Jump to content

SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion


Recommended Posts

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

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']

If you tell people you are about to do say the spanish league people will wait until you announced it then go out and by loads of money spinners which will rise and therefore which will be worth more money to any club. Then selling on after 10 weeks of transfer ban it means minamal risk if the rise wasn't as high as expected. If you announce it, it will be exploited. It leads to lazy management. There will be a return of threads on the forum that spoon feed the lazy and annoy those that can be bothered to scout. Don't make the game easy mode by giving managers a crutch.

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

[b']Woah!:eek: Very interesting idea[/b].

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

Ive been thinking a bit more about these aspects. I still think they are interesting ideas a could be a cool way of playing a football management game...but if introduced it starts to go against what SM's USP is of being a football management game that is based on real life ratings. It could work and could make it a better game than what we currently have now but you run the risk of alienating a lot of your current customers as it would be a dramatic change to the way the game is played. It's not like you would be tweaking something to enhance it, it would be changeing SM at its core. SM would be a different game experience after that.

Perhaps look to form as a way of being a boost to player performance. If they play they play better/more consistant. If they play well they play better/more consistant. If they don't play they play worse/less consistant. If they play but play bad they play worse/less consistant. This would still enable players of lesser rating (perhaps crucially at lesser clubs) to bridge the gap against players of a higher rating a better clubs that don't play so often. It also helps add a bit of randomness that just because you have say messi he could be unlucky and go on a run of terrible form and need to be dropped which at the moment you wouldn't do even if he has a few bad games as the thing what counts (his rating) stays high.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

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)' date=' 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.[/quote']

Sorry maybe I misled through my wording. I meant them being "happy" as in they hadn't handed in a transfer request. I only ever had to pay a couple of them off for not playing (Including Ronaldo). Its achievable if you win the league most seasons get to the cup finals of both domestic cup virtually all the time, loan players out carefully and always use 3 subs its very doable. Most times I would win the first few games of the season with my first team get a lead in the league then let my second and third team players play in the league and save my best team for the cup were there is less room for error. Most players will be on concerns but as long as they are 3 or less its workable and quite easy to get them to reduce in rating. Just because I had Messi and Ronaldo and Co it didn't mean I had to play them - they sat out quite a bit ;)

It wasn't so much playing a football management game though as more like working out a puzzle which is a tad dull. Its not what I want from the game so I quit the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Sorry maybe I misled through my wording. I meant them being "happy" as in they hadn't handed in a transfer request. I only ever had to pay a couple of them off for not playing (Including Ronaldo). Its achievable if you win the league most seasons get to the cup finals of both domestic cup virtually all the time' date=' loan players out carefully and always use 3 subs its very doable. Most times I would win the first few games of the season with my first team get a lead in the league then let my second and third team players play in the league and save my best team for the cup were there is less room for error. Most players will be on concerns but as long as they are 3 or less its workable and quite easy to get them to reduce in rating. Just because I had Messi and Ronaldo and Co it didn't mean I had to play them - they sat out quite a bit ;)

It wasn't so much playing a football management game though as more like working out a puzzle which is a tad dull. Its not what I want from the game so I quit the club.[/quote']

ahh, with you now.;)

This was kinda my point, at the moment it is possible to keep that promising youngster who will eventually replace somebody in your first team, by juggling things around.

If , as the Dev's post says, they stiffen up concerns and reduce ratings, the game becomes first 11 vs first 11 and there is no point scouting for the next big thing, because you will have to sell before he gets near the squad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

My main concern with rating fluctuations is the suggestion that players may decrease/increase based on performance

This only results in those clubs/managers not doing so well being even further behind not only in the league standings but also now in players ratings which by default will prob have been lower anyway, the last thing SM should Introduce is pushing unsuccessful managers away from the game/game-worlds as it will only result in increased unmanaged clubs.

The idea of players rating decreasing due to concerns is not such a bad suggestion (excluding loan concerns, this should not apply only playing concerns) but I'd still want concerns completely removed for players aged 23 and under, is it not a big enough disadvantage for a manager that wanted to scout and bring in youth talent years ago and who must play an 89/90/91 rated prospect ahead of fabregas/Iniesta etc in at least 30+% of starting lineups in the league?

