Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Steven

Squad sizes, Player hogging & Free Agents

Recommended Posts

I've had a lot of bedtime reading recently as i've gone back through the thread on Squad Sizes and it's interesting to hear so many different views on this topic. I actually believe that it's now the elephant in the room. A lot of us know it's a problem but choose to ignore it when it's brought or believe it's not a problem citing reasons why (which you could argue are detrimental to the Game World they are in).

I recently posted an SM Worlds Development Schedule and this has been created based on your feedback on the forum, twitter, Facebook or google+. So as you can see the elephant in the room is one of the first things that we'll be working on along with free agents (I won't mention player hogging as you can argue this is linked with squad sizes).

Here are some thoughts that i've jotted down to get the ball rolling:

-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.

-Unmanaged/external clubs consider players potential when coming to their "game value";

-Unmanaged/external clubs consider player concerns when coming to their "game value";

-Player concerns can no longer be bought off;

-Sizes/valuation of squads is no longer considered when players move to clubs, so big clubs can compete for free agents;

-Players rating drop when not playing, eg 90/93 when moral low or high concerns;

-Players rating increase when playing, eg 95/93.

I'm not saying the above is set in stone before anyone shoots me down as they are only my thoughts and we aren't going to introduce anything or make changes that our community doesn't want. So we'd like to hear your thoughts on this issue and how you'd like to see it addressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont like the Concerns affecting a players rating. I feel if you are not playing them and they have to leave (and for less oney by the sounds of it nowe which i DO like) that is bad enough. If your player gets conerns and drops rating its double dipping the punishment as now playing him will hurt your team. Snowball effect for me. I have reservatations about big clubs competing for free agents. Id like to hear why you have thought this as my initial thought is that would help player hogging as big clubs can out finance little clubs.

I love the ext market being smarter and considering concerns and such in offering bids. this makes sense. I also agree with removing teh ability to pay your way out of a player concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the ideas are interesting, but I'm pretty sure that others can be a mistake. I agree with Cam Lucas about the improvement of external AI and disabling the option to pay for concerns, both great necessary ideas.

About rate changes related to played matches... I think that is an unnecesary risk. Stable ratings related to real-life performances are one of the cornerstones of SM, one of the main ideas that give that game its essence. Changing it means transforming SM in a different game, and a lot of us love SM the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

I have a problem with AI teams buying players that are transfer banned . They seem to be able to buy players that have just been transferred by other clubs . You can't do it so AI teams shouldn't either . I also think that the chairman should be able to inject finances but then the squad size should be capped .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... we aren't going to introduce anything or make changes that our community doesn't want.

Glad to hear that' date=' Steven.

My takes ...

I kinda [u']like[/u] the idea of decreasing rating of players depend on his playing minutes - might encourage managers to rotate more and somewhat keeping only players that he really needs (long term solution of players hogging).

But I don't like the idea of increasing the rating of players depend on his playing minutes - I believe the rating based on real life life performance should always be the indicator and stop mark of the highest rating of players in game.

For example : Rafael now is 91.

i) if his managers don't play him - his rating should be vary from 91 to 90 and below.

ii) if his managers played him - his rating should always be 91 top (regardless of how many minutes he gets).

and if he gets reviewed and get the drop; to 90.

i) if his managers don't play him - his rating should be vary from 90 to 89 and below.

ii) if his managers played him - his rating should always be 90 top (regardless of how many minutes he gets).

and so on.

Also in regards of external market / bid - is there any way to know why sometimes it takes ages for external bid to come or is it a bug (that we still not aware of)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Redsky

The FFP rules we implemented in our gameworld seems to be working well. We basically had a very simple setup where each team had a squad cap based on the stadium size. The larger the stadium, the smaller the squad size.

If you wanted to try and mimic a real club, you could have an u21 side and a first team side. First team has a cap of say 35 players. u21 side however allows for a further 15/20 players however... they must be 21 or younger AND rated 85 or less. If a member of the 21 squad reaches either 22 years old or 86 or higher then they automatically are placed into the first team. It's then the managers responsible to trim the first team down to 35, failing to do so puts 1 of the players (least morale?) on the transfer list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smarter AI Chairmans would be a brilliant addition to the over-all game-play aspect, not too sure if it would sort the squad size issue though (or have much of an impact, I say that as someone with regular 250 man squads) It would make signing players more expensive possibly sure but that's not going to have much of an impact on me with my 900mil bank balance. I take it you're not suggesting the AI will offer more, realistic sums for our listed players as that's only going to benefit every manager regardless of their squad size...

