Jump to content

Pavillions Test Game World


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 363
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let us know how match engine works please.

I'd (we'd) like to know some things to setup tactic options:

1.What are result influencer in order and how tactics set up work;

2.Why a rare logged in manager has an high win sequence than a regular logged in manager;

3.Tell us why squad with out positioned players win against well positioned players.

Without explanation this game is becoming very very frustrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let us know how match engine works please.

I'd (we'd) like to know some things to setup tactic options:

1.What are result influencer in order and how tactics set up work;

2.Why a rare logged in manager has an high win sequence than a regular logged in manager;

3.Tell us why squad with out positioned players win against well positioned players.

Without explanation this game is becoming very very frustrating.

This is a great post. Give us some ideas how the unfathomable match engine works!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop adjusting players rating prematurely ... Robin Van Persie has spent a season at manu where he has hardly played. Yet he's sustained a 95 rating. Now he's at Fenerbache, where he should get some actual match time, yet his rating will sure as anyting drop to 93 (or 92) within a week. Purely because he's moved to a "weaker" league, does not make him a weaker or less effective player.

You also see the "European snobbery" of the game, where players drop in rating instantly as soon as they move back to S America. Europe is not the footballing world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • A club's balance is the only thing that allows you to bid more for players.

This is the worst change ever. This means that all the bigger clubs with more money will be able to bid more for players than smaller clubs. Surely this should be reversed to help the smaller teams as when risers get added the smaller clubs will never be able to compete.

In the test world I bid the max my chairman allowed for Pirlo and Liverpool won the bidding by £500k or so.

Also the chat doesn't work in the test world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the worst change ever. This means that all the bigger clubs with more money will be able to bid more for players than smaller clubs. Surely this should be reversed to help the smaller teams as when risers get added the smaller clubs will never be able to compete.

In the test world I bid the max my chairman allowed for Pirlo and Liverpool won the bidding by £500k or so.

This is the worst change for me too. This'll kill any prospect of fully populated gold championships. Who'd want a smaller team with little or no prospect of buying anyone of any value. Sure they are shaking up the top end of the transfer market but there are many teams that don't compete for those players. They need to go back to the drawing board on that one. There needs to be a more even approach to bidding. It shouldn't just benefit the rich or low squad averages because this approach has always just benefitted the few.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Redsky
- Scrap the increased wages. (Why not focus on increased concerns for lack of playing time when it comes to controlling player hogging?)

- Keep the new value system. It's simply more realistic. (A team like Barcelona wouldn't sell Suarez cheaper than another team just because they've got Messi in the squad as well.) And it can actually help smaller clubs – you just need to buy players long term' date=' before they get upped, and sell them once they do to make a profit.

- Stadiums play too big a factor when it comes to finances. There should be a way to expand your stadium, or at least a ticket price slider that will result in more income if you have a smaller stadium but are producing strong results that make your fans prepared to pay more for a ticket.

- Increase side income as a product of winning titles / finishing at the top of the league. Income like sponsor deals, tv money and merchandising would realistically be a bigger factor[/quote']

I think increased wages is a great idea but the issue as you've pointed out is that it basically renders clubs with small stadiums incapable of challenging the super powers (like United, Arsenal, Dortmund etc).

I would say however that the other points you've addressed would be a fine way to balance the increased wages and give smaller clubs a chance of growing into a super power themselves. The only issue being is what happens when a club moves into a new stadium in real life (for example when Arsenal moved from Highbury to the Emirates). I would assume the game would be intelligent enough to compare stadium sizes and if your custom stadium (Highbury) is larger than the new stadium (Emirates) then it would keep Highbury as your stadium.

Personally if I was SM Devs, i'd focus on the above points and get them integrated first as it would be a huge improvement on the current format.

Link to post
Share on other sites
After looking around for a bit' date=' I think the proposed changes will do more damage than good. Most leagues are struggling to retain members and rapidly increasing the wages and making it harder for newer managers to buy players is just going to be more of a hindrance.

There are two things I can think of to improve manager retention:

1. squad caps, so that new managers aren't unable to buy talent due to the top teams hogging them all (my game world has squad caps of 45-60 depending on stadium size and it works well)

2. improving the match engine

Having it so that a club's balance affects how much they can bid, only benefits the richest and best teams and just discourages new players.[/quote']

For the love of God, just make these 2 changes and SM will be well on the road to recovery

Link to post
Share on other sites
guys' date='

Is there a way to add an alert / newsfeed entry when a player that you have shortlisted comes off transfer ban? ...

currently you get an alert when other bid but not when he becomes available to bid on.[/quote']

Don't think that achieves anything as others will also set up the same and at the same time even if you're the only one that has that set that up and you bid, others on shortlist will get alerts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think that achieves anything as others will also set up the same and at the same time even if you're the only one that has that set that up and you bid' date=' others on shortlist will get alerts.[/quote']

There are players at unmanaged clubs where you and the origional manager to buy him are aware of him, so with the initial manager gone, you are the only one left but forget about the player, where as if you get alerted you would have him signed before someone else finds him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are players at unmanaged clubs where you and the origional manager to buy him are aware of him' date=' so with the initial manager gone, you are the only one left but forget about the player, where as if you get alerted you would have him signed before someone else finds him.