For me it is, I'd go as far to say it's an unnecessary injustice, as I suggested before it would make it a lot easier if concerns were removed altogether and instead a cap on how many players aged 24+ one may have in their team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Cheating is a hot topic in GC1 at the moment. Its dominating the newsfeed. One manager has concluded 6+ unfair deals and none have been reversed. His latest is a 88 rated player valued around 7 million bought for 9 million which those who know GC1s unique setup know that is very unfair. Especially since he has previously concluded 3 other dubious deals with the same manager who incidentally only logs in to accept the cheating managers bids. Each deal is always done a week apart after each other so he can't be a accused of multiple deals apparently.

20+ managers have expressed there disgust at all these deals but nothing is done and it is obvious to most what is happening. What makes it worst is the manager in question is always rubbing peoples noses in it on the newsfeed. Theres such a strength on feeling over these deals. My gold management is running out and I doubt i'll renew. You invest time in this game and when other managers take such flagrant shortcuts you question what for? The feeling I get from the devs on here is that cheating is part of the game and nothing can really be done. I wish they could put this as a disclaimer at the point of gold membership purchase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

The idea of players rating decreasing due to concerns is not such a bad suggestion (excluding loan concerns' date=' this should not apply only playing concerns) but I'd still want concerns completely removed for players aged 23 and under, is it not a big enough disadvantage for a manager that wanted to scout and bring in youth talent years ago and [b']who must play an 89/90/91 rated prospect ahead of fabregas/Iniesta etc[/b] in at least 30+% of starting lineups in the league?

For me it is, I'd go as far to say it's an unnecessary injustice, as I suggested before it would make it a lot easier if concerns were removed altogether and instead a cap on how many players aged 24+ one may have in their team.

I think that having a strong enough team that you can call 89/90/91 rated players prospects is not something that can be said for a lot of managers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riferimento: 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.

*snip*[/quote']

I was wondering how this works in the case of loans though.

For example, I can safely admit that I have bought some players because I know that they will be raised - but the reason is because the player's having a great season right now and its value hasn't been reflected yet. It seems perfectly normal to me.

Now, I think it can be fine that they get concerned if they don't play, but - it may sounds obvious - I think this shouldn't happen if you give those players out on loan. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense.

Otherwise, it becomes very hard to make a profit\move forward in general, too - and I'm speaking as one who enjoys playing in a 5th division in a GW ;).

Also, unrelated, I cannot stress enough how dramatic the soccer wiki situation is: this post (not made by me) sums it very well and Steven, I'm sorry but "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." isn't an answer - I know that you personally probably can't do anything but users being left in the dark is the worst - I've been tempted to leave SM for the first time since years, and it's hilarious that it happens just when I was planning to bring in several friends to play in a Custom Game World. Naturally, I have no intention of playing with them in a CWG with incorrect data though.

So "going forward" has me worried - very worried, it truly sounds as if Soccer Manager has, in reality, no control whatsoever about what happens in soccerwiki, to the point that nobody even knows who's behind it anymore (?) which is a very scary thought.

To recap what I recently ran into:

wanted to update the data of the japanese league since it's really, really ancient, esp. the lower divisions. NO ratings - I don't care. Just players, teams, even the league divisions were incorrect.

Changes got rejected for unknown reasons (incompetence? ).

PMs to Devs' answer was to send emails to soccerwiki.

Emails to soccerwiki were completely ignored (10+ days already).

PMs to JMH or argala - supposedly soccerwiki's admins - and I found this by myself - were ignored by them or they don't even login anymore.

Yet someone must be clicking that reject button and no Dev is even able to tell me who he is or how to contact him.

Is this real world?

Jesus Christ, it'd take one minute to me by talking with someone letting them understand that I know what I'm doing, and I could have it up to date for the whole SM world - even though the process is already a total pain in itself since I can't even submit two different teams\players\whatever with the same username until one is approved or rejected (LOL!)

It's like "hey guys, so I wanted to do this job for free for you and-"

"Nah"

Personally, I find this way way more troublesome than the "ratings

problems" because I know that, eventually, the ratings will be checked.

But players being in the wrong clubs, players missing completely, teams being in the wrong divisions\missing and so on definitely ruins the fun way more than this, no? Not everyone plays this game just to buy Ronaldo or Ibrahimovic.

I'm also not a fan of ratings being different from one GW to another, it would completely destroy the game, at least for me since I compete in various worlds.

Last, personally I don't agree with the complaints about reducing the time needed to log in. In CGW you can set it as you want and that's good, but I've played in standard game worlds for years, and this summer I just couldn't access the game for around 15 days and well, I would've been pretty ****** off if I lost my team. :/

If you don't login, you are already penalized by the fact that you're probably putting out tired players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

I think that having a strong enough team that you can call 89/90/91 rated players prospects is not something that can be said for a lot of managers.

