Jump to content

My Idea to help fix player hogging


Recommended Posts

You should add financial fairplay and a restriction that only allows your clubs total value to be a maximum of 400m. This is a great way to help stop player hogging and I'll also explain on how it can help other teams in the league to strengthen. The player concerns method should be implemented into this idea and an example of that would be if a clubs total value was 500m, the chairman would transfer list a certain amount of your players in order of their value from cheapest to most expensive and then sell those players until your club value is down to 400m or lower. (He shouldn't transfer list the whole team, just enough players that will put your total club value to 400m or just below once all the players have been sold. And goalkeepers shouldn't be transfer listed when using this method.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that you missunderstood so I'll explain to you what my idea is about. This isn't about player concerns, it's about the total club value that a club can have. I was basically saying that a way my idea will work fairly is by implementing the method used for player concerns. But instead, the chairman will transfer list/sell the players based on their value from cheapest to most expensive. Do you now understand that this isn't about concern levels or keeping players happy? it's about using a "similiar method to player concerns" in order to make sure that clubs are no longer above the maximum total club value of 400m.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You should add financial fairplay and a restriction that only allows your clubs total value to be a maximum of 400m. This is a great way to help stop player hogging and I'll also explain on how it can help other teams in the league to strengthen. The player concerns method should be implemented into this idea and an example of that would be if a clubs total value was 500m' date=' the chairman would transfer list a certain amount of your players in order of their value from cheapest to most expensive and then sell those players until your club value is down to 400m or lower. (He shouldn't transfer list the whole team, just enough players that will put your total club value to 400m or just below once all the players have been sold. And goalkeepers shouldn't be transfer listed when using this method.)[/quote']

I doubt this would even come in to play. The introduction of player concerns has already been met with fierce criticism on the argument that it ruins their experience of building a empire as they are forced to sell players on a regular basis. I do not understand the fixation with player hogging. No manager is entitled to sell you a player to fullfil your gaming expereince. Do you think in real life Barca and Real are forced to sell players because of 'player hogging' because the last time I have checked both of those teams are packed with the worlds best players. Furthermore what incentive does it achieve to stop managers building the team to the highest value possible ? And before you suggest I am managing a super star studded team, I would like to mention the fact that I manage Charlton Athletic and have managed them close to three years now. I have steadily builded my team from the lower division with clever scouting and I have now built the most valuable team in my game world boasting the likes of Neuer, Suarez, Costa, Sanchez, Robben, Fabregas, Kroos, Pogba, Pique, James,Koke, Hummels, Lahm, Alaba to mention a few.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think in real life Barca and Real are forced to sell players because of 'player hogging' because the last time I have checked both of those teams are packed with the worlds best players.

Do I think if a real life Barcelona that contained Messi, Ronaldo, Luiz Suarez, Sergio Aguero, Karim Benzema, Wayne Rooney, Alexis Sanchez that say Manolo Gabbiadini would sit happily season after season no impact on his standing in the game? Ye Barcelona B is full of full internationals. Sure they want to set the Spanish second division alight. Imagine the bargaining power at contract renewals having scored 8 goals in the Spanish 2nd division. Life must be a beach rotting in Barcelona fringe. Why would any player move?

Honestly people who bring in real life to justify 250 player squads. All this fantasy football has made some folk lose track of reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I think if a real life Barcelona that contained Messi' date=' Ronaldo, Luiz Suarez, Sergio Aguero, Karim Benzema, Wayne Rooney, Alexis Sanchez that say Manolo Gabbiadini would sit happily season after season no impact on his standing in the game? Ye Barcelona B is full of full internationals. Sure they want to set the Spanish second division alight. Imagine the bargaining power at contract renewals having scored 8 goals in the Spanish 2nd division. Life must be a beach rotting in Barcelona fringe. Why would any player move?

Honestly people who bring in real life to justify 250 player squads. All this fantasy football has made some folk lose track of reality.

[/quote']

That's exactly the point .This is a game and it's not meant to be absolutely reflective of real life otherwise the game wouldn't be worthwhile. Do you really think anyone would play the game with a calculator in hand and spend only what you earn mirroring Financial FairPlay ? This is fiction. Yes there needs to be balance between real life simulation and at the moment there is a balance in place by player concerns. You either play a player and if you don't he develops a concern. Yes the concerns can be worked around by paying the players off, but it really puts the club in to dire financial straights. As such it's not sustainable and it provides a suffecient remedy to player hogging.

