Jump to content
Drew1983

New player valuations and Game Economy

Recommended Posts

Yup, my team is worth 23,5 million less now. 

 

Pereira Maicon in another team is only worth 1,5 mill. Must be a bug.

The whole game is a bug at the moment. This constant changing of values (Kenedy has been up and down in a daily basis) is making managing my squads a real pain in the ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could a decision be made and stuck with in regards to player values please. In competitive worlds the decisions made in the transfer market can make and break teams. I take it these new valuations (example: players that were yesterday worth 8mil now being worth 6mil) are the valuations that will be stuck with from here on in?? You're not gonna suddenly decide to up the valuations back up to 8 mil after a couple of weeks again?? Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraser Forster - 89 Rated, 27 years old, now worth £496k.

Roman Neustädter - 89 rated, 27 years old, now worth £327k.

Daniel Carrico - 89 rated, 27 years old, now worth £1.3m.

Seems to be a trend with the rating & age here.

 

The above examples mentioned Pereira Maicon & Caner Erkin are others.

 

All 27 and rated 89.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sure has provided a great opportunity to improve your club if you second guess the changes correctly over the last few weeks. Managers in my worlds seem to have been conservative with the fluctuations but thats completely the wrong move if you want to benefit. Take some risks! 

 

They seem to be at more realistic values today. Although still little value in the traditional high in demand young players. Not sure yet if that is a good thing or not as quite a few I doubt will ever be worth the 20m / 32m / 38m in question compared to the equivalent rated 24-27 year old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically its good if you sold anyone in the past week bad if you bought anyone. Its pretty annoying to fluctuate prices so much if you're battling budgets and what not.

 

I just had a deal fall through because an AI club couldn't afford the price it bid. Now he's £2 million less in value. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraser Forster - 89 Rated, 27 years old, now worth £496k.

Roman Neustädter - 89 rated, 27 years old, now worth £327k.

Daniel Carrico - 89 rated, 27 years old, now worth £1.3m.

Seems to be a trend with the rating & age here.

 

The above examples mentioned Pereira Maicon & Caner Erkin are others.

 

All 27 and rated 89.

 

Seems to be a bug on 27 year old players rated 89, needs to be fixed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

same here. I am having to sell players to balance the books.

But that's the challenge of the game.

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

Problem is that the tactical challenge has been taken away from us because what now wins games is having higher rated players.

How anyone can get paid for improving this game, yet have made it far worse, is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that the tactical challenge has been taken away from us because what now wins games is having higher rated players.

How anyone can get paid for improving this game, yet have made it far worse, is beyond me.

Disagree - I am having some success with a weaker squad against far better / higher rated teams, by switching tactics.

Time will tell how long this works out for me.

SM just needs to:

Introduce squad limits

Have random transfer requests

Allow unhappy players to run down their contracts

Enhance the loan system

Increase the power of the chairman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree - I am having some success with a weaker squad against far better / higher rated teams, by switching tactics.

Time will tell how long this works out for me.

SM just needs to:

Introduce squad limits perhaps

Have random transfer requests definitely not

Allow unhappy players to run down their contracts they transfer after 1.5 seasons isnt this the same?

Enhance the loan system how?

Increase the power of the chairman to do what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree - I am having some success with a weaker squad against far better / higher rated teams, by switching tactics.

Time will tell how long this works out for me.

SM just needs to:

Introduce squad limits perhaps

Have random transfer requests definitely not

Allow unhappy players to run down their contracts they transfer after 1.5 seasons isnt this the same?

Enhance the loan system how?

Increase the power qof the chairman to do what?

1. Limited to 40-50 players in a squad. It's a must

2. Random transfer requests, say only generated from unhappy players. Another definite. Injects a real challenge to the game.

3. Is that right? All unhappy players leave after 1.5 seasons? I am talking about any player from Level 1 to 5 unhappiness NOT signing a new contract and allowing their contract to expire and leave for free.

4. Loan system - more options. Loan for a set period, loan for a season but recall, loan for a full season but with no recall, loans with the ability to stop the player being cup tied.

5. Chairman: chairman will sell players if the club goes into the red, chairman sells players if the chairman thinks the bid is good for the club even if the manager doesn't want to sell, chairman blocks sales, chairman blocks buys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Limited to 40-50 players in a squad. It's a must

2. Random transfer requests, say only generated from unhappy players. Another definite. Injects a real challenge to the game.

