Jump to content

SM Worlds Reboot


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, TCLVikerz said:

This one is different topic to flexible rating.

But I can give you an example that +5 make sense. 85-rated Bastoni played like 90 rated player and benching Godin/Skriniar (92).

I believe +/- 5 is fair.

If you argue that Rukavina and James shouldn't be rated the same, It's the base rating that needs to be overhauled. And I agree with it. There are 59 numbers below 60, why don't SM stretch it's rating?

It's like old FIFA and PES. I'm kinda annoyed that old PES gave 50 GK skills for outfielder, meanwhile FIFA gave 10 for them. There are 49 numbers "wasted" ffs ūüėÖ

Yep, I know, I did say 'however the bigger issue is that base ratings have to be reviewed more often'

That's a good example! But then Bastoni is now 88, and he isn't a 91+ player yet. So it depends on how flexible things are. 

Don't think stretching will help. No one buys under 70 anyway (aside from youngsters). 

Someone like Rukavina - playing in Kazakhstan - should be dropped to 83. He's only an example. Just confused why some players drop immediately - see Alex Granell after he moved to Bolivia - and some don't. And the lack of reviews for Middle East always felt a bit fishy (may be Soccerwiki's issue?). 

--

Anyways, I don't want to digress or spam haha. I'm excited for the changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please @chris16 can u answer us this question about Cheats.  

If I come across a definite cheat and report him. Then U throw him out altogether. What do you do to someone coming back straightaway under another name?? Can u check is IP address? We know he can get round his IP address very easily, anyway.

So that can go round and round, is there a solution is the question?? Thank You.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Rahul said:

Appreciate the reply to my query. I think the +/- system 'could' work, happy to see how it's implemented, however the bigger issue is that base ratings have to be reviewed more often (and to a schedule).

An 87 rated Antonio Rukavina should not be able to play like a 92 rated player. Rukavina and 87 rated Reece James are not the same.

Or Sebastian Giovinco. Somehow still 90 rated. Got his 90 in 2012, hardly played for Juve in 2013-14 and 2014-15 - kept his 90 - then left to play four years in Toronto and now been in Saudi since 2018. 

He was excellent in MLS no doubt but should have dropped. Is it fair if he can perform the same level as a 90 rated Thorgan Hazard or 90 rated Erling Haaland?

Imo this is already an issue but +/- 5 would make it worse. Point being there are many 86+ players in minor leagues that keep their ratings for years because the league is never reviewed. Smart managers will exploit that when the solution is just to drop them.

I'm mostly fine with whatever other proposed changes there are - as long as the old UI stays. For me ratings are the biggest part my interest in the game - they help me know a lot more about footballers. 

Good to see you are also getting into this topic.

Yesterday I wrote that I was both interested and scared by this +/-5 idea. After more thinking, I tend to be more pessimistic, now.

To follow your example, in some setups, a pumped-up Giovinco can get to 95, and a very poor-shaped Messi to a 93. How can something like this be realistic to any extent? It would shatter any credibility of this game.

In my opinion there is only one priority improvement to be done on this topic: more RATING REVIEWS, better RATING REVIEWS, more consistent RATING REVIEWS.

Other than that, it would be nice to see a serious crackdown on cheaters, a strongly improved match engine, more options to customize and manage setups for gameworld owners, and - my personal idea - a better search system to look for custom gameworlds. I have seen myself struggling in the past, trying to find new setups to join with some particular settings (rating caps, age caps, etc.), but there is no way to search gameworlds by these criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe having Gold Game worlds with different rules would be able to suit different managers play styles. For example GW's with lower squad cap and increased transfer requests. 100 players on loan all not showing any concerns spoils things. 
Players who have not been played at all putting in transfer requests at the end of season to create interesting bids.

Plus i fear for the new user interface. As a graphic designer i still find the old one better to work with. its faster to find things.

Suggestion:
Make forum text field wider please. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mister keegan said:



Suggestion:
Make forum text field wider please. :)

Yes, can I just mention here as a forum admin that I've had a LOT of complaints about the fact that this text box is so slim, not even taking up half the page.

It's very difficult for members to post images/spreadsheets here as they're not clearly visible. This problem occurred after an Invision update this summer. 

I haven't tried to change the layout myself as I assumed this should be done by a developer so it's in keeping with the image/design of Soccer Manager. 