Furthermore no manager is entitled to sell you a player. There is plenty of talent in a game world to build a competitive team upon. There's countless accounts of managers on this forum building a team from scratch to building a star studded team. If you can't compete for heavy hitters ala a Suarez then look for players who can become the next Suarez. Case and point I picked up Paul Pogba and James Rodrigues 3 years ago for a combined value of 18 million. James being worth 12 and Pogba being worth 6 million. I knew at the time I could not sign a Kaka or a Ozil so I scouted clever and it's worked out in the long run. Both Pogba and James are on the way to becoming 94s respectively within the comming seasons. The point is just because you can't sign a 95 doesn't mean that your experience on SM will be not worth your while. The most rewarding aspect for me is taking a gamble on a prospect and then rising to the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly the point .This is a game and it's not meant to be absolutely reflective of real life otherwise the game wouldn't be worthwhile. Do you really think anyone would play the game with a calculator in hand and spend only what you earn mirroring Financial FairPlay ? This is fiction. Yes there needs to be balance between real life simulation and at the moment there is a balance in place by player concerns. You either play a player and if you don't he develops a concern. Yes the concerns can be worked around by paying the players off' date=' but it really puts the club in to dire financial straights. As such it's not sustainable and it provides a suffecient remedy to player hogging.

Furthermore no manager is entitled to sell you a player. There is plenty of talent in a game world to build a competitive team upon. There's countless accounts of managers on this forum building a team from scratch to building a star studded team. If you can't compete for heavy hitters ala a Suarez then look for players who can become the next Suarez. Case and point I picked up Paul Pogba and James Rodrigues 3 years ago for a combined value of 18 million. James being worth 12 and Pogba being worth 6 million. I knew at the time I could not sign a Kaka or a Ozil so I scouted clever and it's worked out in the long run. Both Pogba and James are on the way to becoming 94s respectively within the comming seasons. The point is just because you can't sign a 95 doesn't mean that your experience on SM will be not worth your while. The most rewarding aspect for me is taking a gamble on a prospect and then rising to the top.[/quote']

Player hogging is only really a big issue in Gold Championship. Theres only one Im aware of anywhere near full. Theres so little talent available 85 rated has beens are sold for silly money. Whilst all this silly buying is going on there are loads and loads of 86+ players not getting games or ever likely to because they're rotting in the a few teams fringe. You can't pick up new the new suarez because every new talent is swooped on by a handful of youth teams that can offer more money than anyone else. Very difficult for new managers to get anywhere in a fully populated Gold championship unless they get lucky and land a team of talents to trade.

SM arent proposing anything here that would mean you having to sell Messi Im sure. We are talking the trimming of 70+ squads down to a sensible number. It'd be down to the individual managers who goes. Thats management. Decisions decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Player hogging isn't really an issue in Gold Championships as at the start of a new one, all the good players are spread out over lots of teams (as they are in real life), there isn't just one team hogging them all.

It only becomes an issue if lots of managers leave and other teams plunder their now unmanaged teams to get the best players - in some cases leaving Gold Championships with only 20 or 30 existing managers who have all the best players between them. Yes nobody is likely to take a team in that GC when they see this - but would anyone want to take a team in that old GC anyway when there are plenty of newer GCs?

Is it the fault of the managers who left at the start (probably because they didn't win all their games blah blah) or the fault of SM for allowing unmanaged teams to be raided? Then again if buying from unmanaged wasn't allowed then would anyone take those teams anyway - I recently quit two of my GC teams because the number of managed teams had dropped to less than 25 (out of 480) and I didn't want to carry on playing in an empty league! So player hogging had no bearing on me quitting as I was winning the league (and in GCs you only need a team good enough to win your particular league)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of talent in a game world to build a competitive team upon. There's countless accounts of managers on this forum building a team from scratch to building a star studded team. If you can't compete for heavy hitters ala a Suarez then look for players who can become the next Suarez. Case and point I picked up Paul Pogba and James Rodrigues 3 years ago for a combined value of 18 million. James being worth 12 and Pogba being worth 6 million. I knew at the time I could not sign a Kaka or a Ozil so I scouted clever and it's worked out in the long run. Both Pogba and James are on the way to becoming 94s respectively within the comming seasons. The point is just because you can't sign a 95 doesn't mean that your experience on SM will be not worth your while. The most rewarding aspect for me is taking a gamble on a prospect and then rising to the top.

