Jump to content

Squad Size Option


Recommended Posts

Re: Squad Size Option

Though i think come 1 april wen u hav to hav 21players 2 GK it could decrease playerhoarding cos many external teams hav about 25/26players. People wil buy the good players89+ and wont be easy to snap low rated players exspecialy GK as if a team has just 2gk to hav 2 swap 1 of ur gk for his

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

I find these threads about Squad Sizes really frustrating on the whole.

I'd agree' date=' but only because this seems to be an issue that has been debated for a long time now - and it's still an issue.

People in general have talked a lot about the squad sizes in SM not matching reality and how it just could not happen blah blah blah. If people want total realism the small clubs will be managed even less as they will be permanently doomed and will take vast amounts of time or investment to ever climb up the leagues - this is far less attractive than the current situation.

You can blah blah blah all you want, but it's not realistic, and if it did happen - then something would be done about it. No club could sustain 200 odd professional players on their books and if it did happen - then a change of the rules would happen.

In the Champions League, has squad capping to 25 players not already been introduced?

If 'total realism' was introduced, and to be honest - no game could do that, then I disagree with your final point. The game is full of leagues with 2/3 of the teams unmanaged because people have become fed up with teams hogging all of the decent players and youngsters, and even refusing to loan them.

It's about getting the balance between realism and enjoyment, after all - it is only a game.

...and it is a good game ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Some interesting comments indeed, especially the ones from Mr tebthereb, I just wanted to say something in reply to them, this is a forum and so opinions will be made and given, that is what it is all about, it is everybody's right. It is also everybody's right to agree or disagree, I think it is good for discussion to say so, but I don't think it is fair to quote different individuals and make comments like "this made me laugh" and "this is hypocritical", thus casting harsh judgements, it's just not very constructive and uncalled for and getting a little personal IMO, I understand the context in which they were made and intended, but I still don't think they are necessary, especially from someone who is so well respected and admired in this gaming community.

In regards to my comments, they were not meant to offend anybody and I do apologise if they did, I was just trying to make the point that was also made by a number of other forumers, being that the longer you have played this game the more you tend to support unlimited squad sizes, whereas newer members tend to not undestand why there are no squad limits in place, this seems to apply to me as I must admit the longer I play this game the more I am in favour of not restricting sizes too much, as in older GCs you need the extra players to be able to trade up to better ones, so I am with time understanding myself through more game experience why managers may want bigger squads, thus contradicting my previous post which was made maybe a little prematurily, but these views still only apply to sub 90 rated players, which can be used to trade up 2 for 1 to get better players, or a younger for older player and so on, but I still don't believe it is healthy for any given club in any given game world to have more players rated above 90 than they actually need, as they wouldn't all get their fair share of games, thus been viewed as player hogging, as we all know SM is addressing this with transfer requests and other measures, which seems to be more to the liking of the greater playing community, so hopefully with time managers will give them a chance as they do seem to be the a more appropriate and diplomatic option.

In conclusion I will say this, I am quite happy to go along with the measures SM will decide to take, I will give them my full support believing they are worth a try, these measures if and when adopted will be for the good of the game, and even if nothing comes of them, well then we can play the game as is, it just takes a little learning and understanding the mechanics of it all, rather then just looking at the surface, which I must admit I was probably guilty of myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Ive been keeping a close eye on this thread for obvious reasons, and every now and again when new opinions, (both positive and negative) are posted i read through the whole thread again and post my reply for what its worth...

Its been quite interesting re-reading the whole thread this morning and getting an overall feel for the general response to the original post. Id like to mention a few things please...

1. I couldn’t find ONE SINGLE POST DISAGREEING WITH THE IDEA THAT PLAYER HOARDING IS CAUSING A PROBLEM IN SM . I would very much like to hear from anyone who honestly feels that player hoarding is not causing a problem in their set-up (not with their team..but within their set-up!)

2. Ive read plenty of posts disagreeing with the idea of squad caps. It may seem ironic (since i introduced a squad cap in my team and eventually got it introduced in my gameworld) but i too disagree with a clear cut squad cap. Whoever said a squad cap is unrealistic is absolutely right. No team in the real world as far as i know has a written squad cap. Therefore it is unrealistic. However...AND VERY IMPORTANTLY...UNWRITTEN squad caps are in force in EVERY club in the world. The one factor that limits the squad size in every team in the world is money.

