Jump to content

New player valuations and Game Economy


Recommended Posts

Some standout odd ones for example Dybala undervalued & Tielemans vastly overvalued but seen some movement over the last few days so hard to judge yet.

 

Overall is seems alot more complicated & hard work to implement now with the 'potential' aspect but interested to see how it works & hope changes are more frequent than the rating changes.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of my teams where the starting eleven is rated 83 i have had 6 youngsters rise   +2 - +4, a total of +17 between them , they are now rated 82-85, the profit i have made is 4.3m.

Laxalt 22 y.o. rated 85 is my 3rd highest rated player worth only 4m.

In EC 7046 he is at a club where the starting eleven is rated 91 and has players in his position rated 94 and is also valued at 4m.

SM havn't improved this part of the game, they have dumbed it down, along with the new match engine, the whole point of the game now is to get as many of the highest rated players into your club as possible then not go into too much debt, you can no longer build up a lower league club into a 1st division club unles you are prepared to wait until 2018 to get there.

This new system is starting to unfold into only one conclusion, the end of the multi player game and i presume they see the children's version that is the single player game as the money making game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can cope with all the changes (which are at least meant to be implemented for the betterment of the game) but the way values are reached has essentially ruined many smaller games in one fail swoop. All the joy (and THAT was where it had an advantage over FM2015/16) was in scouting for players who could go up (in teams from all over the World) and earn your team some money. Now, they are just dismissed as NOT the best, inconsequential and dumped on the heap ....frustratingly with the same value as thousands of other players. The idea was to stop hoarding players but they've written off 70% of all players. Why will anyone choose a smaller team when it's already stacked against them? The game really had it nailed before with relative values (thus stopping player hoarding), now there is nothing to stop big teams buying more as the values won't change. It will see infinite more leagues with only the top 8 managed and no one else will bother. I'm so flat and really feel it's left a lot of the key, long term managers disappointed. All the surface changes can be debated but this area was integral to an incredibly addictive game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do not understand by this 30% under fan base for teams nearer the bottom of the league is that it is not realistic.

 

Surely this should be reflective of the league you are in?

 

30% less if you are in div 4, 20% for div 3, 10 % for div 2 and 5% for div 1.

 

This is realistic.

 

Bournemouth are near the bottom of the premier league, yet will their fan base drop 30% because of this? No - because this is ridiculous.

 

Chelsea are lower than they have been in years. But they are still packed out every single weak - all because this is in the top division.

 

You cannot apply a hard and fast rule saying bottom teams will get 30% under fan base for every league, it is illogical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do not understand by this 30% under fan base for teams nearer the bottom of the league is that it is not realistic.

 

Surely this should be reflective of the league you are in?

 

30% less if you are in div 4, 20% for div 3, 10 % for div 2 and 5% for div 1.

 

This is realistic.

 

Bournemouth are near the bottom of the premier league, yet will their fan base drop 30% because of this? No - because this is ridiculous.

 

Chelsea are lower than they have been in years. But they are still packed out every single weak - all because this is in the top division.

 

You cannot apply a hard and fast rule saying bottom teams will get 30% under fan base for every league, it is illogical.

I find it very sad that SM can't work out where reality can fit into their game, there is no point trying to be realistic with everything because they have a very basic game which has now been made more basic and less realistic and was never capable of realism in the first place.

Players valuations have been dumbed down into simple blocks of age and ratings, the only exception is where they think they know young players have a lot of potential, yet it might take 6 SM seasons for them to get anywhere near their potential.

We have yet to see if they have improved on 'concerns', we are only just finding out that risers have become pointless unless you were lucky enough to have the odd player that will rise soon and become a +89 player.

The saddest part of it all is even if they realise they got most of it wrong, they have never shown any sign of admitting it , the impression given is that they would rather let the game die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they've made the wages realistic.


 


and matchday incomes are probably pretty realistic too.


 


but what about TV money deals? and sponsorships? without those two sources of income no club in the real world could afford to have a team with more than a couple great players. so unless you introduce them into SM (or beef up matchday income to compensate) this change to wages is ridiculously unfair.


 


and honestly, if the wages are meant to make people reduce squad sizes to more realistic levels (with genuinely mid-rated guys as backups) then fine, but you then have to make cup and shield games part of the regular schedule of games.


 


if you were only playing every 3 days (i.e. no cup games) you could easily get by with a solid first XI and maybe a handful more starting quality players, and then a bunch of guys rated much lower as backups. that'd be no problem at all.


 


but when the cup game comes inbetween that? so you're playing 4 games a week? then you need to rotate completely otherwise you exhaust your players. and THAT is where squad stacking begins.


 


move cups into the regular schedule (so the seasons last longer, but you're still only playing three times a week) or speed up recovery times. and you eliminate most of the reasons to squad stack.


 


one or the other has to happen if you want to keep the game fun and playable.


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment...I think everyone will resist selling and buying players.