Totally agree with this, the Managers shouting for a very small squad limit are those that expect to log on and buy a star player, where's the fun in that? The Managers who have spent years building a squad will have to to sell to those who don't scout.

For those shouting that it's not realistic, in real life, Chelsea and Juventus have 17 players rated over 90, Man City, Man Utd, Barcelona and Real Madrid have 16. This is not possible on SM because of concerns. This is not to mention all the 89 players who would also develop concerns. Do you want to change the game to be more realistic and allow the big clubs to have more star players????? You cant have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Player hogging isn't really an issue in Gold Championships as at the start of a new one' date=' all the good players are spread out over lots of teams (as they are in real life), there isn't just one team hogging them all.

It only becomes an issue if lots of managers leave and other teams plunder their now unmanaged teams to get the best players - in some cases leaving Gold Championships with only 20 or 30 existing managers who have all the best players between them. Yes nobody is likely to take a team in that GC when they see this - but would anyone want to take a team in that old GC anyway when there are plenty of newer GCs?

Is it the fault of the managers who left at the start (probably because they didn't win all their games blah blah) or the fault of SM for allowing unmanaged teams to be raided? Then again if buying from unmanaged wasn't allowed then would anyone take those teams anyway - I recently quit two of my GC teams because the number of managed teams had dropped to less than 25 (out of 480) and I didn't want to carry on playing in an empty league! So player hogging had no bearing on me quitting as I was winning the league (and in GCs you only need a team good enough to win your particular league)[/quote']

You are correct. Player hogging is not an issue in Gold Championships. Most are at 25% capacity or worse and I don't bother with them. There is one Gold Championship that is anywhere near a healthy capacity and that particular GC has a big problem with player hogging. If SM ever do get managers to fill GCs player hogging would definitely be an issue. 480 clubs each allowed to buy 250 players each.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the Managers shouting for a very small squad limit are those that expect to log on and buy a star player' date=' where's the fun in that? The Managers who have spent years building a squad will have to to sell to those who don't scout.

[/quote']

That doesn't apply to me. Ive been managing for 5 years. Most of my teams don't have any 90 rated players in them. I only play in competitive set ups where 90s are hard to come by. Im all for managers having limits. Wheres the fun in sitting on 250 players most that won't play for your team. Just as fun as picking the ones that will make the grade is letting go of the ones you think won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't apply to me. Ive been managing for 5 years. Most of my teams don't have any 90 rated players in them. I only play in competitive set ups where 90s are hard to come by. Im all for managers having limits. Wheres the fun in sitting on 250 players most that won't play for your team. Just as fun as picking the ones that will make the grade is letting go of the ones you think won't.

It doesn't apply to me either. I don't start with a big club, there is no challenge or fun in that. I liked to build up small teams (eg, won 1st division in GC 42 with a Macclesfield, this took 5 years). I am also in a GW where you have to sell anyone who reaches 87 or more. I have never had a 250 man squad, my maximum is about 130, the fun in this is that it funds the improvement. My point was aimed at anybody wanting a VERY small squad cap, the challenge to improve a small team would be impossible and GW's empty apart from top teams anyway.

​What about my other point on realism?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can rotate a 18 man squad of similar rating. I don't mind concerns. Concerns encourage folk to log on and if done correctly maybe bring managers to the negotiating table. Its sounds all good to me. In real life players do want to move on if they aren't getting the game time.

Id approve a cap of around 50-70. I know managers want to buy players solely to sell on for a profit but thats suffocating the game in popular GCs. SM need to bring in new income streams for managers. That is definitely something that might stop these big squads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can rotate a 18 man squad of similar rating. I don't mind concerns. Concerns encourage folk to log on and if done correctly maybe bring managers to the negotiating table. Its sounds all good to me. In real life players do want to move on if they aren't getting the game time.