A default barce real city etc etc that would be the case, if one was to have his team for years you should have much better players than 90/91 in your first 18+ (Even if you're walsall etc), speaking about standard setups of course, this is were all the issue is, gold champs don't have these problems, the issue of people losing prospects doesn't exist in gold game-worlds due to the competition. I don't see the logic of people being forced to lose players bought 5/6+ years ago as youth prospects whom they still plan to be the clubs first team players some day.

If we are forced to lose these players before they turn 22 it's basically SM telling everyone that has a barce or real by default or that has built up a nice side over several years that investing in youth is redundant/no point in buying any prospects..

A manager should be entitled to keep his best players (like pirlo xavi iniesta buffon) but also allowed to keep players like draxler varane coutinho etc

The current system forces one to drop xavi at least 30/35% of the time from starting lineups to keep draxler etc, I Don't feel this is fair

As it stands (Speaking of myself) I will agree that I have too much talent at my disposal at most my standard setup clubs but introducing a squad cap of players aged 22+ instead of the current concerns would force me to sell a lot of these but at the same time allow me to keep those players I feel have the most potential without having to play "weaker" sides in competitive matches

The concerns system was a good inception & adds some realism akin to real life but it's just not an ideal one from a gaming perspective, a first team squad cap (players aged 22+) would be more ideal.

I might choose to have Alcantera as one of my "prospect" players and never play him but at the same time it would allow me to play the team I've built (or inherited) more freely, but it would also stop me from hogging multiple prospect players

I've always made the argument that I should be able to keep players till they are 23/24 but at age 22+ would prob be more realistic, the lower the age limit the higher the squad cap, so if SM was to limit the amount of players age 20+ the cap might be 1000 if it was age 22+ then maybe just 500 -_-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

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

This means that you are working on a new more customizable rules that anyone who buys a game world can add to his desire? In my opinion this would increase exponentialy the interest in creating and joining new gameworlds. The options we have there currently are very basic, i wouldn't even dare to call it customizable.

It would be interesting to add the option of managing the youth squad, like creating youth leagues within a game world, were people can really use youngsters instead of just waiting for them to get 89+ so they can play in first team.

In the matter of transfer bans, i think that should be consistent with the transfer windows set into the game world, in my opinion is kind of stupid having otherwise.

I know that could become kind of crazy in the game worlds that transfer windows is not set and you can buy all season long, we could see a player sign for Man City today and tomorrow for Man United, but i think it doesn't makes sense that in a world that managers can buy all season long transfer bans exist.

But in the game worlds that have transfer windows set for example to the beginning of the season and mid season, players would be available for trading at that time, instead of having a player transfer banned during a transfer window, like it happens in one game world that i'm in.

Just my thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

hi all. first of all, it's great that the current issues with the game are being looked at. a minor improvement i would like to suggest (probably been suggested before tbf) is regarding how managers are offered jobs. maybe one of the devs can help me out here - i haven't managed to actually figure out how this system works (and i've been playing SM since 2008). ie. when a manager resigns from a job, how is it decided who is offered that job? is it random? is it based on reputation? or done on SM points earned in the gameworld? it seems to be fairly random to me. i would like a system where a job (say a big job, like, to use a real world example, when sir alex left man united) - it is offered to the managers with the most accrued SM points in the gameworld in order. so if the best manager rejects it, it goes onto the next best. etc. or with the biggest reputation. instead of just a random person. then maybe, if it is a smaller club, like a div 2 team, it is offered to managers of a lower level. something like that, i don't know if this is something already happening or not but it seems not to be from what i see.

also, sacking managers who do rubbish. would add a bit of fun and pressure to managers. the manager can then find a new job in the gameworld. i realise you guys just want as many people playing the game as possible, so this may not be a great option for what you are trying to achieve, which is fair enough of course. just an idea. thanks guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

I think the player values should be the same, whichever team they sign for. How is it a player bought from one team is worth £7m, then upon his arrival into your better squad, his value is suddenly halved? Makes it really difficult to make a profit when you have to get a +5 just to break even! This wouldn't happen in real life!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Having players concerns and transfer requests timed to come to the climax at the end of the season would be better. This can stimulate transfer activity at the end of the season which would make the closed season bit more interesting as well.

The chairman could send you a message saying he fears 'so and so' player is going to put transfer request in at the end of the season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Many thanks to those that have taken the time to provide feedback in relation to the SM Worlds Suggested Improvements post. I'm just going to quote what Andy said as this is still the case:

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' date=' 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.