3. SM has lost control of the value of money in every single gameworld therefore allowing some clubs unrealistic squads of 100+ 150+ 200+...you take your pick as to what is unrealistic. This is the reason we had to enforce a “non real-life” squad cap in our set-up. If SM has lost control in terms of limiting squad sizes naturally, via finances/economics (as in the real world) then we had to take action and introduce the unrealistic method of capping squads in our gameworld.

4. SM need to introduce new factors in the game...whatever they be...eg...wage budgets/transfer budgets/player artificial intelligence(AI)/chairman restrictions/youth team expenses...i couldn’t give a monkeys what they are, as long as they eventually re-introduce the real value of money back into the game...and thus NATURALLY limit squad sizes.

5. Until SM do this, the only option (in our gameworld at any rate) is to provide gameworld managers with an OPTION of limiting squad sizes by strict number. Unrealistic...YES. Necessary...at the minute...YES.

6. As mentioned in the last few posts...this issue of squad sizes, squad caps and player hoarding coming up every now and then is frustrating...i agree. But for me its frustrating because its a MASSIVE problem and one that needs sorted out very soon. I know things are in the pipeline but depending on how long these things take...months?/years ?...a TEMPORARY solution may be giving gameworld managers the OPTION of limiting squad sizes. When the new financial factors are eventually introduced hopefully this option will be rendered unnecessary...and this “frustrating issue” will be consigned to the dustbin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

You can blah blah blah all you want

How kind of you' date=' good sir!

it's not realistic, and if it did happen - then something would be done about it. No club could sustain 200 odd professional players on their books and if it did happen - then a change of the rules would happen.
I agree vast squads are unrealistic. It would also be unrealistic to add a squad cap, as none are capped in real life.

I don't really follow your point about a rule change in reality. Nobody is endorsing large squads in reality or SM that I know of, speaking for myself I am just saying that a squad cap is a rubbish way of limiting squad sizes as it just further distances SM from reality.

In the Champions League' date=' has squad capping to 25 players not already been introduced?[/quote']

I can confirm that no club in the Champions League, or in the world that I know of, are troubled by a cap on the number of players they can own. :) I am all for pre-selecting a European squad for SMFA games and limiting the numbers, but this is something else entirely to what is being discussed here, isn't it?

If 'total realism' was introduced' date=' and to be honest - no game could do that, then I disagree with your final point.[/quote']I agree total realism won't happen and frankly I don't want it anyway. If you disagree with my comment that small clubs would struggle more with a squad cap in place fair enough, but it is a fact that some clubs cannot even support their starting squad salary. The single most effective way of improving for clubs like this is to scout, and the larger the scale of the scouting the more this becomes true.
The game is full of leagues with 2/3 of the teams unmanaged because people have become fed up with teams hogging all of the decent players and youngsters' date=' and even refusing to loan them.[/quote']I am not sure when the results of the poll that proved that came in. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't it be more likely that lower league clubs are less popular because everyone joins SM hoping to manage their favourite club, and people's favourite clubs are on the whole the stronger ones in higher divisions? And the fact SM pander to this by releasing or facilitating endless streams of setups?

Considering that I have yet to see any gameworld where any number of clubs are hogging "all" the decent players and youngsters, and that this situation could not physically exist in SM anyway due to the nature of the game, it becomes even less likely that your theory is true.

It's about getting the balance between realism and enjoyment' date=' after all - it is only a game.

...and it is a good game ;)[/quote']I completely agree. Which is why a cap is a BIG backstep if applied in a literal sense. It will destroy the game for vast numbers of managers who have played the game effectively, successfully, and fairly for years, PLUS it is not realistic to have a squad cap as no club in reality does.

Some interesting comments indeed' date=' especially the ones from Mr tebthereb, I just wanted to say something in reply to them, this is a forum and so opinions will be made and given, that is what it is all about, it is everybody's right. It is also everybody's right to agree or disagree, I think it is good for discussion to say so, but I don't think it is fair to quote different individuals and make comments like "this made me laugh" and "this is hypocritical", thus casting harsh judgements, it's just not very constructive and uncalled for and getting a little personal IMO, I understand the context in which they were made and intended, but I still don't think they are necessary, especially from someone who is so well respected and admired in this gaming community.[/quote']I promise, the last thing I want to do is discourage conversation or belittle people into surrender. I love a good debate.