It definitely needs addressing though. @chris16feel free to PM me for more info etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chris16 said:

"Timeline wise this will take 9-12 months to complete" was what I said, NOT "will happen in 9-12 months"

Along that way changes will be happening.

 

 

Hello @chris16 

 

The +/- 5 rating screams of trying to cut costs/time spent doing ratings based on real life, rather than trying to improve the game. I don’t see how +/- 5 rating improves the game.

So basically the plan is to code +/- 5 rating into the game, saving the company the manual labour of  doing rating changes based on irl performance, which I assume is time consuming & requires various resources & thats why you came up with the +/- 5 idea.  However the current ratings model is your USP, don’t change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jose7 said:

Hello @chris16 

 

The +/- 5 rating screams of trying to cut costs/time spent doing ratings based on real life, rather than trying to improve the game. I don’t see how +/- 5 rating improves the game.

So basically the plan is to code +/- 5 rating into the game, saving the company the manual labour of  doing rating changes based on irl performance, which I assume is time consuming & requires various resources & thats why you came up with the +/- 5 idea.  However the current ratings model is your USP, don’t change it.

That isn’t what they are saying. The ratings will always be reviewed as they are now but in game factors then mean the base rating can go up or down in a game world by 5 depending on in game factors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rossi4601 said:

That isn’t what they are saying. The ratings will always be reviewed as they are now but in game factors then mean the base rating can go up or down in a game world by 5 depending on in game factors. 

So what you're saying is that if sancho who is 92 rating does well in the game gets +5 let's say to 96 and also gets a rating increase during the usual rating reviews  then is sancho 97 rated player or 93 rated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Aaaa said:

So what you're saying is that if sancho who is 92 rating does well in the game gets +5 let's say to 96 and also gets a rating increase during the usual rating reviews  then is sancho 97 rated player or 93 rated

My understand is he would have a 93 base due to the increase and then if he was a 96 in game like your example he would then be a 97. So 92/96 turns into 93/97 with the plus one 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rossi4601 said:

That isn’t what they are saying. The ratings will always be reviewed as they are now but in game factors then mean the base rating can go up or down in a game world by 5 depending on in game factors. 

That sounds terrible. No need for the change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi. The best part and most addictive part of SMW is its simplicity. You can pop online to play for 5 mins or for 5 hours. It is almost the ideal football lover's hobby. If you implement too many changes then you'll move away from what SMW is all about. You will effectively create a completely different product.... The whole ratings bobbing about thing means as managers we'll need to do more and that is for Football Manager or your SM single player game, not SMW. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rossi4601 said:

My understand is he would have a 93 base due to the increase and then if he was a 96 in game like your example he would then be a 97. So 92/96 turns into 93/97 with the plus one 

 

1 hour ago, Jose7 said:

That sounds terrible. No need for the change

I agree with Jose7 to me by the sound of it, it looks terrible.

Not a fan of this -/+5 from what I have heard so far. 

Surely, the performance and/or game time can be reflected in another way than adding/deducting -/+5.

SM can add a "confidence" bar with morale and fitness to reflect their performances/game time.

As it is, the morale right now is useless and I don't see the value in it at the moment. 

If the notion of the +/-5 is to stop hoarding players it's better to decrease the max squad size from 250(or whatever it is right now) to a more realistic number. 

With this +/-5 a lot of decent to good players will get neglected because you can buy a lesser player with lesser cost and build him up to possibly better than the said good/decent players. 

I am honestly failing to see any major significance and value to this +/-5 fluctuations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Nameless said:

 

I agree with Jose7 to me by the sound of it, it looks terrible.

Not a fan of this -/+5 from what I have heard so far. 

Surely, the performance and/or game time can be reflected in another way than adding/deducting -/+5.

SM can add a "confidence" bar with morale and fitness to reflect their performances/game time.

As it is, the morale right now is useless and I don't see the value in it at the moment. 

If the notion of the +/-5 is to stop hoarding players it's better to decrease the max squad size from 250(or whatever it is right now) to a more realistic number. 

With this +/-5 a lot of decent to good players will get neglected because you can buy a lesser player with lesser cost and build him up to possibly better than the said good/decent players. 