No longer paying off concerns would hit me (slightly) not that I need to do so too often as I like to think I'm smart enough at rotating my players at the right time, i.e. start of the season seems to be the peak opportunity to lower concerns, later in the season seems harder and I learnt that a while ago, so work with it. I would say that's a small help to the perceived problem of squad sizes. It's going to hit the less intelligent, less active managers most.

I've previously had problems where the sizes and valuations of my squad have prevented me buying players so you could say that's a positive thing to reduce squad sizes so not sure where you're going with that.... Although there's a fine line as sometimes it can just benefit one individual massively over another as it's likely only to become an issue when two or more people are in the same game-world with the same approach. For example two of us would bid on hot prospects when added to the game. As such we both had 200+ man squads (due to this approach) but his team value/rating was lower so he would always beat me. Extremely frustrating and hard to take seen his approach was the same as mine and had an equally massive squad. I let him buy Messi when he came unmanaged however and then I had the upper-hand again when it came to prospects. My point is again it's a minor issue which only becomes a factor versus smart managers, especially as the system currently stands. By removing it that isn't going help to reduce squad sizes but would makes things fairer (like the very old SM where it was open season bidding) Depends on your priorities though which may be different to mine.

Not a fan of the rating drop idea as you're basically proposing a whole new game and with that you could end up isolating an awful amount of your current customers. From a business point of view that should only be considered if you're confident of recruiting enough new people to your game in order to negate the lost customers (of which I'd be one) (some quote about human's reluctance towards change would be pertinent here if I knew one) I can play football manager for what you propose at my own leisure. In SM I could focus on playing a few top players and make my team even stronger as they rose and forget about the rest of the squad? Seems a very simplistic game and makes the rating review system somewhat redundant. Arguably I would become even more dominant.

All in all I think there's bigger problems than squad sizes (i.e. thousands of empty game-worlds which are created far too often) but I appreciate others want it looked into. All I'm concerned about is that the scouting element isn't taken out of it. I'm all for limiting top rated players if that would make some people happy but I spend an awful lot of time on soccerway scouting players to sign on soccermanager so I hope any limit would be flexible in particular with the youth squad certainly as without that I lose the game I've been playing for... (see my name)

I hope that came across as objective as I'm anything but, ha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

This is all backwards thinking. Gameworlds are now mostly empty. Even some of the very early ones have close to 20 users, they used to be filled with up to 200 people. There is simply a vast collection of amazing available players, be it high rated ones or youth players full of potential. When squad sizes are (severely) limited, these players would have to be released. Users that are generally ignorant of a players potential or those who aren’t nearly as active can just pick up all the great talents that are forced to be left unmanaged by those who did recognize them at an early stage.

This is a problem many forumers talked about in 2008! Every restriction the game has made has helped the lesser informed user. Scouting has been gone for years now. The cap you can spend on a new player is infuriating, as it means some teams can outbid you for every single talent for years. I’ve had hundreds of millions with one of my gold teams for years, yet I get outbid by several others for every singly talent because they can bid 100 or 200k more as a maximum.

One of the worst ideas I’ve ever read where those that would affect the rating of players. These ratings are absolute and reflect their real life abilities. To alter them is to effectively kill the real life presentation of the skills of those players, one of the foundations of the game.

If you are going to make yet another huge mistake by capping the amount of players, you simply have to let go of concerns and the respective wage bumps that have been building up through the economy SM build these last few years. This only levels the playfield. In 2010 SM took the earnings of every in game player because the market was crooked. Are they now going to start a new one where others have to sell of basically years and years of work only to find themselves be in a worse position than someone who didn’t you anything in the game? That’s hugely disrespectful to long serving members and an indication of the further corrosion of this game.

I’ve used to have squads that reached the upper 255 players limit, and before that limit I had even more. I made it easy for myself by selling off a lot of players, as to which I now have around 100 in each squad. These are 100 great players and mostly young players that will be great someday. I can vouch for 95% being atleast 88-rated within a few years. Why should I sell these great players, only to have them rot at unmanaged teams and then picked up by someone who didn’t notice him for years once the player starts performing? Remember, I can’t buy him nor anyone else as I’m capped out. This principle is wrong and goes directly against any liberal market principal and fair game.

Due to the current conditions of the game, every semi competent manager can build a team, whoever badly it is at the start, and make it into a superb team to his liking. This won’t change with the new rules, but those rules will have a very negative impact for all those great teams that have been already build.