Looking back I did say "this made me laugh" in response to someone who said it was cheating to buy rising players for profit. I thought my response to such a ludicrous comment was quite a lenient one to be honest! :) Being entitled to your opinion is one thing, saying the world is flat is something else though. It is factually incorrect to say this is cheating, and factually true that it did make me laugh.

I meant no offense to you when I said your comments sounded hypocritical, and my apologies to you (and all) for any caused. However, to say "I've had my say about this on a number of different threads and it always seems to fall on death ears" and then "the only true solution is a workable squad limit" sounded hypocritical to me because you seemed to be disappointed that people have not picked up on your thoughts, yet appeared to be disregarding the many alternative ideas on this point. Reading on it appears I misjudged you, sorry. :eek:

I still don't believe it is healthy for any given club in any given game world to have more players rated above 90 than they actually need' date=' as they wouldn't all get their fair share of games, thus been viewed as player hogging, as we all know SM is addressing this with transfer requests and other measures, which seems to be more to the liking of the greater playing community, so hopefully with time managers will give them a chance as they do seem to be the a more appropriate and diplomatic option.[/quote']I agree 100%.
1. I couldn’t find ONE SINGLE POST DISAGREEING WITH THE IDEA THAT PLAYER HOARDING IS CAUSING A PROBLEM IN SM . I would very much like to hear from anyone who honestly feels that player hoarding is not causing a problem in their set-up (not with their team..but within their set-up!)

I honestly feel that player hoarding is not causing a problem in any gameworld that I participate in. :D

Probably as A) I don't believe in the concept of player hoarding and B) 'Problem' is very much open to interpretation.

2. Ive read plenty of posts disagreeing with the idea of squad caps. It may seem ironic (since i introduced a squad cap in my team and eventually got it introduced in my gameworld) but i too disagree with a clear cut squad cap. Whoever said a squad cap is unrealistic is absolutely right. No team in the real world as far as i know has a written squad cap. Therefore it is unrealistic. However...AND VERY IMPORTANTLY...UNWRITTEN squad caps are in force in EVERY club in the world. The one factor that limits the squad size in every team in the world is money

3. SM has lost control of the value of money in every single gameworld therefore allowing some clubs unrealistic squads of 100+ 150+ 200+...you take your pick as to what is unrealistic. This is the reason we had to enforce a “non real-life” squad cap in our set-up. If SM has lost control in terms of limiting squad sizes naturally' date=' via finances/economics (as in the real world) then we had to take action and introduce the unrealistic method of capping squads in our gameworld.

4. SM need to introduce new factors in the game...whatever they be...eg...wage budgets/transfer budgets/player artificial intelligence(AI)/chairman restrictions/youth team expenses...i couldn’t give a monkeys what they are, as long as they eventually re-introduce the real value of money back into the game...and thus NATURALLY limit squad sizes.

5. Until SM do this, the only option (in our gameworld at any rate) is to provide gameworld managers with an OPTION of limiting squad sizes by strict number. Unrealistic...YES. Necessary...at the minute...YES.

6. As mentioned in the last few posts...this issue of squad sizes, squad caps and player hoarding coming up every now and then is frustrating...i agree. But for me its frustrating because its a MASSIVE problem and one that needs sorted out very soon. I know things are in the pipeline but depending on how long these things take...months?/years ?...a TEMPORARY solution may be giving gameworld managers the OPTION of limiting squad sizes. When the new financial factors are eventually introduced hopefully this option will be rendered unnecessary...and this “frustrating issue” will be consigned to the dustbin.[/quote']I could not agree more with all of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Well...i didnt expect a reply to my request so soon.

Only 6 hours since i requested a reply from "someone who feels that player hoarding is not causing a problem in their set-up", the first reply had arrived...from tebthereb...

I honestly feel that player hoarding is not causing a problem in any gameworld that I participate in.

