Jump to content

Development Schedule


Recommended Posts

Interesting reading the debate that's going on as i've just caught up. I'll try and respond to everyone tomorrow. Until then i'll give a quick update....

We're going to create a test Game World where we can introduce all of these changes as I didn't want them to just go live without our communities feedback. We've done this in the past with SM Westgate and this worked quite well. The new UI will be in there as well.

We recently moved to a new HQ and someone from another local office popped in as he noticed our sign outside the building. It was brilliant chatting to someone who'd been playing SM for 8 years and listening to what he had to say about the game. This gave me the idea to start holding focus groups once a month at our

We're planning on holding our first focus group on Wednesday 27th July at our HQ in Preston, Lancashire at 7pm. I'd love to meet some of our community in person and let you know what we're planning and listen to what you have to say. It'll be informal don't worry and we'll put food on as well as some beers and have a good chat about the game.

Needless to say if you're interested in coming along, please drop me a PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting reading the debate that's going on as i've just caught up. I'll try and respond to everyone tomorrow. Until then i'll give a quick update....

We're going to create a test Game World where we can introduce all of these changes as I didn't want them to just go live without our communities feedback. We've done this in the past with SM Westgate and this worked quite well. The new UI will be in there as well.

We recently moved to a new HQ and someone from another local office popped in as he noticed our sign outside the building. It was brilliant chatting to someone who'd been playing SM for 8 years and listening to what he had to say about the game. This gave me the idea to start holding focus groups once a month at our

We're planning on holding our first focus group on Wednesday 27th July at our HQ in Preston' date=' Lancashire at 7pm. I'd love to meet some of our community in person and let you know what we're planning and listen to what you have to say. It'll be informal don't worry and we'll put food on as well as some beers and have a good chat about the game.

Needless to say if you're interested in coming along, please drop me a PM.

[/quote']

Westgate, that was it, I've had Watergate in my head for the last few days but I knew that wasn't quite right!

I think a focus group is a brilliant idea. It'd be a bit of a struggle for me to get down there for that time midweek though as your about 3/3.5 hours away allowing for traffic and it'd be a late night driving back on a work night. I'll see if I can sort anything but not sure. Regardless, this is the kind of thing I'd like to see and I think you'll get a decent take up on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Westgate' date=' that was it, I've had Watergate in my head for the last few days but I knew that wasn't quite right!

I think a focus group is a brilliant idea. It'd be a bit of a struggle for me to get down there for that time midweek though as your about 3/3.5 hours away allowing for traffic and it'd be a late night driving back on a work night. I'll see if I can sort anything but not sure. Regardless, this is the kind of thing I'd like to see and I think you'll get a decent take up on that. [/quote']

We'll see how the first one goes (that's if anyone turns up!) but I could always suggest to have it on a Saturday for example going forward if that'd be better for those that wanted to come but had far to travel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We clearly don’t think along the same lines on some key topics as I’m not seeing your point here at all and I’m not sure why a squad value cap of 400 million would be a disadvantage to those that are poor at the game. I doubt there’d be many poor managers out there that ever get to a squad value of that sort of amount in any sort of competitive game world unless they were starting with a big side and had no competition for players.

Talking about squad caps' date=' I don’t agree with those that say you must have 100+ players, you clearly don’t and can build excellent teams with less than half of that number. One of the things I think is a problem is that because the game engine is so horrendously poor people turn to scouting for stars and risers to keep it interesting because the tactics side of the game is a lottery.

Regarding buying players, yes I think first come first served is the right way to do it. I’m sorry, but if manager X misses a player coming on to the database and other managers bid first then that’s no one’s fault but their own. That’s assuming the first managers bid the maximum they can, which is almost never the case. There’s simply no other way to do it, leaving it so lower league teams can bid significantly more doesn’t work. I’ve just watched a manager pay a total of 15.4 million for two 78 rated players that didn’t improve his side, then quit a month later, is that fair? Managers that do their research and wait for star players coming onto the database, or go in for risers, have every right to bid on those players no matter which team they are. The fact that bigger teams have more resource than smaller teams to bid on those players is irrelevant.