[url']http://www.soccermanager.com/corporate-info.php[/url]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Many thanks to those that have taken the time to provide feedback in relation to the SM Worlds Suggested Improvements post. I'm just going to quote what Andy said as this is still the case:

Somethings you could just get on with though like sorting the match day attendances to reflect how the club is doing in game. In the GW's I am in its dumb that some teams in division 2 (lowest division) get several times the amount of spectators than even the top teams in Div 1 even though they have similar ground capacity. It needs to reflect performance whether good or bad. This should be a no brainer and just got on with.

Ground capacity too for that matter so smaller clubs can compete when rising up the leagues. These arn't high risk additions like some of the other ideas and won't ruin anything even if not quite right when introduced. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Its taking me 3 screens now to get to my teams which is pretty annoying. I cant even bookmark it as the club page has the same web address as 'SoccerManager Worlds' homepage.

Its going to be very annoying doing that each time for someone with no interest in the one player online. Being able to go direct to your clubs would be great or even a way in account setting to hide the one player as its not what I am paying for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

This means that you are working on a new more customizable rules that anyone who buys a game world can add to his desire? In my opinion this would increase exponentialy the interest in creating and joining new gameworlds. The options we have there currently are very basic' date=' i wouldn't even dare to call it customizable.[/quote']

Custom Game Worlds is an area we will review in 2015.

It would be interesting to add the option of managing the youth squad' date=' like creating youth leagues within a game world, were people can really use youngsters instead of just waiting for them to get 89+ so they can play in first team.[/quote']

This is something that i've seen requested numerous times over the years in standard GWs but it isn't practical for a number of reasons but whether it'd work in a Custom Game World is another debate.

In the matter of transfer bans' date=' i think that should be consistent with the transfer windows set into the game world, in my opinion is kind of stupid having otherwise.

I know that could become kind of crazy in the game worlds that transfer windows is not set and you can buy all season long, we could see a player sign for Man City today and tomorrow for Man United, but i think it doesn't makes sense that in a world that managers can buy all season long transfer bans exist.

But in the game worlds that have transfer windows set for example to the beginning of the season and mid season, players would be available for trading at that time, instead of having a player transfer banned during a transfer window, like it happens in one game world that i'm in.[/quote']

Thank you for your feedback on transfer bans and i'll pass this on to the development team.

hi all. first of all' date=' it's great that the current issues with the game are being looked at. a minor improvement i would like to suggest (probably been suggested before tbf) is regarding how managers are offered jobs. maybe one of the devs can help me out here - i haven't managed to actually figure out how this system works (and i've been playing SM since 2008). ie. when a manager resigns from a job, how is it decided who is offered that job? is it random? is it based on reputation? or done on SM points earned in the gameworld? it seems to be fairly random to me. i would like a system where a job (say a big job, like, to use a real world example, when sir alex left man united) - it is offered to the managers with the most accrued SM points in the gameworld in order. so if the best manager rejects it, it goes onto the next best. etc. or with the biggest reputation. instead of just a random person. then maybe, if it is a smaller club, like a div 2 team, it is offered to managers of a lower level. something like that, i don't know if this is something already happening or not but it seems not to be from what i see.[/quote']

This is an area of the game that will be revisited in 2015.

also' date=' sacking managers who do rubbish. would add a bit of fun and pressure to managers. the manager can then find a new job in the gameworld. i realise you guys just want as many people playing the game as possible, so this may not be a great option for what you are trying to achieve, which is fair enough of course. just an idea. thanks guys.[/quote']

This has been suggested before but the argument is that if someone has paid for a club then it shouldn't be taken off them if they are underperforming for one reason or another.

I think the player values should be the same' date=' whichever team they sign for. How is it a player bought from one team is worth £7m, then upon his arrival into your better squad, his value is suddenly halved? Makes it really difficult to make a profit when you have to get a +5 just to break even! This wouldn't happen in real life![/quote']

This is explained in the Help under the article titled Chairman Valuation.

Having players concerns and transfer requests timed to come to the climax at the end of the season would be better. This can stimulate transfer activity at the end of the season which would make the closed season bit more interesting as well.

The chairman could send you a message saying he fears 'so and so' player is going to put transfer request in at the end of the season.

Interesting suggestion as it would certainly ignite the transfer market at the seasons end.