For someone who seems so passionate about this subject that seems a bit of a weak response to me. Im assuming you have gone to each of your gameworlds and asked a few of the OTHER managers in there what their opinions are on the subject...or should your reply have read..."i honestly feel player hoarding is not causing a problem FOR ME in any gameworld that i participate in. Lets be honest with each other...within the six hours between our posts you didnt ask the opinions of others and thats why i feel your response was weak and i have to say meaningless. When you have gone to each of your gameworlds and asked opinion from other managers within each of those set-ups about the issue of player hoarding maybe your response will carry more weight. If you want to be pedantic let me reconstruct my initial request...."I would very much like to hear from anyone who has raised the issue of player hoarding with the other managers in their set-up and is happy that there is a general concensus that it is not causing a problem (not with their team..but within their set-up!)"

The set-up we decided to start squad capping in, has 32 teams. 28 are managed...the other 4 are protected. When i first raised the issue of player hoarding within our set-up no-one had really discussed it at depth...even though a few of the managers felt there was a possible problem. When my newspaper article was published every manager within the set-up had the chance to reply giving their thoughts on player hoarding. Of the 28 managers NOT ONE at any time said they felt player hoarding wasnt an issue and that it didnt exist. All 28 managers agreed that it was a problem and eventually all 28 managers agreed to a squad cap as a temporary measure to put a stop to player hoarding.

This is what i call "getting opinions". It gives some weight to my opinion when i say that player hoarding IS an issue in SM. Its still only an opinion but at least it seems to be shared by a number of others...in FACT its shared by EVERY other manager in my set-up.

Whilst im on the issue of the last post...teb also writes...

I honestly feel that player hoarding is not causing a problem in any gameworld that I participate in.

Probably as A) I don't believe in the concept of player hoarding and B) 'Problem' is very much open to interpretation.

Well at least thats clear. You dont believe that player hoarding even exists...and logically following on from that...if you dont believe it exists... then it isnt a problem either. Very clear. In my last post i also went on to say...

6. As mentioned in the last few posts...this issue of squad sizes, squad caps and player hoarding coming up every now and then is frustrating...i agree. But for me its frustrating because its a MASSIVE problem and one that needs sorted out very soon. I know things are in the pipeline but depending on how long these things take...months?/years ?...a TEMPORARY solution may be giving gameworld managers the OPTION of limiting squad sizes. When the new financial factors are eventually introduced hopefully this option will be rendered unnecessary...and this “frustrating issue” will be consigned to the dustbin.

And Tebs response...

I could not agree more with all of that.

So...you dont believe that player hoarding even exists BUT you agree that player hoarding is a MASSIVE problem and one that needs sorted out very soon. Now i am confused...which is it? It exists or doesnt? Its a problem or isnt?

Let me state my OPINION very clearly...player hoarding exists (and 27 other managers in my set-up also say it exists) and it is a problem.

The debate shouldn't even be about that it, it should be about what needs to be done to solve the problem...optional squad caps(temporary solution)/transfer budgets/wage budgets/AI/senior and youth team expenses/chairman involvement...all of these will aim to return a sense of value to money in SM. At the minute in many set-ups players are the real currency...if you want to do a deal...you need to have other players to do that deal. And if you need players to do deals it encourages player hoarding.

If you can have 250+ players in your squad and not find yourself in debt (because SM has lost control of the financial side of the game) then it encourages you to have 250+ players in your squad...it encourages player hoarding.

Lets get back to the real debate about what is the best way of tackling the problem. And lets not stop debating it. Lets keep this issue very much in the mind of SM...the powers that be in SM do AN AMAZING JOB and have created a game that i am TOTALLY ADDICTED too...i dont envy their job of tackling the financial aspect of the game...but i have every faith that they will do it...and do it very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Well said domcarlin1. I think alot of people think if there wil be a squad cap or wage cap u wont get be able to hav more then 20/30 players in u team. Isnt it ironic that people say SM shouldnt be to realistic so squad should be unlimited and always add 'cos in real life no team has squad limit'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

The more realistic SM is to real life football management, the better as far as I'm concerned.

I have been able to hoard youth players like Santon, Rafael, Pezzoni, Faure, Mangala, Golsa, Delph, Collison, Hazard, Mounier, Orlando Sa etc, etc. You multiply the hoarding by 6 or 7 other established managers then someone limping into the game is going to get seriously bored at failing to get anyone young with future potential.