It’s all about squad management surely? If you have an 85 team and get them playing as 90’s then it’s up to the manager with the 90 team to get his team playing as 95’s surely? Everyone has effectively the same chance to get the in game increase.. it only penalises the lazy manager or the manager who has 50 clubs and doesn’t log into half of them ever. The way I see it it’s a reward for better management surely that’s a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rossi4601 said:

It’s all about squad management surely? If you have an 85 team and get them playing as 90’s then it’s up to the manager with the 90 team to get his team playing as 95’s surely? Everyone has effectively the same chance to get the in game increase.. it only penalises the lazy manager or the manager who has 50 clubs and doesn’t log into half of them ever. The way I see it it’s a reward for better management surely that’s a good thing. 

Okay you made an argument for and I encourage the discussion.

You have to understand that it is not about "lazy" managers. If a manager has 30-50 clubs you do understand they paid for them right? Why would SM or any good business punish their paying customers?

May be it will benefit certain clubs in certain divisions but still I fail to see the overall positives.

By your theory, a big club will have 15 say 92-96s players and then will have to make a cup team of 80-85s.

Whereas, a small club who rarely build a squad or have the financial powers to build for cups and leagues will neglect the cup (most do it anyways) and simply buy 10 85 rated players and make them to 90s.

Literally every small club can do that and then they do not get promoted those clubs will have 90s, and after reviews, probably 92s in their squad playing in div 3, 4 and 5. How is that realistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2020 at 4:20 PM, chris16 said:

That's disappointing to hear, what exactly do you not like in the proposed changes? And even if you believe they are all terrible, you can carry on in your current GW as it currently is.

We have the utmost respect for our users and that is why we are planning on investing £100ks and an entire development team in a year long project to redevelop the game.

Why exactly do you think it will be aimed at 11 year olds when the proposals make the game more in depth, add complexity and should enhance the entire game?

 

 

 

I hope to reply when I have more time, hopefully privately if I can.

The problem is that you have ignored the discord group and it looks like you are heading towards making the game worse, like you did last time.

Instead of going back to what made the game worth playing you are carrying on making it worse.

It would be nice to know if you are capable of banning managers for cheating or abuse, if not, is it possible to make all managers show their IP address so that you know who is playing with every account.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nameless said:

Okay you made an argument for and I encourage the discussion.

You have to understand that it is not about "lazy" managers. If a manager has 30-50 clubs you do understand they paid for them right? Why would SM or any good business punish their paying customers?

May be it will benefit certain clubs in certain divisions but still I fail to see the overall positives.

By your theory, a big club will have 15 say 92-96s players and then will have to make a cup team of 80-85s.

Whereas, a small club who rarely build a squad or have the financial powers to build for cups and leagues will neglect the cup (most do it anyways) and simply buy 10 85 rated players and make them to 90s.

Literally every small club can do that and then they do not get promoted those clubs will have 90s, and after reviews, probably 92s in their squad playing in div 3, 4 and 5. How is that realistic?

 Thing is you don’t necessarily have to pay for 40-50 clubs you can add free ones with gold membership. So a manager who has 4 clubs could of paid the same price as the manager with 50 clubs. You only pay if you reserve them. If you have gold it doesn’t make much difference anyway as you pay for gold and get the slots for free. 
 

I don’t know the exact details of it but the plus 5 minus 5 is to do with in game factors right? The player will still have his base rating and will still always be his base rating. So he will still be an 85 even if he plays as a 90. So I would assume things like salary are attached to the base rating not the plus 5. If lower league clubs have 85’s playing as 90’s then division one clubs would have 92’ playing as 97’s so it’s all relative. It doesn’t suddenly bring the lower league clubs up to the level of the top clubs because the top clubs will still have the plus 5 minus 5 so they can still accelerate and stay the same distance ahead of the lower clubs anyway. What will cause the difference is how the manager is managing their club and their players. So if a lower league manager is managing better than a higher league manager that they will reap more rewards. 

the important thing to remember is an 85 will always be an 85 that his rating, the plus 5 minus 5 just gives him the potential to play at a higher or lower rating it does fundamentally change what his actual rating is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cmon guys, why a lot of fuss about flexible ratings. I think it is a great addition and there are more questionable changes that needs our attention.