Id approve a cap of around 50-70. I know managers want to buy players solely to sell on for a profit but thats suffocating the game in popular GCs. SM need to bring in new income streams for managers. That is definitely something that might stop these big squads.

I still don't understand how a manager having 50, or even 100, low rated risers between 70 and 80 in his squad clogs up a game world, there are thousands to go round if you scout properly.

As for rotating 18 similar rated players, as I understand it, the first 11 expects 75% of game time, the next 11 50%, those maths don't work.

Again you quote real life about players wanting to move if not getting game time. If you want to mirror real life, they would also want to move if they were constantly getting substituted and rotated as you have to do on SM. This is a game, not real life.

If we are making this game the same as real life, then my previous point about squads is valid. If you have an original Chelsea or Juventus, then concerns need to be relaxed because as it stands, you cannot keep the whole squad together without concerns. Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm by the way guys' date=' I'm talking about managers who buy all thhe best players from unmanaged clubs and hog them for themselves. so it was an idea to help reduce how much they can do it. I don't mind about squad sizes unless i see someone with a squad size of 159. (saw it recently)[/quote']

Apologies as the thread seems to have moved away from your original idea.

I feel your proposal is preferable over a squad cap. A squad cap penalises a small club where as your idea stops big clubs hogging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just caught up on this as it's moved on quite a bit since I read the opening post. I think it's developed into an excellent thread with lots of sensible posts. My view on the opening post is that it'd confuse people and confusion is the last thing that we want (those who remember the time when we had a transfer budget alongside your balance might agree with me on this). However, just to add fuel to the debate here are the changes that we've made and your feedback would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how a manager having 50' date=' or even 100, low rated risers between 70 and 80 in his squad clogs up a game world, there are thousands to go round if you scout properly.

[/quote']

Thats my point really Im in the business of picking teams to win stuff. I know there are many managers like me. Im not in to farming risers for extra revenue. We need to move away from this. Sure I can pick up a young Stenhousmuir lad with a 72 rating and watch him go to St Mirren for a 78 rating rise and a tidy profit but I know hed never make first team at my club. Theres far too much of this done on a huge scale and its surely not what the game is about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats my point really Im in the business of picking teams to win stuff. I know there are many managers like me. Im not in to farming risers for extra revenue. We need to move away from this. Sure I can pick up a young Stenhousmuir lad with a 72 rating and watch him go to St Mirren for a 78 rating rise and a tidy profit but I know hed never make first team at my club. Theres far too much of this done on a huge scale and its surely not what the game is about.

So you believe the game should only be played one way? There are indeed many managers like you, however there are also many managers like me (although this is now getting less with the slow down of player ratings in recent years). We also want to win stuff, but want the challenge of building up a team and not just taking over a ready made team with a big stadium to give us revenue.

Like I have said before, if you remove the possibility of small clubs improving themselves using transfer revenue from small rated risers, then you will only have managers taking over the bigger clubs in Leagues. Why would someone take on a lower league team if they are destined never to improve and stay where they are? Is this good for the game? Will we ever see full GW's? Have you isolated a lot of the Managers of this game?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats my point really Im in the business of picking teams to win stuff. I know there are many managers like me. Im not in to farming risers for extra revenue. We need to move away from this. Sure I can pick up a young Stenhousmuir lad with a 72 rating and watch him go to St Mirren for a 78 rating rise and a tidy profit but I know hed never make first team at my club. Theres far too much of this done on a huge scale and its surely not what the game is about.

But you do realise this is how the transfer market works in reality which has been done for decades ? Most recent example is Chelsea, you do realise De Bruyne and Lukaku were essentially bought, farmed out and sold out for big profit ?. Farming risers is pretty the only way a smaller team can compete with the bigger teams in regards to financial revenue. Do you really think a small team with a 20k stadium can compete with Manchester United boasting the biggest stadium in England ? Your drive for real life realism will pretty rule out smaller clubs from competing which will ultimately establish a monopoly enjoyed by the big clubs. You need to be able to draw the distinction between reality and fiction. If this game was purely based on reality then would you honestly see a third/fourth division team going through the ranks win the league and boast players such as Messi and Ronaldo ? Furthermore your drive for realism will pretty much destroy the desire to create competitive gameworlds. Would you want to see gameworlds only 10 percent full, with only top teams being managed or does a mixture of small teams with room to grow create a more competitive gameworld ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe the game should only be played one way? There are indeed many managers like you' date=' however there are also many managers like me (although this is now getting less with the slow down of player ratings in recent years). We also want to win stuff, but want the challenge of building up a team and not just taking over a ready made team with a big stadium to give us revenue.