[/quote']

Actually mate, when you put it like that there is a very obvious drawback to your suggestion....

It removes the whole 'I nabbed him from under the other clubs nose' feature, I.e. it works both ways, I've often got (I'm pretty sure younjave too!) Players BECAUSE the other managers have been asleep at the wheel as to say....

It's a good suggestion for sure, but there is certainly a negative to it too

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually something else' date=' can anyone explain to me why players of existing GW clubs are added as free agents and not 'assigned' to their RL clubs?

Would that not make more sense?[/quote']

suppose it give smaller teams a chance to cpture some of the more wanted youths ... be pretty boring if all the barca youths just got added to Barca for example

Link to post
Share on other sites

suppose it give smaller teams a chance to cpture some of the more wanted youths ... be pretty boring if all the barca youths just got added to Barca for example

True, but there are a number of issues with doing it the 'free agent' way..

Realism, if they are pushing the game towards realism then this is a major no-no...

Downside, again the flip side, you could be in control of say Anderlect few years back when Tielemans was added, smaller team loosing out out to another team

Lastley this 're-configuration of the bidding for free agents, how will that work if all bids are of equal value (as they have said they will be) who gets the player??

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the worst change ever. This means that all the bigger clubs with more money will be able to bid more for players than smaller clubs. Surely this should be reversed to help the smaller teams as when risers get added the smaller clubs will never be able to compete.

It means the team with the most cash will be able to bid the most. This doesn't always mean the bigger clubs, many clubs who don't have great squads are cash rich but can't buy players. This will help them.

I think increased wages is a great idea but the issue as you've pointed out is that it basically renders clubs with small stadiums incapable of challenging the super powers (like United, Arsenal, Dortmund etc).

We have increased the wages of just the top 350 or so players. Other players have had wage decreases. So again thi sjust effects top clubs, making it harder for them. It also benefits the smaller clubs in the way the Game Worlds finances are worked out.

This is how GW finances currently work (all figures are examples):

GW Income is equal to GW outgoings (so GWs don't get flooded with money)

So if GW wages total £500m then £500m comes into the GW via (mainly) TV money and Gate Receipts.

This £500m coming in is split 50% TV money and 50% gate receipts, and all clubs in the division receive the same TV money.

A 'big' club will receive £12.5m in TV Money and maybe £18m in gate receipts. Total Income: £30.5m and have outgoing wages of (due to better players) £30m so make £0.5m.

A 'small' club will receive £12.5m in TV Money and maybe £9m in gate receipts. Total Income: £21.5m and have outgoing wages of (due to worse players) £20m so make £1.5m.

so if we increase the wages for the better players only

The overall GW wage bill will go up say to £550m and the income will increase bto £550m, then....

This £550m coming in is split 50% TV money and 50% gate receipts, and all clubs in the division receive the same TV money.

A 'big' club will receive £13.75m in TV Money and maybe £20m in gate receipts. Total Income: £33.75m and have outgoing wages of (due to better players and increases) £35m so lose £1.25m.

A 'small' club will receive £13.75m in TV Money and maybe £10m in gate receipts. Total Income: £23.75m and have outgoing wages of (due to worse players) £20m so make £3.75m.

This is a rough example but... changing higher rated players to have highers wages actually helps smaller clubs with smaller stadiums.

Yes if a smaller club does well and gets lots of good players then they will struggle to compete with a big club as both clubs have the same wage bill but the bigger club will have the bigger stadium. But this is how the game is and we don't want to change this. It more difficult being a smaller club with a smaller stadium but that's the fun of the game!

Smaller clubs do build their stadiums as well upto a limit of 24,000 which I think we decided on as its the average for top flight English club. We can review this limit but do we really want a club from a small town turning into Barcelona sized club??

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of talk so far about who should be able to bid more for a certain player. With the current chairman valuation system, the weaker the club, the more you can pay. The upside of this system is that newly appointed managers with weak squads (but fat wallets) often are able to buy their way to a stronger squad quite quickly. The downside (obviously) is that once you get going building your dynasty (having secured some quality players) you find yourself getting beaten in most every bidding war.

I think SM are on the right track when they look into scrapping the chairman valuation system. It's not realistic and you shouldn't be punished for having a strong squad (or rewarded for having a weak one). That having been said, I think it's a royally bad idea to let clubs with more cash place higher bids. I don't see any sort of upside with this system.

However, if we scrap that and have a game world where the maximum bid is the same for every single manager, we will be seeing a lot of bidding wars ending in ties. I for one don't know how such a war is settled at the moment. The player choses the most prestigious club, I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong please).