If someone actually moans and complains about hoarding, isn’t it their fault that they haven’t noticed a talent early enough? As said, even the smallest Division 5 teams can be made behemoths, so stop complaining about this and try and build yourself! A true level playfield would get rid of the max and min cap. This would result in big teams that hoard burning through their cash quick and open up possibilities to buy young players for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I think 'the elephant in the room' should be addressed with a lower squad limit, why dance around the subject? Just pick a number whether that be 150, 125 or 100 all of the three are much more reasonable than the 250 currently in use.

The p/e system needs improving so anything that is put in place to help achieve that is good and no longer taking into consideration the sizes/valuation of squads when buying players will eradicate the massive difference each team can bid on a player, I am all for this.

The concerns dropping/raising rating etc is a bit much and I don't think would be needed especially if they just addressed the squad size problem head on by reducing the maximum squad size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get rid of player concerns

Have a squad cap of 25 1st team players and then a squad cap of 20 youth team players but have a max rating of 87 and raise the age to 22

Change the ratings change back to every 3 months for big clubs so its more dynamic

Free agents go to there parent club, unless they have already filled there youth quota so then go on the open market

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would get rid of player concerns

Have a squad cap of 25 1st team players and then a squad cap of 20 youth team players but have a max rating of 87 and raise the age to 22

Change the ratings change back to every 3 months for big clubs so its more dynamic

Free agents go to there parent club' date=' unless they have already filled there youth quota so then go on the open market[/quote']

A squad cap of 45 would be disastrous for many long-serving managers. Years of hard work down the pan in a blink of an eye. I'd be out of here like a shot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A squad cap of 45 would be disastrous for many long-serving managers. Years of hard work down the pan in a blink of an eye. I'd be out of here like a shot!

It would effect me as well I'v been around since 2006, however something big needs to change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would effect me as well I'v been around since 2006' date=' however something big needs to change[/quote']

I'm not sure that's the 'something big' which is required though. I really don't see how that's going to help the hundreds/thousands of empty game-worlds (presumably that's the big problem being alluded to by everyone? By all means correct me if I'm wrong or missing something) SM keep them rolling out due to the demand and willingness for people to keep paying for the Barca's, Real's etc. and I think it's far too late to do anything about that now, aren't we on something like 40,000 WCs now? (not that SM would due to the revenue it creates)

No more people than usual are going to be interested in any my old set-ups just because my squad has been slashed by a fifth. Why manage a 7yr old Wolfsburg when there's plenty around which are only 6 months old, possibly less (haven't joined a new standard set-up for ages so I've lost touch a bit with the current situation. I imagine year old set-ups are still lucky to have 20 managers though, even being kind)

A squad cap around such a figure would make so many elements of the game (and the forum whilst I think of it) irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

I think squad size is the biggest issue in SM. I hate joining a world only to see one of the teams with 50 players consisting of every player treated over 93. It's stupid and unrealistic. Why not limit squad size to approximately 25 like in real life? And, maybe create an option to make a youth team, like a Barça B?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would get rid of player concerns

Have a squad cap of 25 1st team players and then a squad cap of 20 youth team players but have a max rating of 87 and raise the age to 22

Change the ratings change back to every 3 months for big clubs so its more dynamic

Free agents go to there parent club' date=' unless they have already filled there youth quota so then go on the open market[/quote']

I think 252>45 is far too steep a reduction SOP, I think they should do a few waves for the clubs that still have massive squads:

JULY> 200

OCTOBER> 175

JANUARY> 150

APRIL>125

JULY>100

For me a 100 is a good number for a max squad rating as that allows a 30 man first team, 30 man reserve team and a 40 man academy. Dropping the max cap gradually every three months would allow clubs that are over the limit enough time to do what they see fit with the extras before falling in line with the new cap and would give forewarning to clubs down the line that they would have to get with the programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 252>45 is far too steep a reduction SOP' date=' I think they should do a few waves for the clubs that still have massive squads:

JULY> 200

OCTOBER> 175

JANUARY> 150

APRIL>125

JULY>100

For me a 100 is a good number for a max squad rating as that allows a 30 man first team, 30 man reserve team and a 40 man academy. Dropping the max cap gradually every three months would allow clubs that are over the limit enough time to do what they see fit with the extras before falling in line with the new cap and would give forewarning to clubs down the line that they would have to get with the programme.[/quote']

Not a 100% on board with the figures but at least there's a bit more of an element of compromise so can't argue with the sentiment or direction. If the reduction is going to be significant the wave idea is a good one also. This definitely needs to be communicated clearly to us if anything similar was to happen.

Re. the B team idea, I do like it but I just don't see it happening, seems impossible to implement, drastically changing the set-ups' make-up. So never going to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a 100% on board with the figures but at least there's a bit more of an element of compromise so can't argue with the sentiment or direction. If the reduction is going to be significant the wave idea is a good one also. This definitely needs to be communicated clearly to us if anything similar was to happen.

