Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Steven

Pavillions Test Game World

Recommended Posts

Guys, I do think we need to get some perspective here, we can’t continue to say ‘every manager wants this’ when not all do. It’s a very broad statement to make and it requires a lot more analysis before you can say that.

That said, I do think being able to increase stadium sizes is a good idea. I also feel that if a small team goes from the bottom leagues to the top and is successful their stadiums should increase in line with that. I noted John said the average for the EPL is 24,000 and I think that’s a good way of working, but his figures are way off. The average stadium size for the EPL from 2014/15 season was a capacity of 37,552, with the average attendance across the season of 36,070 (I can supply these figures if anyone is interested). Totally agree that its good fun to get minnows up to the top flight and show the big boys how to do it, but it’s hard to remain there at present, an increase to 37k stadiums would be a big help there and I don’t think it’s an unrealistic expectation or anything that will skew game finances too much one way or another.

Regarding wages, I think there’s something to be said for the way it works in real life. IE, when you go up a division, you get an automatic pay rise, when you go down you get an automatic drop. I could see an variable of 10-15% working quite well there and it would perhaps help the smaller clubs not get hammered with wages while discouraging big clubs building 100+ squads. Obviously the player rating would still be the main factor in wages being worked out. Just a thought anyway.

I also quite like the idea of a little more depth around bids on players where it’s decided on more detailed criteria such as potential playing time, but that does also have the downside that teams with a much lower average being able hoover up potential star players, which is the same situation we have now where smaller teams can bid more money for players. This could also be abused in the same way we see now as managers purposely keep their average rating low in order to get these types of player. Also, it might be far too complicated for the game to process this. Considering how basic the current match engine is, we might be expecting too much to get something like that into the game.

This is a tricky one for me, because I strongly believe all teams have the right to bid for potential stars regardless of their standing, but it’s also unfair if the big sides hog them all just because they have more money. As far as the normal championships go, I personally still think the only way to do it is for a bid ceiling to be implemented (IE, 75 rated player of say 2 million, just as an example), and the first team to bid that limit gets the player. It’s essentially first come first severed assuming the first team bid to the maximum, which is very rarely the case until other teams start bidding as well (then you see teams pull their offers and submit a new one). As Ima Wrongun has pointed out this may not work so well in Golds, but for standard championships I think it’s the only fair way to do it. He also made the point that people who are online more than others will have an advantage by getting in first with their maximum bids, but again I think that’s entirely fair. If you’re putting more time into your team than others I think it’s only fair to get more out.

Finally, just to point out this is all just my opinion and I haven’t posted with the intention of belittling anyone else’s ideas, and no animals were harmed in the writing of this post. Apart from a wasp, I hate wasps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the forum wants' date=' try to do a Poll, there you will find the truth[/quote']

but you said that EVERYONE on the forum wants it - which they don't. I have no interest in a poll on it because I know there will be a lot that want it, and those that don't as well.

I think giving us the choice to expand our stadiums would be a good optional extra for customs, but I don't want to see it in your bog standard EC's etc - as it will just help the rich to get richer.

Lets be honest, in real life clubs can't just expand their stadiums on a whim, and one of the aims of the game is to keep an essence of reality in it. Look at Bournemouth, they'll be playing in the EPL with a capacity of less than 12,000.

I do agree that some expansion is needed for the more succesful clubs, and I think 24,000 that it stands at currently is fine for a domestic league/gold championships, but a european/world championship (where there are more big sides in each league) should maybe have a higher increase limit. And again is this something that could be set by the gameworld creator in custom setup.

But the most important thing to go with the capacity's is the correct attendances. If a team starts in division 5 with 12,000 capacity and 5,000 average fans, gets promoted to division one, wins a shed load of honours and bring in some n big name players, a 35,000 stadium will be no use to them if crowds stay below 10,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I say. The best way for me regards free agents. You release them all in 3-4 separate days throughout the season. You'd have 100+ surely. One team can only bid on one player at a time unto a maximum of 3. Simple and fair. None of this lets create a world where Real Madrid can buy every free agent going. Every thing SM ever comes up with creates monopolies within the game. I do worry that 'Overall customer satisfaction' is missing from their mission statement.

Share 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']

I laughed out loud at the "cash rich clubs without great squads".