Somethings you could just get on with though like sorting the match day attendances to reflect how the club is doing in game. In the GW's I am in its dumb that some teams in division 2 (lowest division) get several times the amount of spectators than even the top teams in Div 1 even though they have similar ground capacity. It needs to reflect performance whether good or bad. This should be a no brainer and just got on with.

When Serie A was the strongest league in Europe in the 90s' date=' teams like Inter, Milan, Roma, Lazio, Juventus etc all struggled to fill their stadiums. This was also a period when they also dominated European football. In the early to mid 90s when Blackburn Rovers were challenging for the title, they were struggling to fill their ground. The year in which they won the title, 94/95, their average attendance was only 25,272. Wolverhampton Wanderers who were in the division below had a higher average attendance than them and they've both got similar capacities. So i'd disagree in saying that it's just "dumb". Even now, one of the biggest clubs in the world, Barcelona, fail to fill their stadium most weeks. That being said it is an area of the game that we will revisit in 2015 to ensure that it is as accurate as possible.

Its going to be very annoying doing that each time for someone with no interest in the one player online. Being able to go direct to your clubs would be great or even a way in account setting to hide the one player as its not what I am paying for.

The desktop version of Soccer Manager, SoccerManager.com, is now a portal to two different football games and we have no plans to enable anyone to hide one of the games that we currently offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riferimento: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Apologies for making a post about this but I answered your PM Steven, would be nice if you took a look.

I'm also sad to report that I've been banned from the Facebook page (can't post anymore) and my comment has been deleted.

This is quite a sad way to handle the situation, as you could easily check, I've played this game since almost 4 years, I'm probably one of the most loyal players around and I've never had a single complain for years, mostly up until communication was possible and things were working.

I didn't even use to post on the forum, so I'm certainly not one of those idiots who likes to complain here and there just because he likes yelling on the internet.

Yes, in my post on facebook I had complained about the same thing that I've complained here in the other thread, but this is because making noise is the only way to achieve something when the problem is getting ignored - again, it's not just the problem that's being ignored, it's also a problem of lack of communication and trasparency with the userbase.

This severe lack of transparency on the soccerwiki issue is hurting the game way more than my complaints are, believe me.

Yes, I've also paid for a Custom World because - stupid me - I had assumed that when you offer free, correct work, that would benefit the whole Soccer Manager, it doesn't get rejected with absolutely no chance of clarification, so that's another reason to be angry.

So, the issue isn't even the fact that things get rejected randomly, it's the fact that there is no way to address things, no way to communicate with any human being.

I've had a friend made a comment about this on the facebook page again and took a screen this time, let's see if it's deleted again and this arm wrestling benefits more Soccer Manager or it's actually a boomerang, shall we? :/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

When Serie A was the strongest league in Europe in the 90s' date=' teams like Inter, Milan, Roma, Lazio, Juventus etc all struggled to fill their stadiums. This was also a period when they also dominated European football. In the early to mid 90s when Blackburn Rovers were challenging for the title, they were struggling to fill their ground. The year in which they won the title, 94/95, their average attendance was only 25,272. Wolverhampton Wanderers who were in the division below had a higher average attendance than them and they've both got similar capacities. So i'd disagree in saying that it's just "dumb". Even now, one of the biggest clubs in the world, Barcelona, fail to fill their stadium most weeks. That being said it is an area of the game that we will revisit in 2015 to ensure that it is as accurate as possible.[/quote']

Where any of those clubs you mention having 4,5 times less fans turn up to games than clubs struggling in the division below?

No? Well that is happening on SM at the moment.

In GW 87+ the two most successfull clubs (winning Div 1 three times each in 10 seasons)

Name.................Capacity......Average attendance

Guaratingueta......14,415.........3,803

FC Lugano...........15,000..........3,146

They are actually two of the lowest average attendance's in the whole GW

Compared too...

AC Siena..............15,725...........11,459

Stade Brestois.......15,097..........13,491

Who have never won even one division 1 title between them in those 10 seasons.

These attendance figures have been consistant from the start of the GW and haven't been affected even in the slightest by how clubs are performing in game. This isn't fair or good for the game.