3. Is that right? All unhappy players leave after 1.5 seasons? I am talking about any player from Level 1 to 5 unhappiness NOT signing a new contract and allowing their contract to expire and leave for free.

4. Loan system - more options. Loan for a set period, loan for a season but recall, loan for a full season but with no recall, loans with the ability to stop the player being cup tied.

5. Chairman: chairman will sell players if the club goes into the red, chairman sells players if the chairman thinks the bid is good for the club even if the manager doesn't want to sell, chairman blocks sales, chairman blocks buys.

40-60, is what we have in my game world at the moment, its based on stadium size and division the bigger the stadium the less you have and each lower division gets you 2-3 more slots, the biggest club United get 41, mine chelsea get 49, we recently changed the cap because of the finance mess up

c2veu.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people think the changes will stop people having big squads? Surely the opposite. Instead of having 7 x 75 rated players for the wages of a 90 player, I can now have 10 :)

I agree Will,  not one single big club in all my gameworlds are being forced to sell, even with over 80 players in the squad.

I have taken over Man Utd last week and they can now afford a wage bill of around 2.2m.

 

SM have turned the game into one for the under 12's , appalling changes and despite testing it out before making us all use it, they still keep changing things, which goes to prove that they were clueless to begin with.

The technical side of the game might be better but that doesn't concern us, a few simple improvements or just making more options for customs would of been far better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Limited to 40-50 players in a squad. It's a must

2. Random transfer requests, say only generated from unhappy players. Another definite. Injects a real challenge to the game.

3. Is that right? All unhappy players leave after 1.5 seasons? I am talking about any player from Level 1 to 5 unhappiness NOT signing a new contract and allowing their contract to expire and leave for free.

4. Loan system - more options. Loan for a set period, loan for a season but recall, loan for a full season but with no recall, loans with the ability to stop the player being cup tied.

5. Chairman: chairman will sell players if the club goes into the red, chairman sells players if the chairman thinks the bid is good for the club even if the manager doesn't want to sell, chairman blocks sales, chairman blocks buys.

1. Disagree. Certain IRL clubs have more than 50 players, like Chelsea to name one. That would disallow certain squad to be in their default status and SM is still grounded on reality. The issue is when too much talent is stacked up in one team, with 89+ players rotting on the bench. Concerns and economy are more than enough, so a squad cap is not a must.

2. Agreed on random transfer request but by unhappy players only. It would be unrealistic to see a player happy in their club to leave randomly. Example: Messi leaving Barcelona, etc

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed, and I'd add the buy clause and buy back clause.

5. Partially disagree. If a club goes in red then yes, chairman should step in and accept offers to bring balance active. But the chairman shouldn't interfer with club market decision while in active balance. Like United didn't interfer with Ferguson decision on the market: a manager has his word and full power on players as long as club economy is active. Also IRL team with good active balance don't sell their stars even for ridiculous high fees (Barcelona rejecting high fees for Messi, Bayern Munchen same for Muller and I could go on). Your proposal of chairman interfering in active balance clubs would favour way too much the big clubs, with enormous cash budget could strip any low-mid club stadium club weakening them a lot. Making GWs even more empty and less competitive, less gold renewals and even causing potentially the end of SM. So let's just agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again an area I'm unsure of the best location for the topic as it's to do with the system of players whom have been bid on by multiple clubs and then the club 'they choose to sign for'. Also posted in relation to the new UI.

 

Here's the most recent example I have experienced of how this current system does not work. 

 

Javier Hernandez at Manchester City, a manageable club but one that has the 'Unknown' manager bug, a bug that I've actually stopped bothering to report due to the sheer incompetence of those whom you report the issue to actually understanding the issue, responding to the ticket/issue quickly enough to understand the issue or even caring to address the issue. Either way it's been a bug for so long now with nobody taking note of it & I've now literally given up trying to get it fixed.

 

So this player, Javier Hernandez, due to the 'Unknown Manager' bug is now along with all players at the club free to be bid on by other clubs due to surpassing the days required to do so. 

 

Javier Hernandez' value is £15.6m, the max bid is £31.1m which Barcelona make. Barcelona have a squad of 71 players, the average rating is 86, total value £694m and the first team average is 90. 

 

AC Milan make a bid of £31.1m also and therefore the bids being the same the player moves to what I believe is the squad that's meant / supposed to be the weaker? Anyway, Milan have a squad of 114 players, the average rating is 83, total value £974.2m and the first team average is 90. 