[/quote']

A squad cap in whatever form will obviously be disadvantage the 250 player brigade who sign player after player just because they are with a top tier club. Little scouting involved. Every now and again this ploy unearths a diamond but this position seems to be championed in these parts.Theres no doubt in my mind that squad capping would lead to better scouting and better flow of players in and out of the club. 250 player squads jettison players all the time but they are generally Philipino internationals who have disappeared from prominence. In a say 70 player squads the cast offs could be more interesting.

I like scouting for stars to accumulate its all good but I do think thats a whole different game and thats Soccerdaq. SM should go with that one theres clearly an appetite.

Regarding buying players on a first come first served basis. First come first served already exists in the loan market and is dominated by quick trigger manager pressing accept at the allotted schedule time. A handful of managers seem to dominate the loans market when unmanaged clubs come making offers. The same would happen with free agents. I think the fairer system would be like to have predefined draft day or maybe more where all the free agents are put out on these one or more draft days instead of staggered daily. At least then every club has a greater chance of landing a target instead of the monopolies that go on currently and new monopolies likely to occur with these new changes. You've mentioned teams that snap up lots of young players then leave. Ive seen this happen and it work well. When you are able to bid from a cast of 10 or more promising players the usual suspects can only bid on one player and all 10 or players have 10 or more new and different homes. That won't happen under the new changes as cash rich clubs don't stay unmanaged for long

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A squad cap in whatever form will obviously be disadvantage the 250 player brigade who sign player after player just because they are with a top tier club. Little scouting involved. Every now and again this ploy unearths a diamond but this position seems to be championed in these parts.Theres no doubt in my mind that squad capping would lead to better scouting and better flow of players in and out of the club. 250 player squads jettison players all the time but they are generally Philipino internationals who have disappeared from prominence. In a say 70 player squads the cast offs could be more interesting.

I like scouting for stars to accumulate its all good but I do think thats a whole different game and thats Soccerdaq. SM should go with that one theres clearly an appetite.

Regarding buying players on a first come first served basis. First come first served already exists in the loan market and is dominated by quick trigger manager pressing accept at the allotted schedule time. A handful of managers seem to dominate the loans market when unmanaged clubs come making offers. The same would happen with free agents. I think the fairer system would be like to have predefined draft day or maybe more where all the free agents are put out on these one or more draft days instead of staggered daily. At least then every club has a greater chance of landing a target instead of the monopolies that go on currently and new monopolies likely to occur with these new changes. You've mentioned teams that snap up lots of young players then leave. Ive seen this happen and it work well. When you are able to bid from a cast of 10 or more promising players the usual suspects can only bid on one player and all 10 or players have 10 or more new and different homes. That won't happen under the new changes as cash rich clubs don't stay unmanaged for long

Ah, I’m seeing where part of our disconnect is coming from now. The point you replied to was from someone that had suggested a squad value cap of 400 million, not a player cap. A squad value cap would hinder the good players as once they’d hit the ceiling of 400 million they couldn’t buy anymore players and once exceeded your chairman would begin to sell your players off. It’s pretty easy to hit that ceiling and can you imagine the frustration if you have a good squad of risers and your chairman begins to sell them out from under you as they rise? I’d be furious.

Player cap, we’ve covered, but I do agree with you that 250 is excessive, as is 200 and probably 150. People that buy every 16-17 old coming onto the database can be a problem but I do think that they reach a point where they’re losing money hand over fist on players that will never amount to much more than their starting rating, so good luck to them, it’s not the way I’d run a team, not a chance. Its simply not efficient or good planning. My own standpoint (and it has been for years) is 100 player cap. Its big enough to work with scouting for risers and not too high to mean you can player hog every bright new 16 year old coming in.

Regarding the player buying, I think this is one we see from a different viewpoint as it sounds like your mainly looking at it from a gold world view where as I’m looking at it from a regular championship where there aren’t anywhere near as many free agents. Looking at it from your point of view, I can certainly see where you’re coming from, but I gave up all my gold’s a while back so it’s not a problem I’ve had or thought about in years.

