Jump to content

Squad sizes, Player hogging & Free Agents


Recommended Posts

Cheers for the feedback guys as it's nice to see you all air your views in an open and honest way and i'm not surprised to see so many differing views (this is the same on Facebook and twitter as well). I think it'll take some time to put something in place that the majority are happy with but what I don't want is something that ruins the gameplay (and also the core of the game for me - scouting). I'm going to reread all the posts tomorrow and i'll offer my thoughts on your ideas as i'll quoting some of you and playing devils advocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers for the feedback guys as it's nice to see you all air your views in an open and honest way and i'm not surprised to see so many differing views (this is the same on Facebook and twitter as well). I think it'll take some time to put something in place that the majority are happy with but what I don't want is something that ruins the gameplay (and also the core of the game for me - scouting). I'm going to reread all the posts tomorrow and i'll offer my thoughts on your ideas as i'll quoting some of you and playing devils advocate.

Interesting.

Many of us playing this game for different purpose, but ultimately for me is scouting. Because let's face it, the match engine is not realiable enough to bring the 'fun' and 'enjoyment' to us managers. And instead managers turned to something more workable enjoyment as in reaping the reward via scouting.

It was really good, until SM decide to abolished the review system.

I find it really hard to understand why SM decide to scraped completely the workable review system (3/4 times a season for big league and periodically for each nation) for the random review.

If we look at thing closely; does not these new random review system actually promote the act of player hogging, ridiculous squad sizes by the mechanism and the logic of - "buy all the possible risers and sell them after they actually rise" - how long usually it takes for players to actually rise if it is done by random review system? And there is no definite answer for that. So, managers ends up buying lots of players to try and get one of the players to get the rise via random act. Ultimately, they ends up with ridiculous squad sizes.

If SM brings back the old review system; it will subconsciously reduced some of the act of players hogging and might reduced the ridiculous squad sizes of some team. It is because managers know when to buy and when to sold (rightly after TB is up) their players, and ended up with 'normal' squad size.

It's not a quick fix or solution for the players hogging and ridiculous squad sizes, but it can work in long term perspective; it's like killing two birds with a stone by bringing back the workable, preferable, old review system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.

Many of us playing this game for different purpose' date=' but ultimately for me is scouting. Because let's face it, the match engine is not realiable enough to bring the 'fun' and 'enjoyment' to us managers. And instead managers turned to something more workable enjoyment as in reaping the reward via scouting.

It was really good, until SM decide to abolished the review system.

I find it really hard to understand why SM decide to scraped completely the workable review system (3/4 times a season for big league and periodically for each nation) for the random review.

If we look at thing closely; does not these new random review system actually promote the act of player hogging, ridiculous squad sizes by the mechanism and the logic of - "buy all the possible risers and sell them after they actually rise" - how long usually it takes for players to actually rise if it is done by random review system? And there is no definite answer for that. So, managers ends up buying lots of players to try and get one of the players to get the rise via random act. Ultimately, they ends up with ridiculous squad sizes.

If SM brings back the old review system; it will subconsciously reduced some of the act of players hogging and might reduced the ridiculous squad sizes of some team. It is because managers know when to buy and when to sold (rightly after TB is up) their players, and ended up with 'normal' squad size.

It's not a quick fix or solution for the players hogging and ridiculous squad sizes, but it can work in long term perspective; it's like killing two birds with a stone by bringing back the workable, preferable, old review system.

[/quote']

In the early days when I was getting AEK Athens out of division 4 what you say is totally relevant. Regular scouting of every riser and prompt selling on for big profits. Player turnover was huge. Now 7 years later in my team of Messi's and Neymar's I still have the big squad (maybe bigger) but I gave up on the risers years ago, I'm purely interested in scouting the elite talent. Money's no problem anymore so it's not necessary. I sometimes even prefer the delay in review as it means the concerns won't kick in (although I do fully support your sentiment there) BUT I'm certainly not going to sell the recent risers all of whom are now the likes of Tolisso and Fekir with big futures. Therefore it will have no impact on my squad sizes. My squads have always been big regardless of what has happened to the review schedule.