I would say that out of every 100 youth players I sign, maybe 3-4 will stay with me, the other 96 are all cash cows. My scouting, just mainly reading the forums and clicking buy. Sefthino and a few others are very good at identifying +5+6+7 future risers, these tend to be hoovered up and again the skill element from me for being able to read is zero.

As much as I like making easy money, it should be harder for me.

I would perhaps prefer a system that

1) Money deducted from budget for Youth Training and Youth Development and perhaps a deduction for Reserve Team wages.

2) Being forced to manage a wage budget. If I go overdrawn there should be consequences.

Money should have a intrinsic value to stop me getting cash cows on the cheap, to be subsequently sold on, with little real hope of ever playing for my first team. Cash cows sold and suddendly I have a truck load of 88+ rated players in less than 6 months.

In the real world clubs have to operate within a budget and their consequences of long term overdrafts. No club could ever afford 256 players?

As I said, make the game less about buying quick risers who never stand a hope in hell of playing first team football at your club and more about nurturing young talent, on a level playing field the better. You can still buy a few money makers but again all within budget.

Player hoarding does exist and I think the long term future of playing SM would benefit if it was less about making quick money and more about playing and managing football teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

I can only speak for my own experience.

I started playing SM in November 2007, taking over a struggling Notts County at the bottom of division 4 in English Championship 18. Its a game world thats been on the go a fair while, and had been when I joined.

I started to build a decent team by scouting out risers either by simply reading the forum, or scouting my own to steal a march on the other players who were bidding for risers. I've steadily climbed the divisions and am awaiting a playoff to get into the top flight now. My squad size is pretty big, I'd never be able to afford any decent players on gate incomes alone so ive financed my march up the leagues by massively buying and selling. My current squad size is about 115. About 20 first team players. Another 15 hot prospects loaned out. And about 80 others ill sell on once theyve risen and the transfer ban is up.

In EC18 its very hard to buy any players rated over 90. A number of the large premier teams hold most of the top players. Thats to be expected. I've steadily built a team comprising some of the worlds best young talents and I expect in a season or two to be up there challenging.

This would have been impossible, at least over the already fairly lengthy timescale I've done it in, had squad caps been in place. Its pretty hard to take a wee team from zeroes to heroes as it is.

Some people say they want more realism in SM. Lets be clear what realism in football means - how many different teams have won the Scottish Premier in the past 20 years? The English Premiership? Its the same big teams that always dominate. I dont particularly want to play that game.

Yes, I notice that quite a lot of managers join EC18 and very quickly leave. Well, I've been playing it for well over a year. If someone is disappointed because they cant buy a team of superstars in a few days then I dont feel sorry for them!

I play SM because I like to take wee teams and try to build them (I also manage a couple of partick thistles). The fun in the game for me is getting the young talents, keeping the best of them and selling the rest so I can compete with the big clubs. If its not possible to do that then my interest in the game will surely wane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

For someone who seems so passionate about this subject that seems a bit of a weak response to me. Im assuming you have gone to each of your gameworlds and asked a few of the OTHER managers in there what their opinions are on the subject...or should your reply have read..."i honestly feel player hoarding is not causing a problem FOR ME in any gameworld that i participate in.
I certainly did not do this' date=' nor shall I. You didn't ask whether I was in a setup where people feel hoarding is a problem. I have absolutely no doubt that other people perceive it to be a problem - it is clear others do - but I don't actually think it is a problem in the sense that it is not genuinely inhibiting anyone from doing anything they need to play SM successfully.
Lets be honest with each other...within the six hours between our posts you didnt ask the opinions of others and thats why i feel your response was weak and i have to say meaningless.
6 hours!? I have been talking about this subject for years so I am bound to have a ready response! I must admit though I never expected to be criticised for being succinct and prompt, I am usually the opposite. :D

But OK, let's be honest with one another. Your response seems like a very knee-jerk reaction to disagreement. The reason my response was short is that it has all been discussed so many times and I have talked myself blue in the face on the matter so many times I would have thought it extremely obvious to someone who has has "been keeping a close eye on this thread" that this is not the only place this conversation has come up.