This isn't about being able to fill a ground, this is about managers clubs being rewarded in game for in game achievements. There is no good reason why a club winning the top title several times over a few seasons should have one of the lowest match day attendances. Several times less than some clubs struggling in division 2 when all the clubs where picked for having the same (within a few thousand) size stadiums when creating the GW. I'd put money on it that most people playing this game would also think the way this currently works in SM is dumb as I have seen numerous times on the forum people voice there frustration with it yet your defence of it is the first I have seen. Match day attendances should have nothing to do with real life once the GW is created beyond what the ground is capable of holding. It would seem lesser team managers are currently being punished for what the real clubs are achieving. That is no way to encourage managers to stick with the smaller clubs and in turn have full GW's. Frankly I'm surprised you are trying to make out that the current state of it is OK and really hope this is your personal opinion and not the official SM stance :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Riferimento: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

In the early to mid 90s when Blackburn Rovers were challenging for the title' date=' they were struggling to fill their ground. The year in which they won the title, 94/95, their average attendance was only 25,272. Wolverhampton Wanderers who were in the division below had a higher average attendance than them and they've both got similar capacities. So i'd disagree in saying that it's just "dumb". [/quote']

They are now getting attendances of 13000/14000 now they are back in Division 2. This backs up 87+'s argument that attendances should reflect performance. If Blackburn were to get back to the top of Division 1 again, they would see attendances rise back to 25000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Where any of those clubs you mention having 4' date='5 times less fans turn up to games than clubs struggling in the division below?

No? Well that is happening on SM at the moment.

In GW 87+ the two most successfull clubs (winning Div 1 three times each in 10 seasons)

[b']Name.................Capacity......Average attendance[/b]

Guaratingueta......14,415.........3,803

FC Lugano...........15,000..........3,146

They are actually two of the lowest average attendance's in the whole GW

Compared too...

AC Siena..............15,725...........11,459

Stade Brestois.......15,097..........13,491

Who have never won even one division 1 title between them in those 10 seasons.

These attendance figures have been consistant from the start of the GW and haven't been affected even in the slightest by how clubs are performing in game. This isn't fair or good for the game.

This isn't about being able to fill a ground, this is about managers clubs being rewarded in game for in game achievements. There is no good reason why a club winning the top title several times over a few seasons should have one of the lowest match day attendances. Several times less than some clubs struggling in division 2 when all the clubs where picked for having the same (within a few thousand) size stadiums when creating the GW. I'd put money on it that most people playing this game would also think the way this currently works in SM is dumb as I have seen numerous times on the forum people voice there frustration with it yet your defence of it is the first I have seen. Match day attendances should have nothing to do with real life once the GW is created beyond what the ground is capable of holding. It would seem lesser team managers are currently being punished for what the real clubs are achieving. That is no way to encourage managers to stick with the smaller clubs and in turn have full GW's. Frankly I'm surprised you are trying to make out that the current state of it is OK and really hope this is your personal opinion and not the official SM stance :(

Totally agree. This is just common sense & the SM stance has been going on for many, many years too long. SM cannot justify it & should change it immediately if they want any credibility that they are going to change the many OTHER ISSUES mentioned. This is an obvious & immediate positive change. Well said 87+

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Nice to see SM looking at the match engine SMFA etc, its only taken a few years, I think if you can fix this then your on to a winner, thing is you will never please everyone, I think the introduction of a few things would be great if and when the major issues have been sorted:

Tactics - Allow the manager to play any formation they like, end the fixed templates

Stadium building - allow manager to spend cash upgrading the stadium

Sponsorship - Allow manager to agree sponsorship deals, eg shirt sponsor and stadium sponsor, but allow to get the cash in a lump sum or cash for wins etc etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Nice to see SM looking at the match engine SMFA etc' date=' its only taken a few years, I think if you can fix this then your on to a winner, thing is you will never please everyone, I think the introduction of a few things would be great if and when the major issues have been sorted:

Tactics - Allow the manager to play any formation they like, end the fixed templates

Stadium building - allow manager to spend cash upgrading the stadium

Sponsorship - Allow manager to agree sponsorship deals, eg shirt sponsor and stadium sponsor, but allow to get the cash in a lump sum or cash for wins etc etc[/quote']

Yeah BUT Stadium Building can only be effective if the attendances are correctly assessed, What use improving a stadium to 25,000 from 15,000 if your 3 year title winning side (in 10 seasons) are no where near getting 5,000 (which is incredibly) the case :confused: Action PLEASE :(:(:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM Worlds Suggested Improvements Discussion

Yeah BUT Stadium Building can only be effective if the attendances are correctly assessed' date=' What use improving a stadium to 25,000 from 15,000 if your 3 year title winning side (in 10 seasons) are no where near getting 5,000 (which is incredibly) the case :confused: Action PLEASE :(:(:([/quote']

I agree and as far as im aware this is being looked at.

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...