 

If you think of a house. If the value suddenly changes, people do not instantly respond by buying more houses (if house values suddenly fall) or selling more houses (if house values rise).

 

Sudden changes tend to make people more conservative...and I suspect that most managers will not want to buy or sell their best players until they have worked out how the new valuations work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment...I think everyone will resist selling and buying players.

 

If you think of a house. If the value suddenly changes, people do not instantly respond by buying more houses (if house values suddenly fall) or selling more houses (if house values rise).

 

Sudden changes tend to make people more conservative...and I suspect that most managers will not want to buy or sell their best players until they have worked out how the new valuations work.

The more we know how they work, the more we realise that it hasn't been an improvement. I think this section of changes has been designed for the Atari 520.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm annoyed that Jack Thomas of Mansfield Town http://www.soccermanager.com/player.php?pid=76512should be worth in the region of £160k-£240k based on the new player valuation system (he currently fluctuates between £80k & £120k dependent on ambient temperature probably). Unfortunately SM input his player change initially as 65-70, and then as 65-69. This shows him on the player profile as a -1 player change. If his rating was correctly processed, it would show as a +4 and his valuation would be at least twice what it is now.

 

This can be seen visually when compared with players such as:

Jake Green http://en.soccerwiki.org/player.php?pid=74662

Jamie Lucas http://en.soccerwiki.org/player.php?pid=75955

 

I've posted it as a bug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having to sell a few 95+ rated players as my wage bill has now doubled and I have no idea what my income will be but I very much doubt it will be doubled. And, while I'm waiting to find out my finances are dropping like a stone so I have to sell. I only have 24 players in each of my 2 squads and have built them from nothing. These changes are unfair and unrealistic. For example, if I won the European cup I would expect to get millions in income but I can't pick my own tactics, that's my understudy's job, but, unfortunately my assistant manager is a tactical and strategic cretin and can't seem to do anything much right, so, I don't get to win. If only I became a gold member.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I now need to compete with a weaker squad and less money placing the emphasis on tactical management

 

Which pretty much means squat all when the match engine can throw out random results regardless of:

 

Team ratings

Tactics

Possession

Shots on target

 

Or, when:

An 87 rated keeper can have "the game of his life" every single match, saving 15+ shots, while his (lower rated) team mates manage a 100% shots to goal ratio

 

but only when:

it's an AI team...

 

Or, when:

A squad with an average rating of 90+ play like Sunday League amateurs, converting 10% of their shots on goal, and a keeper with concrete boots manages to let in all two or three of the opponents on target shots.

 

but only when:

it's a human controlled team...

 

I realise the above are somewhat fallacious statements and that unusual results can happen in real football, but I think most people would agree that it happens a touch too frequently with this match engine, especially in key games such as cup matches against AI.

You actually see "random" results a lot less frequently against human managed teams, for instance.

 

And it's probably safest not to discuss the Assistant Manager code :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, whilst there are still quite a few "random" results (and more so in the cups) there are not as many these days, especially compared to this time last year. I used to see a lot of matches that were decided by the random 100% strike rate, but since my return to SM (last 4 months) these type definitely pop-up a lot, lot less.

 

For me, the random results generally are often "hidden" better now and not as obvious, but I honestly believe that SM have lowered the percentage ratio of them also.

 

However, managed teams often get the "good fortune" too of random results. My fully-fit 89 rated team lost in a domestic cup final to a NMF 90 rated managed team. And when I say NMF, that's an understatement. About 5 of my opponent's team finshed on 1% fitness!! Yes, one percent! Their manager hadn't even been online for about a week then waltzed back in only to find that in his absence his neglected team had "won" a trophy!

 

 

 

To win a league title you need some luck. To win a domestic cup you need a fair bit of luck. To win a SMFA cup you don't even need to pick a team!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of players seem to be rising +1 in rating but not rising in Value.

 

Areola was worth 8 million as an 86, but is now worth 8 million as an 87.

 

This is odd and seems to be similar with some other players too. Be worth a Dev getting in on this and proving some clarity.

 

That doesn't sound right and i'll get it flagged up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot. Believe it is across the board as the player is worth 8 million in 7046 and 7777.

 

Same thing happened to Ibe after his rise.

 

Appreciate it.

 

I've asked about this and were told that it's to do with the way that valuations are currently calculated because part of the formula is based on their potential. This aspect of it was rounding up their value to the next bracket and that is why you aren't seeing a change with some players. An update is being released later today and part of this is tweaks to valuation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me that players across the board have been dropped in value. 

 

Djilobodji- £2m

Kishna - £2m

Unal - £2m

Donnarumma -s now worth 400k less than when i bought him a few days ago (after his rise)

 

I think SM must have tweaked player values because none of those players had a birthday or changed n rating - glad I sold some at the higher price!

 

 

Edit also players Ive soldhave dropped - Max meyer, Buffon, Welington Silva...

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...