When you have gone to each of your gameworlds and asked opinion from other managers within each of those set-ups about the issue of player hoarding maybe your response will carry more weight. If you want to be pedantic let me reconstruct my initial request...."I would very much like to hear from anyone who has raised the issue of player hoarding with the other managers in their set-up and is happy that there is a general concensus that it is not causing a problem (not with their team..but within their set-up!)"
I was hardly being pedantic' date=' that is a totally different question to the one you originally asked? Which did you want an answer to? :rolleyes:

Quite happy to answer your new question too: I have no doubt the consensus of opinion in my setups is that hoarding exists is problematic. It doesn't take a poll or a show of hands to gauge this. It is not rocket science. Particularly in my setups, as I generally have large squads. :)

It is laughable that in order for my response to your original question to carry weight in your eyes I must poll opinion in setups to a different question.

The set-up we decided to start squad capping in, has 32 teams. 28 are managed...the other 4 are protected. When i first raised the issue of player hoarding within our set-up no-one had really discussed it at depth...even though a few of the managers felt there was a possible problem. When my newspaper article was published every manager within the set-up had the chance to reply giving their thoughts on player hoarding. Of the 28 managers NOT ONE at any time said they felt player hoarding wasnt an issue and that it didnt exist. All 28 managers agreed that it was a problem and eventually all 28 managers agreed to a squad cap as a temporary measure to put a stop to player hoarding.
Yes, I am growing quite familiar with what happened in your custom setup. Still, I am not sure why this tale is being retold. Throughout this thread I have agreed your idea of making this a custom option is a good one. There is clearly the demand for it and no denying it.
This is what i call "getting opinions". It gives some weight to my opinion when i say that player hoarding IS an issue in SM. Its still only an opinion but at least it seems to be shared by a number of others...in FACT its shared by EVERY other manager in my set-up.

I wasn't aware we were meant to be fetching opinions' date=' to be honest last time I checked I had my own and I don't feel the need to back up my opinion with that of others. Frankly, people used to think the world was flat (sorry to have used this phrase twice on this thread!) but it did not make them right. People thinking that player hoarding is a problem does not mean that this is a problem either. There have been hundreds of well supported ideas presented SM ideas that are, quite frankly, horror shows. The average age of member on SM is, I suspect, in the low teens, and there are factions that believe long term injuries should be removed from the game! :confused::eek: Most people claiming hoarding is a problem may not grasp what this really means or the underlying issues.

Like I have said before, it depends as well how you define "problem" I suppose. Even pretending it existed, hoarding can never stop the transfer market, can never affect the rating system, never prevents new players being added daily, doesn't stop people winning trophies, and doesn't stop people doing very well with their teams. On this basis, "hoarding" is not a problem in the slightest.

Would it be better if squads were of more reasonable size? Yes. Not doubting this.

Whilst im on the issue of the last post...teb also writes...
I honestly feel that player hoarding is not causing a problem in any gameworld that I participate in.

Probably as A) I don't believe in the concept of player hoarding and B) 'Problem' is very much open to interpretation.

Well at least thats clear. You dont believe that player hoarding even exists...and logically following on from that...if you dont believe it exists... then it isnt a problem either. Very clear. In my last post i also went on to say...

6. As mentioned in the last few posts...this issue of squad sizes' date=' squad caps and player hoarding coming up every now and then is frustrating...i agree. But for me its frustrating because its a MASSIVE problem and one that needs sorted out very soon. I know things are in the pipeline but depending on how long these things take...months?/years ?...a TEMPORARY solution may be giving gameworld managers the OPTION of limiting squad sizes. When the new financial factors are eventually introduced hopefully this option will be rendered unnecessary...and this “frustrating issue” will be consigned to the dustbin.[/quote']

And Tebs response...

I could not agree more with all of that.

So...you dont believe that player hoarding even exists BUT you agree that player hoarding is a MASSIVE problem and you dont believe that player hoarding even exists BUT you agree that player hoarding is a MASSIVE problem and one that needs sorted out very soon. Now i am confused...which is it? It exists or doesnt? Its a problem or isnt?

Hmmm... I agreed with the entire sentiment of the 6th point you raised earlier' date=' which was that the "issue of squad sizes, squad caps and player hoarding coming up every now and then is frustrating" and how frustrating the lack of development was in this area. If this was not the intention of point 6, I cannot see what was despite having read it a few times now.