I'm sorry but I am yet to see a world with cash rich small clubs. All the bigger clubs have tens and hundreds of millions on top of the best players. In our GW Manchester United had £150m on top of a team of stars.

Please tell me who will have a healthier balance, Wolves, who get circa £300k from attendances or Man Utd who get circa £1.3m? That's without even considering TV money, sponsorship, merchandise etc.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board with that one as there is no way that smaller clubs will end up having more cash than the bigger ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you affect these changes you will make it impossible for any club which does not have a massive stadium to compete. Those us who enjoy competing with non-glamour teams will be pushed out of the game. I ask again - what is your goal in making these changes? What end point do you wish to reach? Can someone do me the courtesy of answering me (or tell me you can't be bothered sharing your reasoning/mission statement so I stop wasting my time asking)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those us who enjoy competing with non-glamour teams will be pushed out of the game.

All these changes benefit the big clubs. Not one crumb for the also rans. Most of my teams are average squads with modest transfer funds. Im up the creek without a paddle here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you affect these changes you will make it possible for any club which does not have a massive stadium to compete. Those us who enjoy competing with non-glamour teams will be pushed out of the game.

You hit exactly the point. if in the game world you can not compete with your small team against the top teams it is obvious that I will try to take the management of team already big (real madrid' date=' barcelona chelsea manchester united bayern monaco etc) and so small teams remain unmanaged, the world game goes empty (indeed in game worlds now only 10% of the teams are managed). This makes the game boring and not competitive as equal

but you said on the forum That EVERYONE wants it - Which they do not. I have no interest in a poll on it because i know there will be a lot That want it, and Those That do not as well.

I think giving us the choice to expand our stadiums would be a good optional extra for customs, but I do not want to see it in your bog standard EC's etc - as it will just help the rich to get richer.

at least the 80% of the players want to have the possibility to extend the stadium. in a democracy the majority decides, because it is impossible to reach the plebiscite on anything. but evidently you dont understand this and speak accordingly, sorry for you.

Lets be honest' date=' in real life clubs can not just expand Their stadiums on a whim, and one of the Aims of the game is to keep an essence of reality in it. Look at Bournemouth, they'll be playing in the EPL with a capacity of less than 12,000[/quote']

in real life if a team wins the championship, eg 3 times, and won the champions league the team will expand the stadium Surely, indeed often builds a new stadium owned the team, read up on it first . However about some things I agree with you. the expansion of the stadium must not be granted indiscriminately but only if the team reaches certain targets, for example, if he wins the championship or if he qualifies to the champions or if they win cups, only then the President can allow the expansion of the stadium, only once per season and Payment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to throw something into the mix here as it's to do with transfer fees, wages, prize money etc. People have to remember that the TV money that Premier League clubs get has warped football and in particular the English clubs. Look at the transfer fees that Premier League clubs pay. Some of them are laughable when you consider the player involved. It's the same as wages. I'm not going to start quoting stats about how much prize money they get either as we all know that clubs like Stoke City get more for finishing mid table than someone like Sevilla for finishing 5th in La Liga or Ajax for winning the Eredivise. So why am I flagging this up? Because I believe that a lot of people are using the Premier League as a benchmark for Soccer Manager in terms of the aforementioned and that's wrong. It's warped!

You could also throw attendances into the mix.

The average stadium size for the EPL from 2014/15 season was a capacity of 37,552, with the average attendance across the season of 36,070

This is a good website to go to to look at attendance across Europe for this and past seasons across numerous leagues. The simple fact is there are only two leagues that are well supported and get good average attendances, the Premier League and the Bundesliga, who got averages of 36,018 and 43,014 respectively. In The French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish top flights they average 21,864, 22,051, 10,249 and 26,626 respectively and they're some of the top leagues in Europe. They aren't great average attendances and these figures are skewered if you dig into it. Take Spain for example. Bar Barcelona, Madrid, Atletico, Athletic, Sevilla and Valencia, the rest averaged less than 22,000 last season. Similar story in Italy. Slightly worse in France. Dreadful in Portugal. I won't even mention the rest of Europe! Again this has been thrown into the mix as people are using the Premier League as a benchmark for Soccer Manager in terms of the aforementioned and that's wrong. It's warped!