So whilst you have a point in terms of newer managers and the impact the review system has on maintaining squad rotation with risers for them, it does not apply to those of us past that 'stage'. Again the one size fits all idea doesn't work here. This won't do anything for a lot of big squads like mine (not that I think anything needs to be done but trying to give an objective, honest point of view from 'the other side')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early days when I was getting AEK Athens out of division 4 what you say is totally relevant. Regular scouting of every riser and prompt selling on for big profits. Player turnover was huge. Now 7 years later in my team of Messi's and Neymar's I still have the big squad (maybe bigger) but I gave up on the risers years ago' date=' I'm purely interested in scouting the elite talent. Money's no problem anymore so it's not necessary. I sometimes even prefer the delay in review as it means the concerns won't kick in (although I do fully support your sentiment there) BUT I'm certainly not going to sell the recent risers all of whom are now the likes of Tolisso and Fekir with big futures. Therefore it will have no impact on my squad sizes. My squads have always been big regardless of what has happened to the review schedule.

So whilst you have a point in terms of newer managers and the impact the review system has on maintaining squad rotation with risers for them, it does not apply to those of us past that 'stage'. Again the one size fits all idea doesn't work here. This won't do anything for a lot of big squads like mine (not that I think anything needs to be done but trying to give an objective, honest point of view from 'the other side')[/quote']

And if there was a small squad limit in place at the time, you wouldn't have been able to turn your Athens into what it is today. Would you, and many like you, have been playing the game if this challenge wasn't possible? I wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early days when I was getting AEK Athens out of division 4 what you say is totally relevant. Regular scouting of every riser and prompt selling on for big profits. Player turnover was huge. Now 7 years later in my team of Messi's and Neymar's I still have the big squad (maybe bigger) but I gave up on the risers years ago' date=' I'm purely interested in scouting the elite talent. Money's no problem anymore so it's not necessary. I sometimes even prefer the delay in review as it means the concerns won't kick in (although I do fully support your sentiment there) BUT I'm certainly not going to sell the recent risers all of whom are now the likes of Tolisso and Fekir with big futures. Therefore it will have no impact on my squad sizes. My squads have always been big regardless of what has happened to the review schedule.

So whilst you have a point in terms of newer managers and the impact the review system has on maintaining squad rotation with risers for them, it does not apply to those of us past that 'stage'. Again the one size fits all idea doesn't work here. This won't do anything for a lot of big squads like mine (not that I think anything needs to be done but trying to give an objective, honest point of view from 'the other side')[/quote']

Used to be doing heavy scouting myself, with the squad sizes of 200+ too, but I stopped and quit the game; ultimately after SM changed the review system and show next to no interest in actually making the match engine works.

In short, I do appreciate what you been doing for your teams in these past 7 years, especially with all the fun is nearly nonexistent (at least for me) - I appreciate the input and point from your (the other) side, and I'm sure the developer welcomed it too. And totally see where you comes from, all the hard work in these past year will become null and void.

The thing is, which way SM goes it will somewhat lead to some negative outcome;

i) Installed squad limit <100 or <50 - face the exodus from old timer in the game (like yourself).

ii) No squad limit / maintain the 250 limit - will ultimately brush away any interest from new players that recently found this game (like Guest in #15 said).

For the records, I don't really have any issue with squad limit - because nowadays I just join forum based setup, so it's given if the creator decide on having a squad limit or not. But I acknowledged it as one of the issue that needs to be resolve in near future.

Also, just to make a point here; some managers (like myself) play this game first because of nature of this game 'interactive version football manager';

- but soon they left frustrated with the lack of 'trying' from developer to upgrade the match engine, (#1)

- then we (myself) turned into scouting to keep it interesting; buying risers and all that, well SM somewhat took that out too, (#2)

- then we (myself) turned into setup that based on forum, to keep it interesting - with all the excellent ideas coming from forumer in the forum, but guess what, the forum nearly died too at some point because of point #1 and point #2,

- then SM managed to drove their customer / forumer away even more by installing these new forum layout - it's sad really to see the lack of forum activity nowadays. The forum is currently dying a slow death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Player concerns can no longer be bought off; +

-Players rating drop when not playing' date=' eg 90/93 when moral low or high concerns;[/color'] ---

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

My suggestions:

Reduce the time of transfer ban from 2 months to like 2-4 weeks.