 

Javier Hernandez moves to Milan rather than Barcelona, presumably due to the fact that their average rating in the squad is 83, 3 less than Barcelona's 86 however this is only due to the fact they have 43 more players bringing the rating down considerably. Seeing that Milan's squad is £380.2m more than Barcelona's total value this is clearly not considered and I believe therefore must come down to the average rating of the full squad as of course the first team squads of Milan & Barcelona are the same. 

 

Also note that within Milan's squad they have; 9 players rated above 94 compared to Barcelona's 4. Striker wise Milan have 3 strikers rated higher than Javier Hernandez at 91 whereas Barcelona have only 2. More support that surely Barcelona would be a better choice of club for this player, especially if SM is trying to be realistic in suggesting the player chooses a club based upon where they're more likely to play.

 

Milan are a D2 side, Barcelona a D1 side, I don't believe this seems to matter at all also as I often see these 'same bid transfers' end with a player moving to a squad in a higher division.

 

I believe this is just one example of the flaws within the current method of players moving to one club rather than another when the bid's are of the same value & must be revised. I believe that simply if it were based upon the squads total values it would be a much more appropriate way of deciding which club a player moves to and would additionally be fairer. 

This example is great proof of how a player going to the club with the lower average rated squad is flawed because a team can sign various low rated players in order to bring down their average rating and practically manipulate the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again an area I'm unsure of the best location for the topic as it's to do with the system of players whom have been bid on by multiple clubs and then the club 'they choose to sign for'. Also posted in relation to the new UI.

 

Here's the most recent example I have experienced of how this current system does not work. 

 

Javier Hernandez at Manchester City, a manageable club but one that has the 'Unknown' manager bug, a bug that I've actually stopped bothering to report due to the sheer incompetence of those whom you report the issue to actually understanding the issue, responding to the ticket/issue quickly enough to understand the issue or even caring to address the issue. Either way it's been a bug for so long now with nobody taking note of it & I've now literally given up trying to get it fixed.

 

So this player, Javier Hernandez, due to the 'Unknown Manager' bug is now along with all players at the club free to be bid on by other clubs due to surpassing the days required to do so. 

 

Javier Hernandez' value is £15.6m, the max bid is £31.1m which Barcelona make. Barcelona have a squad of 71 players, the average rating is 86, total value £694m and the first team average is 90. 

 

AC Milan make a bid of £31.1m also and therefore the bids being the same the player moves to what I believe is the squad that's meant / supposed to be the weaker? Anyway, Milan have a squad of 114 players, the average rating is 83, total value £974.2m and the first team average is 90. 

 

Javier Hernandez moves to Milan rather than Barcelona, presumably due to the fact that their average rating in the squad is 83, 3 less than Barcelona's 86 however this is only due to the fact they have 43 more players bringing the rating down considerably. Seeing that Milan's squad is £380.2m more than Barcelona's total value this is clearly not considered and I believe therefore must come down to the average rating of the full squad as of course the first team squads of Milan & Barcelona are the same. 

 

Also note that within Milan's squad they have; 9 players rated above 94 compared to Barcelona's 4. Striker wise Milan have 3 strikers rated higher than Javier Hernandez at 91 whereas Barcelona have only 2. More support that surely Barcelona would be a better choice of club for this player, especially if SM is trying to be realistic in suggesting the player chooses a club based upon where they're more likely to play.

 

Milan are a D2 side, Barcelona a D1 side, I don't believe this seems to matter at all also as I often see these 'same bid transfers' end with a player moving to a squad in a higher division.

 

I believe this is just one example of the flaws within the current method of players moving to one club rather than another when the bid's are of the same value & must be revised. I believe that simply if it were based upon the squads total values it would be a much more appropriate way of deciding which club a player moves to and would additionally be fairer. 

This example is great proof of how a player going to the club with the lower average rated squad is flawed because a team can sign various low rated players in order to bring down their average rating and practically manipulate the system.

Ah yes. The old transfer stalemate where 2 teams submit exactly the same bid. All to common these days. Seems a no brainer to me. Surely the team with the least players gets their man. The route to first team is more clearer. If teams want to win an impasse. Sell players. The gameworlds a better place. Simples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last placed maximum bid gets the player i believe.

 

Also, why are lots of 77/78/79 under 25 year olds worth 200k?

 

This is less than the minimum amount that a 75 of the same age is worth anywhere along the potential scale.

 

Surely this is a bug?

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...

×
×
  • Create New...