Just something to mull over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small detail I find extremely annoying is the automatic contract extensions that are negotiated by the board. What's the point of this exactly? This is another feature that makes it so much harder to make ends meet with a smaller club. Even if you sign a severely underrated player you're often stuck with a high wage just a season or so later, often shortly after the player is upped...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand all this talk of small stadiums. A guy in my game world with a 9000 seater stadium has just bought a 78 rated youth for 9 million. His total spend for the season is 84 million and is always able to offer 10 million bids all the time. He's also got a 250 player squad. If small clubs want to compete they need to buy risers on mass. Big financial gains and it also nullifies the opposition efforts to find risers. Thats the formula. Now go forward and prosper. None of this talk of creating the Walsall Nou Camp.

Share this post


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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

I've never felt Van Persie deserved a 95, and today - like you predicted - he was nerfed to 93. I agree there's too much focus on clubs when it comes to rating players. A guy like William Carvalho has been huge for a long time, but he's stuck at 89. I imagine he'll get an instant 92 or something once he moves to a big club. I have a hard time seeing a switch will make him a better footballer overnight though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand all this talk of small stadiums. A guy in my game world with a 9000 seater stadium has just bought a 78 rated youth for 9 million. His total spend for the season is 84 million and is always able to offer 10 million bids all the time. He's also got a 250 player squad. If small clubs want to compete they need to buy risers on mass. Big financial gains and it also nullifies the opposition efforts to find risers. Thats the formula. Now go forward and prosper. None of this talk of creating the Walsall Nou Camp.

What you're saying is basically "hoard players and you'll be able to stay afloat".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're saying is basically "hoard players and you'll be able to stay afloat".

No, he's saying buy risers if you want to compete as a small team working their way up the leagues, and he's right. Playing the riser game is the only way to do it as it stands, but you shouldn't be hanging onto those risers for too long as the majority get a few rises and then go no further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're saying is basically "hoard players and you'll be able to stay afloat".

Thats the formula to small team success. Bleating about poor stadium capacity has only ever got a 'we'll look into it'. Buy low sell high. You'll soon pick it up and you too will be able to fritter 9 mil on a 78 rated youth with the best of em. This is the core of SM. If you dont like it there are plenty of proper soccer management games out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least the 80% of the players want to have the possibility to extend the stadium. in a democracy the majority decides' date=' because it is impossible to reach the plebiscite on anything. but evidently you dont understand this and speak accordingly, sorry for you.

[/quote']

not sure why you keep picking at my posts - all you are doing with this statement is contradicting yourself, you have gone from saying EVERYONE wants stadium building(which is what I disproved) to now saying it's 80%. I only disputed the EVERYONE part - I even stated that a lot of people want it.

I fully understand that if just one person doesn't want it then it is not everyone - so not sure why you are still prattling on about it.....

in real life if a team wins the championship' date=' eg 3 times, and won the champions league the team will expand the stadium Surely, indeed often builds a new stadium owned the team, read up on it first . [/quote']

erm, I did read on it, I read how Bradford are not expanding their stadium this year - and if you had bothered to read the very next line after what you quoted I said 'I do agree that some expansion is needed for the more succesful clubs'

now if you want to discuss these aspects further I suggest you take it to PM, and we don't clog this thread up anymore.......

Game wise - my club no longer shows on my phone(through web browser) - and I probably do about 90% of my SM stuff on my mobile - is there any workaround for this?

quite interest in the lower rated players turning me down - and am going to keep trying this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No' date=' he's saying buy risers if you want to compete as a small team working their way up the leagues, and he's right. Playing the riser game is the only way to do it as it stands, but you shouldn't be hanging onto those risers for too long as the majority get a few rises and then go no further.[/quote']

I realise that quite well, but the example also stated that the team in question had a 250 (!) player squad. That's just silly and those very teams (hoarders) are part of the problem with the game right now. Obviously, the manager in question is making ends meet by hoarding young prospects and selling them regularly for a small profit. I really don't think that should be the main source of income for a small team that has 'made it big', so to speak.