Stop unmanaged clubs from immediately re-buying their old players after manager leaves the club. Maybe wait for seven days or more to do that because the new manager wouldn't want 90% of those players.

These could be implemented as an option in admin's panel like:

Transfer ban:

- 2 weeks

- 4 weeks

- 6 weeks

- 8 weeks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a guy in my league with a squad size of about 40 and half his team has concerns. but he just raises their salaries and now he's paying about 6 of his players 400k a week to sit on the bench or be a reserve. he also has most of the best players because he's been in the league since season 1 whereas the rest of us joined in season 15+. And just to show us how greedy he is, he makes most of his players unavailable and if they're not, then he'll try and get max price for his players. he previously sent me a counter offer asking for 85m for Vidal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a guy in my league with a squad size of about 40 and half his team has concerns. but he just raises their salaries and now he's paying about 6 of his players 400k a week to sit on the bench or be a reserve. he also has most of the best players because he's been in the league since season 1 whereas the rest of us joined in season 15+. And just to show us how greedy he is' date=' he makes most of his players unavailable and if they're not, then he'll try and get max price for his players. he previously sent me a counter offer asking for 85m for Vidal.[/quote']

The thing with managers doing that is that eventually they'll go into the red and not be able to climb out no matter what they do simply because of the wages being paid out each month. If the rest of you are smart and just keep playing the riser game he won't be able to compete because he's not no cash, and eventually his squad will start to go backwards. I've been a league with a guy that does exactly the same for about 4 years, responds to every player bid with 'insulted by this offer', at one time he had all the top players, now he's screwed and has sold off most, he still has Messi, Neymar and Ronaldo, but other than that he has a squad of droppers.

Another big thing for me is when are SM going to realise that they have the chairman valuations the wrong way round when you try and PX players to other teams?? It’s been like it is for over a year and I’m sick of highlighting and putting in bug tickets for it which no one even looks at. Scary that such a silly mistake is made and not corrected. Evidence attached.

SM%20-%201_zpsdcgtiilm.png

SM%20-%202_zps6hpztost.png

I mean, you can clearly see your chairman valuations on the players about to be offered in picture one, but in picture two it’s clear that your chairman is valuing them at the other teams rate while their chairman is valuing them at your team’s rate. I’m no mathematician, but it’s pretty bloody obvious to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a guy in my league with a squad size of about 40 and half his team has concerns. but he just raises their salaries and now he's paying about 6 of his players 400k a week to sit on the bench or be a reserve. he also has most of the best players because he's been in the league since season 1 whereas the rest of us joined in season 15+. And just to show us how greedy he is' date=' he makes most of his players unavailable and if they're not, then he'll try and get max price for his players. he previously sent me a counter offer asking for 85m for Vidal.[/quote']

Personally I don't see too much problem with him having 40 top players, it maybe a little excessive but it's not far over the amount required. 30-35 top players is my preference for a season although I loan some too. Presumably some are prospects who can rise further also, 40 is hardly ground-breaking either, there's hundreds of good players and prospects.

The fact he's been there since season one means he's a loyal and long-serving manager so deserves respect and rightly so has a massive head-start on those who joined in season 15. You have to appreciate the hard work he put in to get there. It's his prerogative to set availability and asking prices; I would expect about £50- 60mil for Vidal. £85mil wouldn't be allowed anyway so it doesn't sound like he has much common sense or is serious about selling.

If he can't figure out how to rotate effectively and wants to pay off the concerns then let him, sit tight and wait for the proverbial to hit the fan. It's a totally unsustainable model. There's just no way he can keep it up. As soon as he's in the red he won't be able to nor will he be able to sign anyone resulting in a pretty boring experience for him. I fail to see how players won't eventually become available. All that's required is patience.