Why I think flexible rating is great:

  • It give us clarity on how form, morale, condition impact
  • It make the game simpler! Now you know who the best player to pick for each game. No need to think: "do I pick 92 rated with 75 condition or 89 rated with 100 condition"
  • It's perfectly realistic! Player can have hot streak (think Teemu Pukki, Adnan Januzaj, Ricky Alvarez) or cold streak (think Alexis at MU, 2011 Milito)
  • It punish high-rating hoarders. I think it is perfect for each concern, the rating goes down by 1.

 

Thing that concern me in this reboot are:

  • New GWs (I don't mind, but I have lots of friends only want to play with their favorite teams)
  • Club Facilities (I seriously think this will kill the simplicity of the game + pay to win situation)

 

Thing that I want to be fixed ASAP, not waiting for 9 month:

  • Improved respond on cheating!

 

Thing that are not mentioned in this reboot but I want it in the game:

  • The ability to find custom GWs with specific rules
  • Injury/suspension for GK
    • Due to the nature of matches, I think in-game injury/red card for our GK could be fatal. Either change the gameplay or
    • Add injuries between turns. Maybe in player attribute there is "Injury Prone" attribute, player with Injury Prone could get injured during training (between turns). It is annoying, but it adds more spice for the management.
  • Add more worth for Gold Membership. With the new GWs will be Gold GW in size, I think Gold membership will be unattractive. Currently I don't see any advantage of becoming Gold manager. I don't want the game become P2W, but you could give gold manager some simplicity benefits. Some recommendation:
    • Have squad analysis feature for Gold manager to analyze potential concern. Give info who should play so the player don't get concern and who don't have future in the squad (with a revamped lack of opportunity concern)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TCLVikerz said:

Cmon guys, why a lot of fuss about flexible ratings. I think it is a great addition and there are more questionable changes that needs our attention.

Why I think flexible rating is great:

  • It give us clarity on how form, morale, condition impact
  • It make the game simpler! Now you know who the best player to pick for each game. No need to think: "do I pick 92 rated with 75 condition or 89 rated with 100 condition"
  • It's perfectly realistic! Player can have hot streak (think Teemu Pukki, Adnan Januzaj, Ricky Alvarez) or cold streak (think Alexis at MU, 2011 Milito)
  • It punish high-rating hoarders. I think it is perfect for each concern, the rating goes down by 1.

 

Thing that concern me in this reboot are:

  • New GWs (I don't mind, but I have lots of friends only want to play with their favorite teams)
  • Club Facilities (I seriously think this will kill the simplicity of the game + pay to win situation)

 

Thing that I want to be fixed ASAP, not waiting for 9 month:

  • Improved respond on cheating!

 

Thing that are not mentioned in this reboot but I want it in the game:

  • The ability to find custom GWs with specific rules
  • Injury/suspension for GK
    • Due to the nature of matches, I think in-game injury/red card for our GK could be fatal. Either change the gameplay or
    • Add injuries between turns. Maybe in player attribute there is "Injury Prone" attribute, player with Injury Prone could get injured during training (between turns). It is annoying, but it adds more spice for the management.
  • Add more worth for Gold Membership. With the new GWs will be Gold GW in size, I think Gold membership will be unattractive. Currently I don't see any advantage of becoming Gold manager. I don't want the game become P2W, but you could give gold manager some simplicity benefits. Some recommendation:
    • Have squad analysis feature for Gold manager to analyze potential concern. Give info who should play so the player don't get concern and who don't have future in the squad (with a revamped lack of opportunity concern)

One big problem about flexible ratings is that sm will implement them. You might like the sound of the idea but when it comes to how it works when you are playing the game it might ruin it.

THey made a mess of the last attempt and we still have the problem of concerns which sm have constantly denied and ignored bug tickets ever since they made the changes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TCLVikerz said:

Cmon guys, why a lot of fuss about flexible ratings. I think it is a great addition and there are more questionable changes that needs our attention.

Why I think flexible rating is great:

  • It give us clarity on how form, morale, condition impact
  • It make the game simpler! Now you know who the best player to pick for each game. No need to think: "do I pick 92 rated with 75 condition or 89 rated with 100 condition"
  • It's perfectly realistic! Player can have hot streak (think Teemu Pukki, Adnan Januzaj, Ricky Alvarez) or cold streak (think Alexis at MU, 2011 Milito)
  • It punish high-rating hoarders. I think it is perfect for each concern, the rating goes down by 1.

