For example Ive taken a Rochdale to Div 1 and we've been in Div 1 since Season 4 (now season 15) but my stadium is only at 25,392. This is the second lowest size in the division which seems very unrealistic and doesnt incentivise people to take over the small teams if stadium increases arent going to increase the revenue. Id suggest maybe something whereby smaller teams can use some money to 'buy' a stadium increase but this would have to be chairman approved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Another thing Id look at though is stadium building. For example Ive taken a Rochdale to Div 1 and we've been in Div 1 since Season 4 (now season 15) but my stadium is only at 25' date='392. This is the second lowest size in the division which seems very unrealistic and doesnt incentivise people to take over the small teams if stadium increases arent going to increase the revenue. Id suggest maybe something whereby smaller teams can use some money to 'buy' a stadium increase but this would have to be chairman approved.[/quote']

We've read many posts on this topic and discussed it internally on numerous occasions. I've got my foot in your camp as I get one of the lowest attendances in my league in the Game World that i'm in and i'd argue i've probably got one of the best squads and won the most trophies. Personally i'd like to see something introduced along the lines of what we now have in SM15.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riferimento: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

If I Buy a young player (Iturbe), rating 87.

Concern: level 2 >> 83 (oh my god, I'm guilty).

End of "Serie A" championship in real life: Iturbe topscorer with 40 goals, best player of the year, rating increase in standard world over 87 (89/90, as Immobile last year).

My Iturbe lev 2 concern stay at 83 or raise at 89/90? ;)

I think the problem is not ours, but yours because we wait the player rating and you SM wait months or years (Ocampos?) to raise a player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Respuesta: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Another option about "high concerns / low rates" issue:

I think that would be a better option to reduce value of a player when his level of concern rises up. Maybe including another variable in the ecuation of players' value.

Example:

Reduce 15% the value at level 1, 30% at level 2...

Then, we would have the necessary "punishment" to those managers who accumulate players, but we dont create the chaos of changing rates in thousands of GameWorlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Thanks for the feedback so far. The more views and ideas we got around the problems the better solutions we can come to.

Just regarding how long it takes to address all these issues, I would like to say that it depends on two things.

One reason will be how long it takes to carefully test the changes before putting them in the game, eg the match engine changes need to go in carefully without bugs and worse results. The other will be how long it takes to think up the best solutions to these issues, so it will be dependent to a point on the discussions here in the forum and other channels.

There is plenty of devs all ready to go at it and just waiting on the planned solutions to be given to them. The key is to take the time needed to get it all right, as it might take time for us all to figure out between us all what the best solution to more contentious issues like for example dealing with large squad sizes.

Going forward, we will be a lot more involved in building both games with the help of the community. This will be helping to design all new features in both single player and multiplayer, as well as for asking for community testing of those features before they go into the games.

One last thing, we would like you to hold us to our 10 principles that we have had up since the start of SM, the most relevant one relating to this post is that at the end of the day its your game.

http://www.soccermanager.com/corporate-info.php

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

With the concerns and player rating drops, the idea is to disincentive people from building huge squads where most players will never play and the hogging of those players ruins the game. Then those players just go up in value eventually from when they bought them, usually from unmanaged\external clubs, then just sell them back to unmanaged\external clubs for a profit.

a 94 rated player with concern level 1 will still be a 94 rated player, but play as a 92 rated player.

He will appear as 92/94 in all places were his rating is displayed.

If his rating goes upto 95 say, then he will be displayed as 93/95, and visa verca if he goes down to 93 rated, 91/93.

So he will play worse as his concerns grow. Basically his moral is low.

Unmanaged/external clubs are prepared to pay less because he has concerns, so they would offer as if he is a 92 rated.

So the players values and performances will drop if not getting played. On moving club, his concerns will have gone, so he will play like a 94 again, and external clubs will then value him at 94 again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

With the concerns and player rating drops' date=' the idea is to disincentive people from building huge squads where most players will never play and the hogging of those players ruins the game. Then those players just go up in value eventually from when they bought them, usually from unmanaged\external clubs, then just sell them back to unmanaged\external clubs for a profit.

a 94 rated player with concern level 1 will still be a 94 rated player, but play as a 92 rated player.

He will appear as 92/94 in all places were his rating is displayed.

If his rating goes upto 95 say, then he will be displayed as 93/95, and visa verca if he goes down to 93 rated, 91/93.

So he will play worse as his concerns grow. [b']Basically his moral is low[/b].

Unmanaged/external clubs are prepared to pay less because he has concerns, so they would offer as if he is a 92 rated.

So the players values and performances will drop if not getting played. On moving club, his concerns will have gone, so he will play like a 94 again, and external clubs will then value him at 94 again.

Question: So the Morale Rating will be obselete (Morale 90 say) & replaced with a reducing player rating (Say 92/94)? So "Morale" will disappear as a catagory??

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...

×
×
  • Create New...