I would happily face someone like that in my set-ups. Doesn't sound like he goes after low-rated prospects so a long-term approach sounds to have a clear route. Sometimes you have to adapt and change your approach depending on the opposition. Not all game-worlds are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers for the feedback guys as it's nice to see you all air your views in an open and honest way and i'm not surprised to see so many differing views (this is the same on Facebook and twitter as well). I think it'll take some time to put something in place that the majority are happy with but what I don't want is something that ruins the gameplay (and also the core of the game for me - scouting). I'm going to reread all the posts tomorrow and i'll offer my thoughts on your ideas as i'll quoting some of you and playing devils advocate.

Hi Steven. When will we be getting your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scouting did use to be a part of the game and around this time of the year there can be some useful young free agents popping up. One new manager in my most competitive game world has put himself in a strong position to win every one. He's snapped up 20 free agents aged 30 or ancienter, a lot unattached in real life . His squad rating average is so low his semi strong starting line up is lost in the dross. He is now able to bid higher than most managers in the game world. The only way to compete is to bus in your own team of one legged Philipino blind footballers to join your plucky heroes. The free agent market is monopolised by a handful of clubs at the moment. Many managers can't get involved. Opening up so the bigger clubs can buy free agents would be disastrous. Theres a swell of clubs that can't compete neither at the top of the game or at the bottom. The experienced manipulate their squad as discussed but thats just not Soccer Manager for me. We need a fairer free agent market than at present where the talent is shared far more equally than it is at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Redsky

Frankly, I don't even care about this as a topic. This isn't whats destroying Soccermanager anyway, this is just one of those features that although nice won't really change the game.

The core mechanics are the main fault with Soccermanager - Player Ratings and the Match Engine. They should be made the priority. Sorry to go offtopic but nobody seems to acknowledging it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try and post a summary of what people have said as there are many differing views and I know that whatever we do will be unpopular because of this. The majority are in agreement that a cap of some form needs to be in place but a sudden reduction would cause problems for longer serving managers who have built up large squads. Therefore some have suggested that this is phased in but this would need to be communicated in advance to all of our community. However, it has been argued that by having a squad cap in place (whatever the figure) it will not address the problem of "player hogging" and therefore tweaking the concerns may be the answer. The majority are in agreement to remove the paying off of concerns though as this is basically a "cop out". Numerous people have also highlighted that one of the things they like most about the game is scouting for players, buying them and then watching them develop. This is something that they don't want taking away with the introduction of a squad cap and this is an area of the game that we don't want to ruin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Numerous people have also highlighted that one of the things they like most about the game is scouting for players' date=' buying them and then watching them develop. This is something that they don't want taking away with the introduction of a squad cap and this is an area of the game that we don't want to ruin.

[/quote']

This statement seems a contradiction to me. I have 50-60 player squads with many youths and thats sufficient. I don't need a 250 strong 'development squad'. These squads are just buying up talent on an industrial scale with little or no scouting and frustrate managers who really want to scout. This debate as always has no legs and no hint of future change when there to much effort to appease the monster squads. The need for 250 player squads is baseless I always achieve my objectives within a 60 player confine. If anyone needs the blueprint just let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try and post a summary of what people have said as there are many differing views and I know that whatever we do will be unpopular because of this. The majority are in agreement that a cap of some form needs to be in place but a sudden reduction would cause problems for longer serving managers who have built up large squads. Therefore some have suggested that this is phased in but this would need to be communicated in advance to all of our community. However' date=' it has been argued that by having a squad cap in place (whatever the figure) it will not address the problem of "player hogging" and therefore tweaking the concerns may be the answer. The majority are in agreement to remove the paying off of concerns though as this is basically a "cop out". Numerous people have also highlighted that one of the things they like most about the game is scouting for players, buying them and then watching them develop. [b']This is something that they don't want taking away with the introduction of a squad cap and this is an area of the game that we don't want to ruin.[/b]

How about improving the player rating system then, the current one is a joke. So is the match engine for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement seems a contradiction to me. I have 50-60 player squads with many youths and thats sufficient. I don't need a 250 strong 'development squad'. These squads are just buying up talent on an industrial scale with little or no scouting and frustrate managers who really want to scout. This debate as always has no legs and no hint of future change when there to much effort to appease the monster squads. The need for 250 player squads is baseless I always achieve my objectives within a 60 player confine. If anyone needs the blueprint just let me know.