Good reasoning - I like the last point about concerns, that is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the whole, I think a lot of the ideas are fine, and would be generally good. Things like reworking the match engine, making the game more customizable, more transfer options, kit numbers, the ability to improve facilities are all more than welcome. 

I do think that the rating system should stay the same though, it needs to be fully linked to real life performances. The rating system is the reason why, despite the game being large neglected, people have continued to play it for 10+ years. You don't necessarily need to do any work, and people can spend as much time looking in to the real game as they like. There are loads of FM style games, including Soccermanager 2021 where you can develop players within the game, but the beauty of SM Worlds is that it's linked to real life performances. The rating system is what the draw is to the game. A major update shouldn't involve any change to this. There doesn't need to be any features for scouting within the game, as it's linked to real life. 

I also welcome some sort of intervention to prevent cheating. Nothing ever gets done when there's blatant multiple accounts within gameworlds, and there's nothing that a gameworld owner can do about it. It can be reported multiple times and it doesn't tend to matter, and I think that's where the biggest sense of neglect in the game tends to come from at the moment in my opinion so if this could change then you'd be on the right track. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TCLVikerz said:

Cmon guys, why a lot of fuss about flexible ratings. I think it is a great addition and there are more questionable changes that needs our attention.

Why I think flexible rating is great:

  • It give us clarity on how form, morale, condition impact
  • It make the game simpler! Now you know who the best player to pick for each game. No need to think: "do I pick 92 rated with 75 condition or 89 rated with 100 condition"
  • It's perfectly realistic! Player can have hot streak (think Teemu Pukki, Adnan Januzaj, Ricky Alvarez) or cold streak (think Alexis at MU, 2011 Milito)
  • It punish high-rating hoarders. I think it is perfect for each concern, the rating goes down by 1.

 

Thing that concern me in this reboot are:

  • New GWs (I don't mind, but I have lots of friends only want to play with their favorite teams)
  • Club Facilities (I seriously think this will kill the simplicity of the game + pay to win situation)

 

Thing that I want to be fixed ASAP, not waiting for 9 month:

  • Improved respond on cheating!

 

Thing that are not mentioned in this reboot but I want it in the game:

  • The ability to find custom GWs with specific rules
  • Injury/suspension for GK
    • Due to the nature of matches, I think in-game injury/red card for our GK could be fatal. Either change the gameplay or
    • Add injuries between turns. Maybe in player attribute there is "Injury Prone" attribute, player with Injury Prone could get injured during training (between turns). It is annoying, but it adds more spice for the management.
  • Add more worth for Gold Membership. With the new GWs will be Gold GW in size, I think Gold membership will be unattractive. Currently I don't see any advantage of becoming Gold manager. I don't want the game become P2W, but you could give gold manager some simplicity benefits. Some recommendation:
    • Have squad analysis feature for Gold manager to analyze potential concern. Give info who should play so the player don't get concern and who don't have future in the squad (with a revamped lack of opportunity concern)

I think, at least from what I read and think myself, is not the flexible rating itself. But it is about how it will be implemented. Because depending on how it is done not only it could not be good, but it could ruin an aspect of the game that a lot of people like that is the real world determining the ratings.

As for your points on why it is good the flexible rating. At least from what I understand three of them could be fixed only by making more clear on what and how much form, concern and morale influence on the game. It is not necessary to change the rating to determine this. And other factos like squad caps could also help on this.

And as other people pointed out there could be a lot of cons, like managers in 3/4/5 divisions having 90+ squads by hiring a lot of 85~87 players and having a good season. That is why it is important to determine very well how easy should be for a player to get the +5 rating. Maybe even considering age and how his real rating has been changing recently.

And it could be not so realistic having some players 90 or less being way better than a 95+ player not on good form. And if implemented, more important than that is to have a consistent, well-defined and organized calendar of rating update.

So again, is not the flexible rating itself, but how it will be defined and implemented.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Troianos77 said:

And as other people pointed out there could be a lot of cons, like managers in 3/4/5 divisions having 90+ squads by hiring a lot of 85~87 players and having a good season.

I agree, this could be a problem.

1 hour ago, Troianos77 said:

And it could be not so realistic having some players 90 or less being way better than a 95+ player not on good form.