With my Grimsby town side I've very much played the 'riser game', but you reach a certain point where it gets tough making much money out of it, since your players are valued relatively to one another. Let's say I buy a sure riser at 79. Even if he's upped +5 to 84 later on there's no guarantee I'll be making a profit, since I've got quite a few +90 players in my team – something that will make that 79 rated player drop like a stone in value once I buy him. Keep in mind I'll also have to pay his wage up until I sell him. Of course it's a good idea to buy low and sell high and that can generate a nifty income in the best of cases, but it's also completely unrealistic that a PL side that's competing for the title consecutive years wouldn't expand its stadium to a good 40 000 size at least but keep the fire going by buying 200 youngsters to sell off as they go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the formula to small team success. Bleating about poor stadium capacity has only ever got a 'we'll look into it'. Buy low sell high. You'll soon pick it up and you too will be able to fritter 9 mil on a 78 rated youth with the best of em. This is the core of SM. If you dont like it there are plenty of proper soccer management games out there.

I'm already doing that, but it's hard making ends meet as it is with a top class side that's started out small. And now SM are planning to up the wages for the best players – something that will effectively kill off any chance of survival – at least unless the ticket or other income receive an overhaul as well.

And this thread is for discussing game development and pros and cons with certain plans. So I'll keep bleating about stadium capacities. The new wage system that have been put forward won't injure clubs like Man U or Real Madrid much, but will be a pain for smaller clubs (with smaller stadiums) trying to compete with the giants. I'm pretty sure that's not a goal the SM team is looking to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm already doing that' date=' but it's hard making ends meet as it is with a top class side that's started out small. And now SM are planning to up the wages for the best players – something that will effectively kill off any chance of survival – at least unless the ticket or other income receive an overhaul as well.

And this thread is for discussing game development and pros and cons with certain plans. So I'll keep bleating about stadium capacities. The new wage system that have been put forward won't injure clubs like Man U or Real Madrid much, but will be a pain for smaller clubs (with smaller stadiums) trying to compete with the giants. I'm pretty sure that's not a goal the SM team is looking to achieve.[/quote']

Theres about 1 million Man U managers out there in Soccer Manager land. 42 Grimmsby Town managers and 12 of them are dodgy second accounts(Or so I hear). Ive got a feeling its best keep the Grimsby Town thing between me and you. Ive got a feeling Man United bleets carry alot more weight than Grimbsy ones. The only aim from these changes is to keep big clubs happy. If they lose a few Grimsby Town managers along the way Im confident their wont be too many sleepless nights. Its join the 250 player squads or obscurity. The guy I mentioned before has a 30 million pound profit on transfers hes made this season. Dont delay. Snap up a minute maker now and do that 250 times and then when your done do it 250 times more. You'll get there. Im rooting for ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand all this talk of small stadiums. A guy in my game world with a 9000 seater stadium has just bought a 78 rated youth for 9 million. His total spend for the season is 84 million and is always able to offer 10 million bids all the time. He's also got a 250 player squad. If small clubs want to compete they need to buy risers on mass. Big financial gains and it also nullifies the opposition efforts to find risers. Thats the formula. Now go forward and prosper. None of this talk of creating the Walsall Nou Camp.

I manage a team called The Strongest, who play in a 15,000 stadium. I have an excellent squad, due to giving everyone £300m when I created the GW. However, despite fielding Messi Suzrez and so on, nobody ever shows up to watch the games. I get an average attendance of <5k. This means I can't afford the wages so am operating constantly in the red. Which means I can't strengthen my squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I manage a team called The Strongest' date=' who play in a 15,000 stadium. I have an excellent squad, due to giving everyone £300m when I created the GW. However, despite fielding Messi Suzrez and so on, nobody ever shows up to watch the games. I get an average attendance of <5k. This means I can't afford the wages so am operating constantly in the red. Which means I can't strengthen my squad.

[/quote']

Like i said earlier. Stadium expansion means nothing if the crowds don't increase in line with success and buying big players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I manage a team called The Strongest' date=' who play in a 15,000 stadium. I have an excellent squad, due to giving everyone £300m when I created the GW. However, despite fielding Messi Suzrez and so on, nobody ever shows up to watch the games. I get an average attendance of <5k. This means I can't afford the wages so am operating constantly in the red. Which means I can't strengthen my squad.

[/quote']

Tut Tut Baza. You have been told now. Now toddle along and have some fun like the good man says.;)

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!

Not too many quotes on 250 player squads. You know Baza. Youve got one of the best squads in one of the top Gold championships yet this guy with a 250 squad and a 9000 capacity stadium pays out more in wages. I think the guys onto something. Keep stacking up those risers.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...