PRIME example of why I longer wish to debate this issue any further, A post full of misconseptions and waffle talk..

to have the cheek to say this debate has no legs without actually giving a sufficient response to any of my posts on this issue over the last 2-3 years. WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO REPLY WITH GENUINE RESPONSE

I said this yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs AGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO go back in time quote me if you feel like it!!!

squad cap has absolutely no IMPACT WHATSOEVER with the decline of this game/Gold Champs...

the longer those involved in any way with SM/ those here in this community that believe it so , the further deterioration you will see in gold champs

by the day gold champs are being absolutely decimated and if I dient know any better i'd say on purpsose for an end goal which only SM knows

I can only do so much, I don't work for SM, I can only give my opinion on a forum

keep crying about squad caps, it will lead us all nowhere

taking 200 players off any of my teams instantly, this secound and stopping me from buying any more SOLVES noting

I find it amazingly awesome that those crying the most are those that ONLY BUY ONLY ONLY BUY 60 FKN players anyway so would not in first instance even have singed 30% of my players that never actually play in my first or anyone else's first team anyway

since the last time steve posted here a couple/few days ago the likes of liverpool chelsesa dortmund with several 91+ players each have been torn apart mostly for low values, those clubs now have no players (no money after SM TAKES IT ALL when manager leaves) and no hope, the only hope any unmanaged team has is that the 1 human manager left in any particular league leaves so that all unmanaged sides have a 5% chance

yes i'm well aware of my previous post; stating that I would no longer respond or even read ahead but this truly is the last statement I will make on this issue,

Stevens previous post once again reverts back to the squad caps issue

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE

sorry to be so blunt but even you have been fooled by the uniformed majority instead if listening to the few, sadly many of these "few" your most active gamers BTW had have enough and have left, gone finito

I'm 100% ok if you have gone back up to 3 years ago and at least contemplated what I had to say (and others) and still fell the need to address squad sizes as being the elephant in the house, as a player of SM I will have to deal with the consequences, l as i have been over these last 6/12 months

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PRIME example of why I longer wish to debate this issue any further' date=' A post full of misconseptions and waffle talk..

to have the cheek to say this debate has no legs without actually giving a sufficient response to any of my posts on this issue over the last 2-3 years. WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO REPLY WITH GENUINE RESPONSE

I said this yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs AGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO go back in time quote me if you feel like it!!!

squad cap has absolutely no IMPACT WHATSOEVER with the decline of this game/Gold Champs...

the longer those involved in any way with SM/ those here in this community that believe it so , the further deterioration you will see in gold champs

by the day gold champs are being absolutely decimated and if I dient know any better i'd say on purpsose for an end goal which only SM knows

I can only do so much, I don't work for SM, I can only give my opinion on a forum

keep crying about squad caps, it will lead us all nowhere

taking 200 players off any of my teams instantly, this secound and stopping me from buying any more SOLVES noting

I find it amazingly awesome that those crying the most are those that ONLY BUY ONLY ONLY BUY 60 FKN players anyway so would not in first instance even have singed 30% of my players that never actually play in my first or anyone else's first team anyway

since the last time steve posted here a couple/few days ago the likes of liverpool chelsesa dortmund with several 91+ players each have been torn apart mostly for low values, those clubs now have no players (no money after SM TAKES IT ALL when manager leaves) and no hope, the only hope any unmanaged team has is that the 1 human manager left in any particular league leaves so that all unmanaged sides have a 5% chance

yes i'm well aware of my previous post; stating that I would no longer respond or even read ahead but this truly is the last statement I will make on this issue,