I very rarely buy free agents, but I always assumed you could put offers in for multiple free agents as there’s no club involved and I assumed no ‘already have an active transfer with this club’ message, is that not the case? Regardless, I do think that in the normal championships ‘first come first served is the way to go’, but gold worlds may well need a rethink if that’s the case.

Just in reply to Michael Watts, I think 15-16 is too short for the reason mentioned above and covered elsewhere in detail. If SM are determined to drop it I think 18 would be a minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm very interested to know on what changes you intend to make with the match engine and why you think these changes are necessary? obviously after years of killing giants with small teams i'm worried if i will be able to repeat this process with the new match engine?? also another question, "As morale effects their value you will receive significantly less when selling them" this really has no bearing on anything in my opinion as you never need to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah' date=' I’m seeing where part of our disconnect is coming from now. The point you replied to was from someone that had suggested a squad value cap of 400 million, not a player cap. A squad value cap would hinder the good players as once they’d hit the ceiling of 400 million they couldn’t buy anymore players and once exceeded your chairman would begin to sell your players off. It’s pretty easy to hit that ceiling and can you imagine the frustration if you have a good squad of risers and your chairman begins to sell them out from under you as they rise? I’d be furious.

Player cap, we’ve covered, but I do agree with you that 250 is excessive, as is 200 and probably 150. People that buy every 16-17 old coming onto the database can be a problem but I do think that they reach a point where they’re losing money hand over fist on players that will never amount to much more than their starting rating, so good luck to them, it’s not the way I’d run a team, not a chance. Its simply not efficient or good planning. My own standpoint (and it has been for years) is 100 player cap. Its big enough to work with scouting for risers and not too high to mean you can player hog every bright new 16 year old coming in.

Regarding the player buying, I think this is one we see from a different viewpoint as it sounds like your mainly looking at it from a gold world view where as I’m looking at it from a regular championship where there aren’t anywhere near as many free agents. Looking at it from your point of view, I can certainly see where you’re coming from, but I gave up all my gold’s a while back so it’s not a problem I’ve had or thought about in years.

I very rarely buy free agents, but I always assumed you could put offers in for multiple free agents as there’s no club involved and I assumed no ‘already have an active transfer with this club’ message, is that not the case? Regardless, I do think that in the normal championships ‘first come first served is the way to go’, but gold worlds may well need a rethink if that’s the case.

Just in reply to Michael Watts, I think 15-16 is too short for the reason mentioned above and covered elsewhere in detail. If SM are determined to drop it I think 18 would be a minimum.

[/quote']

Id be glad of any sort of player cap. Id be only to happy to start at 100 but personally the challenge of 50-70 would be a far more interesting with the margin for error greatly reduced.The guys that monopolise up all the free agent youths there long term plan maybe flawed but more than that they are playing against the spirit of the game. They are trying to make the super teams of 3-6 years time but most of them languish at the bottom of their divisions with squad average of 78. In reality if you did that to your team you wouldn't be far from the door. You can't deal with these guys as due to the low ratings theres no real value too with young unproven talent.

Regarding buying I think your right that first come first served is more a gold 'problem' but even in championship there are guys living this game 24/7 with a massive squad but still chasing every free agent and external going. Its annoying to me but a deal breaker for new managers starting out. Why have that window of opportunity to exploit? Theres too many out there who will win at any cost.

You can put in multiple offers for free agents. Here in lies the problem. Thats how 1 or 2 can snap up every prospect going. Im thinking if all the free agents were put up say quarterly intervals throughout the season and not staggered 2 or 3 at a time daily as it is is present. You'd only be allowed to bid on one free agent at a time instead of walking away with 4-5 prospects in one sitting. The distribution would be far more even than every.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm very interested to know on what changes you intend to make with the match engine and why you think these changes are necessary? obviously after years of killing giants with small teams i'm worried if i will be able to repeat this process with the new match engine?? also another question' date=' "As morale effects their value you will receive significantly less when selling them" this really has no bearing on anything in my opinion as you never need to sell.