I really don't understand why a lot of people is concerning 90 rated player will play similar to 95 rated player. When I think about the problem with flexible rating, the first thing that came to my mind is it could create huge gap between high rating players. Why? In SM current match engine, high-rated player tends to get higher match rating. So let say 95 rated player will consistently get 8+ rating while 90 rated usually stuck with 6. So, those 95 will easily become 98 and 90-rated will stuck at 90 or even worse.

And of course, SM need to adjust balance and I'm excited if it's done correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TCLVikerz said:

I agree, this could be a problem.

I really don't understand why a lot of people is concerning 90 rated player will play similar to 95 rated player. When I think about the problem with flexible rating, the first thing that came to my mind is it could create huge gap between high rating players. Why? In SM current match engine, high-rated player tends to get higher match rating. So let say 95 rated player will consistently get 8+ rating while 90 rated usually stuck with 6. So, those 95 will easily become 98 and 90-rated will stuck at 90 or even worse.

And of course, SM need to adjust balance and I'm excited if it's done correctly.

For the second point, as I said, it COULD be not realistic for SOME 90 players being as good or better than a 95 player. It depends a lot on how easy it will be for a player to get the +5 rating. If it as easy for any player, regardless of his age, current rating, recent rating changes to get a +5 it could be not so realistic. But of course, it is not always the case.

For example, is not so impossible for a 20 year old 90 rated Jo√£o Felix to grow within the game in one or two seasons get to a 93~95. But I don't think that as was already said it is so possible or even fair for a 33 year old 90 rated giovinco who has not had his rating updated since 2012 I think to get to 95 a rating which he never got close in his career (at least that I can remember).

So again, it depends how this flexible rating will be implemented. And that is what a lot of people is complaining that it could turn the game into not so real and comparable to the real world performance which is a feature that a lot of us like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steven Paul @chris16

Great to hear of the news of some long overdue updates to SM Worlds

As a long suffering 10+ years player, i don't think radical overhauls are needed, I'm not sure about -/+5 fluctuating ratings. 

Maybe a +/- 1  would be more appropriate

The thing that makes SM Worlds unique is the relation to real world time ratings to players, and is one of the main reasons i enjoy SM

Many of the features mentioned look great, some glaring things i can absolutely get on board with regarding the Concerns system, Squad sizes, Finances and Cheating. They are my priority.

 

Concerns & Morale need a much bigger role in players ability, i would also like to see a chairman step in to raise cash if the club is in big debt by bad management. 

 

Like the idea of hidden attributes like captains, penalty taking, free kick specialist as they have zero relevance in the current tactic board/ match engine.

 

Cheating - desperately needs an overhaul. Its rampant in the big popular GWs i play. Sure its a process to stop/reverse transfers, but we need to be able to kick managers far sooner, also to stop them changing usernames/IDs and just re-joining.

Prehaps the top 10 Ranked managers - so the longest term, most reliable - ranked managers in the GW get some powers to remove managers, able to create poll to allow a vote? Or a vote to allow a new Gameworld Owner, who has control much alike a Custom GW ( if the GW owner is long gone like most public open GWs)

Any way i can contact someone though these message boards to investigate? 

 

A massive gripe is the New Player list as well, it just dumbs down the whole transfer market. Either do away with it/hide it/ or make all new players unobtainable for a 10 week period. There is a huge glitch with player values changing over night making new players only available to those on a specific timezone and a specific window when the value changes and bids get accepted. The same folk can just 'camp' out for changing bids at the last minute. Its not a field playing field.

Make scouting players manually great again! There is zero reward for going out and finding players in real time , adding them to Soccerwiki, as they all end up on a public list and you just play off against the same managers who actively just hoover players up from the list. 

Player Values used to be a great tool for smaller clubs many years ago when the algorithm placed a value on them to the worth of your squad, not a generic value. It was vital for a small club as it helped generate funds from scouting as you are up against the dreaded 3 turn weeks, paying 3 lots of wages, whilst the Division 1 clubs had the standard 2 turns. The gulf is too great financially to build clubs outside Division 1 in big competitive Gameworlds. It would also massively stimulate markets if you got a greater reward for a ratings rise. As your First XI average improved, you lose the inflated value. In theory progress is rewarded in team building as you go up the leagues

 

I have a whole bunch of ideas if input is still sort, and absolutely be interested in playing a Beta

I wouldn't be to keen to see a rushed in Match day experiences or developing a training/club facility aspect until later on, as i would just go and play SM21 for that

Link to comment
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...