Stevens previous post once again reverts back to the squad caps issue

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE

sorry to be so blunt but even you have been fooled by the uniformed majority instead if listening to the few, sadly many of these "few" your most active gamers BTW had have enough and have left, gone finito

I'm 100% ok if you have gone back up to 3 years ago and at least contemplated what I had to say (and others) and still fell the need to address squad sizes as being the elephant in the house, as a player of SM I will have to deal with the consequences, l as i have been over these last 6/12 months[/quote']

Lets all have 60 FKN players together its the future. Squad caps are the only answer(Or at least the only one I actually understand. Tis the eejit genes. Sorry). You'll see. SM monopolies will tumble and all will be well. Taking 200 players off one or ten teas and stopping Mr Shelbourne buying anymore players is a brave and exciting new world no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets all have 60 FKN players together its the future. Squad caps are the only answer(Or at least the only one I actually understand. Tis the eejit genes. Sorry). You'll see. SM monopolies will tumble and all will be well. Taking 200 players off one or ten teas and stopping Mr Shelbourne buying anymore players is a brave and exciting new world no?

No, its not the answer. The problem is far too many game worlds that are barely populated. Those managers that have massive squads are, in my opinion, welcome to do so. If they're putting in the work to buy risers or prospects then fair enough, if other managers don't know enough to get them first or at least bid against them then that's no ones fault but their own. Any managers buying hundreds of players simply for the sake of it will quickly find its a business model that's not sustainable if those players don't rise. Either way I don't have a problem with it.

The main problems as I see it are:

Too many game worlds with almost no managers in. That includes Gold world's. Its pointless having them all.

The poor match engine. It's really bad. A number of results just leaving you scratching your head.

The chairman and the way they interact over deals. Horrible system, not sure why it was changed from a model that worked very very well. Plus chairman valuations in PX deals being the wrong way round.

The ratings system. Again, this was broken when it previously worked very well and everyone knew where they stood. Soccer Wiki isn't the answer, it's just not very well thought out.

Player concerns. Not sure there's ever been a less popular idea implemented that this one.

Anyway, thats my tuppence worth. Laters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try and post a summary of what people have said as there are many differing views and I know that whatever we do will be unpopular because of this. The majority are in agreement that a cap of some form needs to be in place but a sudden reduction would cause problems for longer serving managers who have built up large squads. Therefore some have suggested that this is phased in but this would need to be communicated in advance to all of our community. However' date=' it has been argued that by having a squad cap in place (whatever the figure) it will not address the problem of "player hogging" and therefore tweaking the concerns may be the answer. The majority are in agreement to remove the paying off of concerns though as this is basically a "cop out". Numerous people have also highlighted that one of the things they like most about the game is scouting for players, buying them and then watching them develop. This is something that they don't want taking away with the introduction of a squad cap and this is an area of the game that we don't want to ruin.

[/quote']

Hi Ste - I have probably been playing the game longer than most now and have witnessed all the changes from its humble start.

Tweaking player concerns isn't the answer, getting rid of them is. Or changing the parameters of the youth squad. In todays "real" game players aren't breaking through to the 1st team on average at age 22 or 23, making the player concerns worse than it is now will only result in players developing them and people who love scouting will lose those players before they have broken into the 1st team squad at their real life clubs. I would prefer to see the youth squad age risen to 23 but with a max rating of 87 to keep players in it.

I have been an advocate of a tight squad cap for many years now, but can see this is a very unpopular idea. I would suggest a squad cap would make people improved scouts and not just carpet buy talent (yes I know I do that a lot)

The other alternative is to compensate people an extra team place and remove set-ups with less than 10 people participating in them, only the public ones thou, not the private ones.

Players ratings is a massive concern and the soccer wiki is just not working. I know it was most properly done to save time, so you guys can further develop the game, but the ratings changes and transfer market are the 2 main things that keep the game interesting. It was much better when at least the top 5 leagues and Brazil were changed every 3 months or so. It kept people on their toes and made scouting more dynamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Redsky

There's a theme going on with these last few posts Steve... Player Ratings.