I agree. The need to sell is severely lacking in this game and the concerns route has done little to change that. Theres many a big squad manager with few ins and outs in season. I struggle to see how the changes this will change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Places are limited so if you want to chat to me as well as some of the other members of the team' date=' you need to register your interest quickly.

[img']https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/63724441/google-hangout.gif[/img]

Guys please see the above. It's a perfect opportunity to discuss our proposals with us and those that take part will be invited into our test Game World to give feedback on the proposed changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok' date=' Joseph I dont want to insult you here in anyway, but what youre saying doesnt sound plausible, unless its someone dedicated with an axe to grind. 20 accounts with 4-5 teams each means over 80-100 teams, theres no way a person could actively manage like this. I dont doubt this manager has multiple accounts as the deals youve mentioned are ridiculous, but 75? Thered be no point, theres not much you can do with 75 teams you cant do with 5 even if manipulating the transfer market. Also, in order to have that many teams he would need to have 75 different accounts as you cant have more than one team in the same game world. Can you imagine the amount of work logging in and out of 75 accounts would take.

Also, Im sorry to say, it sounds like this game worlds is a dead one if theres just 5 teams left with active managers which is always a shame.

[/quote']

The one manager controls teams in WC 8921, WC 5866, WC 16, WC 1103, SC 1077, WC 12616, WC 1200, WC 19, WC 46, WC 13136, WC 1689, WC 486, WC 2222, WC 833, and a few custom gameworlds. Now, some of those worlds don't have many teams but there are several that are nearly full and some that actually are full. If you look at the list of accounts holding teams in WC 8921, you will find that 70 of the managers hold at least 3 teams in those same gameworlds and hold 0 teams in gameworlds not listed above. There were five more, but they finally didn't log in for over 30 days a few days ago... right after nine of them logged in on their 29th day of inactivity and I posted about it's absurdity in the news feed for the gameworld. Most of these accounts do absolutely nothing, they log in and that's it. In fact, 34 of them have done 0 transfers in or out all season and we're in the 23rd turn. Another 20 or so have done only one transfer this season. And the teams that have done any transfers have all been involving free agents or external clubs. None of those 70 accounts ever make transfer bids to managed teams. In 23 turns we've only had four transfers between managed teams.

This gameworld used to have around 30 active managers in it, but every time one of them left another dormant account would take it over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to elaborate on the following.

We've been working on these areas for the past few weeks. Prior to that we've spent considerable time reading all of the feedback on the forum' date=' twitter, via email etc. There's a lot of differing views on the subjects of squad sizes and player hogging and we've tried to take into account this when working on our proposed changes. We also believe that the changes we're making will also help to improve the SMFA and reduce cheating.

So what exactly are our changes?

[list']

[*]Changing the player valuations:

  • A new formula which works out a player's value which generally makes the top end players worth more;
  • Age;
  • Position (new - forwards worth more);
  • Rating;
  • Potential rating (makes younger hotly tipped players worth more);
  • Morale (plays a big role, if your player has concerns it will significantly devalue them).

[*]Increasing top players wages:

  • Should help reduce star hogging. Also combined with the morale it won't be worthwhile hogging them all as they will cost more to have in your squad and their value with decline if they develop concerns.

[*]Changing how much you can bid for players:

  • All clubs value players the same;
  • Smaller range to bid for as players values are more accurate;
  • Everyone values free agent the same;
  • Made part exchange transfers simpler by both Chairman valuing the players the same (so no need for the bit where it tells you what both Chairman value the transfer at);
  • A club's balance is the only thing that allows you to bid more for players.

[*]Concerns:

  • Removed the ability to buy off concerns;
  • As morale effects their value you will receive significantly less when selling them.

You feedback on this would be appreciated.

I'm also going to look into the possibility of creating a new Game World where we can invite some managers to come and test the changes prior to it going live.

As promised we've created a test Game World as per this post. Spaces are limited to 50 managers and those that have registered to take part in our Google hangouts will have priority. The above has been added to this test Game World, so i'm sure you'll all start to see feedback re this in the coming weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

"Potential rating (makes younger hotly tipped players worth more)"

This reads very suspiciously like the death of every 3rd, 4th, and 5th division team in Soccer Manager in the future. Sure, it will wildly benefit people that already have one, but it's going to make taking a new one and being able to turn it into anything next to impossible in any semi-competitive league.