Re. the B team idea' date=' I do like it but I just don't see it happening, seems impossible to implement, drastically changing the set-ups' make-up. So never going to happen[/quote']

There was no 'B team' idea I was just breaking down what the 100 squad cap could be broken down and counted as.

I am just throw a few cents into the argument but tbh I can't see much happening as this problem has been here for so long and every now and then there are promises to fix this and the mythical new match engine that seems to get promised everytime there is a wave of unrest or someone wants to make theirself looks like they are actually doing something, forgive me for being cynical but their are so many things that need changing and have done for a while but the intent from SM to change them seems to falter after an initial interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer here, it would need a change in concerns at the same time.

I would agree that for a top club, full of 90+ players, a smaller squad cap could be the way to go, but would this stop one club having all the best players which is what this is all about? They could still have the top 50/100/150 players. If you limit the first team squad and Youth squad, what happens when a youth squad player turns 22/23, where do they go?

SM talk of realism, the current real life Chelsea has 18 players rated 90+, this is the situation SM want to prevent in the game, it is currently unsustainable on SM with concerns as they are, would this be addressed by a squad cap?

My biggest issue with a squad cap is the effect on a smaller club (not from a top division). All the changes made to the game (slower ratings,real life attendances etc) have made it so the only way to improve the club, is by buying and selling players, this used to be one way of playing the game that a small squad cap would remove. Making this challenge more inviting is another way of filling GW's.

I would agree that 255 players is probably too much, but we must be careful by how much we reduce it. I would prefer a tweak in concerns rather than massively reducing the squad cap because I don't think this resolves the problem.

I would also agree with sirmarkhughes, I am fed up with answering posts over the last few years from Dev's who ask for the forums views, and then seeing nothing change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Redsky

The obvious answer is to have the squad cap an option for the gameworld owner. Let him be the one that controls just how big/small the cap is. That way it doesn't ruin older gameworlds but allows new gameworlds the option to have it. It also allows old gameworlds who want to adapt squad caps the ability to gradually phase it in.

Having squad caps in our gameworld has completely changed the game and brought new life. We're now back up to 35 managers when before squad caps were introduced it was flagging down at 20.

That would surely be a solution that everyone is happy with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Yes great idea there should be a squad cap, there is teams in a gw i'm in hogging all the young talents they have 200+ players there should be a squad cap of somethign like 50 youth players and 30 first team and owners should be able to get rid of managers if there not going by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Yes great idea there should be a squad cap' date=' there is teams in a gw i'm in hogging all the young talents they have 200+ players there should be a squad cap of somethign like 50 youth players and 30 first team and owners should be able to get rid of managers if there not going by the rules. [/quote']

What would happen to a player in the youth squad when he reaches the age limit? Do you have to sell him? Do you have to sell a player in the first team squad to make room? How long would you get to sell them or would the Chairman sell them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no 'B team' idea I was just breaking down what the 100 squad cap could be broken down and counted as.

I am just throw a few cents into the argument but tbh I can't see much happening as this problem has been here for so long and every now and then there are promises to fix this and the mythical new match engine that seems to get promised everytime there is a wave of unrest or someone wants to make theirself looks like they are actually doing something' date=' forgive me for being cynical but their are so many things that need changing and have done for a while but the intent from SM to change them seems to falter after an initial interest.[/quote']

There was a B team suggestion in a post prior to yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is all backwards thinking. Gameworlds are now mostly empty. Even some of the very early ones have close to 20 users' date=' they used to be filled with up to 200 people. There is simply a vast collection of amazing available players, be it high rated ones or youth players full of potential. When squad sizes are (severely) limited, these players would have to be released. Users that are generally ignorant of a players potential or those who arent nearly as active can just pick up all the great talents that are forced to be left unmanaged by those who did recognize them at an early stage.

This is a problem many forumers talked about in 2008! Every restriction the game has made has helped the lesser informed user. Scouting has been gone for years now. The cap you can spend on a new player is infuriating, as it means some teams can outbid you for every single talent for years. Ive had hundreds of millions with one of my gold teams for years, yet I get outbid by several others for every singly talent because they can bid 100 or 200k more as a maximum.

One of the worst ideas Ive ever read where those that would affect the rating of players. These ratings are absolute and reflect their real life abilities. To alter them is to effectively kill the real life presentation of the skills of those players, one of the foundations of the game.