That is the main concern for the majority of the players and it has an immediate impact on the game. Keep the current system and no matter what changes you make the core of the game will remain broken. I do share some of the concerns about squad caps, I can see how it would annoy players who have huge squads, so the simple, easy and only solution available is make it an admin feature that can be turned on/off.

You could even allow the admin to define the squad cap parameters to make each Gameworld a bit more unique. Variation breeds success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest a squad cap would make people improved scouts and not just carpet buy talent (yes I know I do that a lot)

I second and third that motion. 250 player squads. Why on earth am I involved with bidding wars with these managers. Surely the chairman got to be saying"Didnt we buy that young philipino lad the other day? No more. Hes our 37th striker. Whoa there Mourinho Junior. We're done'. Its proper crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original poster is correct: this is the elephant in the room. Has anyone, ever, provided a credible justification for it??

Much of what is wrong with SM could be solved by imposing a squad size limit of 45 or thereabouts. And for those "long serving" managers who threaten to leave....well, sorry to see you go but goodbye. You will be replaced by someone else eventually. When a squad size limit is imposed, after a few months, it will become the norm anyway and therefore, accepted.

In addition:

- Speed up "player concerns", allow a player to be bought off just once. Unhappy players shouldnt be allowed to sign a new contract - they will leave for free when their contract expires.

- Random transfer requests (I saw a thread on this) would introduce a challenge to managers!!!!

- Limit player exchange deals to one player not two. Also, make the computer controlled clubs only accept a player in exchange that is +/- 1 or 2 points. A computer controlled club should want a 97 in exchange for Messi at 99, for example. Not Joey Barton and Emilie Heskey and a load of cash.

- Loan deals: give some options: Loan for a month, loan for a season (no recall at all), loan for a season (with recall), loan but cant play in any cup competition etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original poster is correct: this is the elephant in the room.

Might be an elephant' date=' but neither the biggest or the only one.

Has anyone, ever, provided a credible justification for it??

I have posted on this many many times, including on this thread. For a first division team with a good squad of players, 45 could be enough.

For many of us older players, scouting for players that will rise is the most interesting thing about this game, we have no interest in a team which is already full of the top players. The ultimate challenge is to take a lower division club and improve them until you win the top league (eg My old club Macclesfield in GC42, took 5 years but I eventually did it. This is far more satisfying, and difficult, than buying a Barcelona or taking over a Man Utd with their massive stadiums to finance you). For this challenge, you have to use a large squad because you need a quick turn around to finance improving your squad. Typically mine were around 120 as I made my way up but this reduced to 50/60 when in the top division and first team squad established.

If the aim is to fill Game Worlds, a squad cap will empty them out apart from the top few teams in the First Divisions because you can't improve the weaker teams to compete.

Much of what is wrong with SM could be solved by imposing a squad size limit of 45 or thereabouts.

Much of what is wrong??

So this will solve the poor match engine which has been promised for years' date=' the slow player ratings over last few years, cheating within GW's, lack of communication etc..... All of which are bigger elephants than squad sizes.

And for those "long serving" managers who threaten to leave....well, sorry to see you go but goodbye. You will be replaced by someone else eventually. When a squad size limit is imposed, after a few months, it will become the norm anyway and therefore, accepted.

Unfortunately, this appears to be SM's view as well.

In addition:

- Speed up "player concerns"' date=' allow a player to be bought off just once. Unhappy players shouldnt be allowed to sign a new contract - they will leave for free when their contract expires.

- Random transfer requests (I saw a thread on this) would introduce a challenge to managers!!!!

- Limit player exchange deals to one player not two. Also, make the computer controlled clubs only accept a player in exchange that is +/- 1 or 2 points. A computer controlled club should want a 97 in exchange for Messi at 99, for example. Not Joey Barton and Emilie Heskey and a load of cash.

- Loan deals: give some options: Loan for a month, loan for a season (no recall at all), loan for a season (with recall), loan but cant play in any cup competition etc.

[/quote']

Agree you shouldn't be able to buy off concerns

Disagree with random requests

Agree with the P/Ex and Loan deal changes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...