What could be done is to introduce a more sophisticated player AI that would factor into these very situations and at the same time counteract player hogging. If, say a virgin Real Madrid (with 13 +90 players) were to bid for a 84 rated player who really isn't anywhere close to the starting eleven or even the bench, he could be made to turn down the bid for lack of prospective playing time. Having a feature like this would obviously require careful tweaking, but I think it could be made to work in a realistic manner. Youth players might totally disregard the playing time factor but a player who's in his prime might realistically prefer a lesser club where he could expect to see regular playing time. I could see this implemented on every transfer and it might also be restricted to situations where you have multiple bids accepted for a certain player. Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes if a smaller club does well and gets lots of good players then they will struggle to compete with a big club as both clubs have the same wage bill but the bigger club will have the bigger stadium. But this is how the game is and we don't want to change this. It more difficult being a smaller club with a smaller stadium but that's the fun of the game!

Smaller clubs do build their stadiums as well upto a limit of 24' date='000 which I think we decided on as its the average for top flight English club. We can review this limit but do we really want a club from a small town turning into Barcelona sized club??

[/quote']

To me, this part of the reasoning is a big mistake. It makes it virtually impossible building a 'dynasty' out of a smaller side. This is something I'm very much against. All big clubs have once been small, or at least regular sized clubs. Nowadays, a new 'big club' is often born out of external capital (PSG, Man C, etc). However, there are clubs that steadily build their progress step by step, eventually turning into CL sides, attracting top class names. If a manager through several seasons of hard work manages to turn a small side like, say Braintree Town into a title contender in the premiership, why wouldn't we want that to turn into a major club in that very game world? Surely, a manager who pulls off such a feat deserves to a least get income that covers the club's wage bill?

Earlier in the thread I presented an example of my own (a Grimsby town side). That club is in this very situation, having been promoted through the league system, right now sitting in the top spot in the premiership. The finances are horrible. Not only have I had to scrape together the resources to buy players like Muller, Bale, Suarez and a handful of other top class names – also, the wages are killing me completely. I'm even losing money at my home games, and I am forced to sell several players every season just to make ends meet. My 22 000 seater stadium isn't doing me any favours, while my main competition is Man U, with 80 000 people coming to every single game. Why wouldn't the board in a club like my Grimsby town sanction a larger stadium? You say you want realism, right? The proposed wage increase will effectively kill all hope of survival for clubs like old Grimsby. Guess I should have just gone for a Man U side to begin with, eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Redsky

To me' date=' this part of the reasoning is a big mistake. It makes it virtually impossible building a 'dynasty' out of a smaller side. This is something I'm very much against. All big clubs have once been small, or at least regular sized clubs. Nowadays, a new 'big club' is often born out of external capital (PSG, Man C, etc). However, there are clubs that steadily build their progress step by step, eventually turning into CL sides, attracting top class names. If a manager through several seasons of hard work manages to turn a small side like, say Braintree Town into a title contender in the premiership, why wouldn't we want that to turn into a major club in that very game world? Surely, a manager who pulls off such a feat deserves to a least get income that covers the club's wage bill?

Earlier in the thread I presented an example of my own (a Grimsby town side). That club is in this very situation, having been promoted through the league system, right now sitting in the top spot in the premiership. The finances are horrible. Not only have I had to scrape together the resources to buy players like Muller, Bale, Suarez and a handful of other top class names also, the wages are killing me completely. I'm even losing money at my home games, and I am forced to sell several players every season just to make ends meet. My 22 000 seater stadium isn't doing me any favours, while my main competition is Man U, with 80 000 people coming to every single game. Why wouldn't the board in a club like my Grimsby town sanction a larger stadium? You say you want realism, right? The proposed wage increase will effectively kill all hope of survival for clubs like old Grimsby. Guess I should have just gone for a Man U side to begin with, eh?[/quote']

100% in agreement with this guy and I think you'd struggle to find someone who wouldn't support this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means the team with the most cash will be able to bid the most. This doesn't always mean the bigger clubs' date=' many clubs who don't have great squads are cash rich but can't buy players. This will help them.

[/quote']

Crazy this is. With Gold championships emptying all the time you bring in a rule that will make managers only choose to manage clubs with a healthy bank balance or ditch a club if they make a few financial mistakes. Its a big club friendly rule this one. I do hope they enjoy playing amongst themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes if a smaller club does well and gets lots of good players then they will struggle to compete with a big club as both clubs have the same wage bill but the bigger club will have the bigger stadium. But this is how the game is and we don't want to change this. It more difficult being a smaller club with a smaller stadium but that's the fun of the game
It's not much fun when after much effort - scouting young, wait for risings, buy and sell player also for a small gain - finally you make a competitive team, with perhaps 90 of average rating . But here the trouble begins, you can't continue to grow with your team, you can't buy top players because your small stadium does not support high wages. It is not funny, is very frustrating and unhappy that you can not continue to grow in your project to become a top team ----------- I am shocked by how SM developers ignore the request of EVERYONE on the forum to allow the development of the stadium for the benefit of small teams. I am very disappointed
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...