If you are going to make yet another huge mistake by capping the amount of players, you simply have to let go of concerns and the respective wage bumps that have been building up through the economy SM build these last few years. This only levels the playfield. In 2010 SM took the earnings of every in game player because the market was crooked. Are they now going to start a new one where others have to sell of basically years and years of work only to find themselves be in a worse position than someone who didnt you anything in the game? Thats hugely disrespectful to long serving members and an indication of the further corrosion of this game.

Ive used to have squads that reached the upper 255 players limit, and before that limit I had even more. I made it easy for myself by selling off a lot of players, as to which I now have around 100 in each squad. These are 100 great players and mostly young players that will be great someday. I can vouch for 95% being atleast 88-rated within a few years. Why should I sell these great players, only to have them rot at unmanaged teams and then picked up by someone who didnt notice him for years once the player starts performing? Remember, I cant buy him nor anyone else as Im capped out. This principle is wrong and goes directly against any liberal market principal and fair game.

Due to the current conditions of the game, every semi competent manager can build a team, whoever badly it is at the start, and make it into a superb team to his liking. This wont change with the new rules, but those rules will have a very negative impact for all those great teams that have been already build.

If someone actually moans and complains about hoarding, isnt it their fault that they havent noticed a talent early enough? As said, even the smallest Division 5 teams can be made behemoths, so stop complaining about this and try and build yourself! A true level playfield would get rid of the max and min cap. This would result in big teams that hoard burning through their cash quick and open up possibilities to buy young players for others.[/quote']

This post is absolutely spot on, in fact it’s as if I’d wrote it myself! Ironically I’ve made nearly every point his post does on the SM facebook page before coming here. In fact I may as well quote myself since I’ve already typed up my rant once already.

Disagree strongly with having low squad caps. One of the things that sets this game aside from other management sims out there is the ability to scout young players that are getting game time in real life and sign them before other managers. It rewards those that work at improving their teams and not just those that read the odd article on 'next generations best youth'. If you cap the team at say 30 players' date=' then managers will just buy the 'future stars' and never sell them. Internal deals will drop off considerably.

Without the ability to scout players and buy/sell risers then SM will set itself on downward spiral because the big teams will accrue massive gate receipts the smaller teams can't get near, then hog all the best talents. The smaller teams will struggle trying to turn over 5-10 risers every 10 weeks and will never be able to compete with the bigger teams. If your intent on a cap, it need to be much higher, like 100. Back in the early days I had nigh on 1 billion in the bank with Darlington playing the riser game (SM feel free to defunct that if you will). Its the only hope smaller teams have of ever competing with the big teams.

''If you cap at any less than 50 SM will die within a few years'' - Anthony Maddison, June 2015.

Regarding player concerns, hate them. Utterly rubbish.

Also feel the current transfer market and its valuations/and chairman interaction needs a lot of work. Its doesn't really work at present.

Regarding players ratings rising/dropping depending on whether they're playing in the game or not; That's the worst idea I've ever heard, bar none. That effectively makes the soccer-wiki, rating changes, and scouting, useless. Awful awful idea. [/quote']

Not to over state things, but genuinely feel that a low squad cap and rating changes not based on real life performance and game time will kill SM. We might as well all play the SM single player game if that was the case, if we were going to do that we'd play Football Manager instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok actually I was going make a genuine attempt once more but since I have spent more than enough of my time in the past debating the issue which is squad sizes and everything that comes along with it I don't see the point especially since the parameters haven't changed , if anyone who is anyone thinks that somebody having 200 youth players in their squad is the elephant in the room then sadly we know who is responsible for the rapid deterioration over these last 6 to 12 months of gameworlds (gold and standard)

Even real madrids/dortmunds/bayerns/uniteds etc become and stay unmanaged and at the current rate the average managers in most gameworld will be 10 to 15 managers (gold champs, already like that in standards), you can and have been for the last few months been able to purchase 92/93++ players for min value from unmanaged teams in gold champs, to make any valid argument suggesting that someone having 200 or so 75-86 rated players that NO-1 REPEAT NO-1 will ever play anyway is the cause of all this absolute desolation in gold championships is again absurd.

It shows the complete lack of knowledge by the game developers on the issues facing gameworlds.

My biggest regret is investing so much in the future, watching my players for years upon years in a lot of cases 7/8+ plus years waiting for players like thiago and balotelli to get a glorious 91 rating while now people can just bid 30mil and sign players like alexis sanchez etc etc etc and to top it off force me to have to sell 150 youths cause people are crying for no genuine reason with regards squad caps

and removing the ability for one to remove concerns will result (in standard gameworlds anyway) me losing all these prospects, simple solution which I asked for for ages ago was to implement removing player concerns for players under the age of 24, something which should be implemented still.

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...