Like I have said before, if you remove the possibility of small clubs improving themselves using transfer revenue from small rated risers, then you will only have managers taking over the bigger clubs in Leagues. Why would someone take on a lower league team if they are destined never to improve and stay where they are? Is this good for the game? Will we ever see full GW's? Have you isolated a lot of the Managers of this game?

[/quote']

I dont think player farming is helping. Youve mentioned scouting before under a squad cap every place in your squad matters. You cant just ship in a bus load of Liverpool academy players and hope for the best as goes on with some of these 250 player farms. Scouting is at its worst now. Under the current 250 player rule you dont need any judgement. You just buy a young player at a top club. If he doesnt make it. No worries youve got 249 other spaces.

All I know is Ive been a manager of a division 4 side in the most popular GC around. I had a 10 million transfer budget. My team was full of 82s and below with no potential. Young free agents are 4million plus a pop. Most external players you will have 2-3 competitors in a bidding war usually with a 250 player manager not satisfied with his lot. Why indeed would someone take this on? They are never destined to improve. SM need to look at filtering more money into the game where its needed not encouraging these huge player farms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think player farming is helping. Youve mentioned scouting before under a squad cap every place in your squad matters. You cant just ship in a bus load of Liverpool academy players and hope for the best as goes on with some of these 250 player farms. Scouting is at its worst now. Under the current 250 player rule you dont need any judgement. You just buy a young player at a top club. If he doesnt make it. No worries youve got 249 other spaces.

All I know is Ive been a manager of a division 4 side in the most popular GC around. I had a 10 million transfer budget. My team was full of 82s and below with no potential. Young free agents are 4million plus a pop. Most external players you will have 2-3 competitors in a bidding war usually with a 250 player manager not satisfied with his lot. Why indeed would someone take this on? They are never destined to improve. SM need to look at filtering more money into the game where its needed not encouraging these huge player farms.

So how would a squad cap of 50 have helped your Division 4 team? You appear to be talking about getting the next big thing from a top club, there is always a bidding war for these. Even with a squad cap, your lowly team and budget probably wouldn't win it. Even if you did, where's the next one coming from, how are you going to get the revenue to pay his wages when he rises to 90+, you would still have to sell him.

I agree that SM could introduce different revenue streams for smaller teams should there be a squad cap, but as it stands, a 50 player squad cap would empty out GW's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how would a squad cap of 50 have helped your Division 4 team? You appear to be talking about getting the next big thing from a top club' date=' there is always a bidding war for these. Even with a squad cap, your lowly team and budget probably wouldn't win it. Even if you did, where's the next one coming from, how are you going to get the revenue to pay his wages when he rises to 90+, you would still have to sell him.

I agree that SM could introduce different revenue streams for smaller teams should there be a squad cap, but as it stands, a 50 player squad cap would empty out GW's.[/quote']

Im not talking the next big thing. Im talking any player under 25. How a squad cap would have helped. It would have taken out of the picture the 250 player managers who presumably would have reached there 50 limit in double quick time. Taking them out of the bidding things would have been easier plus all the other talent that would otherwise be lo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not talking the next big thing. Im talking any player under 25. How a squad cap would have helped. It would have taken out of the picture the 250 player managers who presumably would have reached there 50 limit in double quick time. Taking them out of the bidding things would have been easier plus all the other talent that would otherwise be lo

And you would of funded the growth of your squad and higher wages how?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you would of funded the growth of your squad and higher wages how?

I muddle along. Im always skint. Im pushing higher income streams the higher you climb. Top division you should be getting silly TV money. No way is setting up a player farm good for this game. If thats what your suggesting must happen then the game is flawed because player farms eat away at the talent availible to all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...