Combine this with the proposed changes to the concern system which further handicap the ability to have several prospects of similar value in one place on those teams, and there is literally no reason to play as anything but a megaclub now, on paper.

Honestly, a lot of these changes sound suspiciously like "punish loyal long term players in an effort to make the game more noob friendly", but I hope I'm wrong about that.

I do like the standardizing of player values though, in fairness. That is long overdue and will close a lot of really bizarre transfer loopholes.

I guess I'm just worried when you put it all together, it is too much all at once, and might really be going much farther than actually needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, Regarding squad size, there is any ideas for the future? Some managers were discussing that SM was thinking in reduce the number of players to 150 for team. If the teams were bigger the chairman will star to sell the high-rating players. I have some teams with more than 150 players, and i'm currently reducing the number of players, because it is hard to work nowadays and maintain the team moral and contracts up to the team income, between others causes. However, i want to be prepared if some drastic decisions like that is made in the SM Worlds. I have 20 players +89 and a lot of young players -86 rating, and i don't want to think that i will lose my best players because i have a lot of young players to prepare my future and to maintain the team balance up in positive.

One of the things that make me buy a lot of young players is the fact that after few months they will increase in rating and from 300k i can get 10x more money. That way my small stadium teams and low rating teams will grow with plenty of possibilities to win titles. It is necessary to take in account that. Not every team have huge incomes and we need to make ways to increase the team money and stats if we star with small teams. A drastic change in squad size will only destroy little teams and encourage the setups to have a few managers in top teams like Barcelona, Milan and MU, just to name three with big chances of survive.

Cheers everybody

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve' date=' Regarding squad size, there is any ideas for the future? Some managers were discussing that SM was thinking in reduce the number of players to 150 for team. If the teams were bigger the chairman will star to sell the high-rating players. I have some teams with more than 150 players, and i'm currently reducing the number of players, because it is hard to work nowadays and maintain the team moral and contracts up to the team income, between others causes. However, i want to be prepared if some drastic decisions like that is made in the SM Worlds. I have 20 players +89 and a lot of young players -86 rating, and i don't want to think that i will lose my best players because i have a lot of young players to prepare my future and to maintain the team balance up in positive.

One of the things that make me buy a lot of young players is the fact that after few months they will increase in rating and from 300k i can get 10x more money. That way my small stadium teams and low rating teams will grow with plenty of possibilities to win titles. It is necessary to take in account that. Not every team have huge incomes and we need to make ways to increase the team money and stats if we star with small teams. A drastic change in squad size will only destroy little teams and encourage the setups to have a few managers in top teams like Barcelona, Milan and MU, just to name three with big chances of survive.

Cheers everybody[/quote']

Reducing the cap is fine by me ( the most i have in all my clubs is 1 with around 150) wouldn't mind it being dropped to 100 but but it just gives you less to do in game which could become boring. Major point is if my chairman starts selling players (if this happens i'm definitely leaving the game) he sells them then what do you do with the cash buy youth wait them to rise to 88-89 for example then your chairman sells them again. I know it won't be exactly like this but it's going to be similar.

Regarding transfers you should be able to loan out players any position that is not your highest rating but it must be contracted with options similar to real life as right now it's kinda pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to update the schedule of work in the coming days as i've sat down with the devs who are working on Worlds to discuss feedback from the Google Hangouts. So you'll all know where we are up to and see a few new things added to the list which I think will be a welcome addition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to update the schedule of work in the coming days as i've sat down with the devs who are working on Worlds to discuss feedback from the Google Hangouts. So you'll all know where we are up to and see a few new things added to the list which I think will be a welcome addition.

Awesome. being in Aus i was unable to do the google hangouts but my only chip in here is you should drop by once every 2 days to say something like you did here, When we dont hear from a dev in week long slots its easy to lose the enthusiasm. People like to be heard, even if its just an acknowledgement you are listening. Keep up the work guys!

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...