Was it really necessary for me to point out I didn't agree player hoarding was a massive issue having already said this elsewhere? You have already accused me once of being pedantic yet appear to be criticising me for not tearing apart one aspect of a sentence and paragraph I otherwise agreed with? We can pick out elements of what one another have said and juxtapose them all day, but I don't see the point and fear being named a pedant again.

Let me state my OPINION very clearly...player hoarding exists (and 27 other managers in my set-up also say it exists) and it is a problem.
Well it must be true if they all said so... :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong though, I am not blind enough to think that "hoarding" according to the dictionary does not happen in SM. Sure, people "accumulate" players. For me, this is not what Player Hoarding is though, and I would be surprised if anyone else means it like this when complaining about it. People generally seem to talk about player hoarding to talk about managers who are consuming setups; eating up "all" the best players and/or prospects and "hoarding" them (ie not sellin/gathering yet more) as though this prevents them doing something. This is the hoarding that I do not believe can truly exist as such situations can NEVER occur EVER due to the foundation of SM; the real life player database.

The debate shouldn't even be about that it' date=' it should be about what needs to be done to solve the problem...optional squad caps(temporary solution)/transfer budgets/wage budgets/AI/senior and youth team expenses/chairman involvement...all of these will aim to return a sense of value to money in SM.[/quote']I would say I agree with all that but I gather I must be careful not to generalise my agreement even slightly lest I face your wrath and condescension again. :) So, I will point out that it was you that asked whether anyone could honestly say hoarding was not a problem in their setup, so it was you that started this little sub-debate.
At the minute in many set-ups players are the real currency...if you want to do a deal...you need to have other players to do that deal. And if you need players to do deals it encourages player hoarding.

If you can have 250+ players in your squad and not find yourself in debt (because SM has lost control of the financial side of the game) then it encourages you to have 250+ players in your squad...it encourages player hoarding.

Lets get back to the real debate about what is the best way of tackling the problem. And lets not stop debating it. Lets keep this issue very much in the mind of SM...the powers that be in SM do AN AMAZING JOB and have created a game that i am TOTALLY ADDICTED too...i dont envy their job of tackling the financial aspect of the game...but i have every faith that they will do it...and do it very well.

I agree with your grandiose conclusion on the whole. Things need to change in this regard because at the moment the focus of this soccer management game is not on management' date=' but on signing as many rising players as possible. Personally I have always preferred the latter particularly considering the still woefully inept match engine, but there needs to be a better balance.

It is a shame SM don't comment on threads like this often, or appear to pay them any regard. The original (and classic) thread which they themselves created on the whole squad size issue (which I recommend anyone with an interest in SM reads) was abandoned by them.

The more realistic SM is to real life football management, the better as far as I'm concerned.

I have been able to hoard youth players like Santon, Rafael, Pezzoni, Faure, Mangala, Golsa, Delph, Collison, Hazard, Mounier, Orlando Sa etc, etc. You multiply the hoarding by 6 or 7 other established managers then someone limping into the game is going to get seriously bored at failing to get anyone young with future potential.

I would say that out of every 100 youth players I sign, maybe 3-4 will stay with me, the other 96 are all cash cows. My scouting, just mainly reading the forums and clicking buy. Sefthino and a few others are very good at identifying +5+6+7 future risers, these tend to be hoovered up and again the skill element from me for being able to read is zero.

As much as I like making easy money, it should be harder for me.

I would perhaps prefer a system that

1) Money deducted from budget for Youth Training and Youth Development and perhaps a deduction for Reserve Team wages.

2) Being forced to manage a wage budget. If I go overdrawn there should be consequences.

Money should have a intrinsic value to stop me getting cash cows on the cheap, to be subsequently sold on, with little real hope of ever playing for my first team. Cash cows sold and suddendly I have a truck load of 88+ rated players in less than 6 months.

In the real world clubs have to operate within a budget and their consequences of long term overdrafts. No club could ever afford 256 players?

As I said, make the game less about buying quick risers who never stand a hope in hell of playing first team football at your club and more about nurturing young talent, on a level playing field the better. You can still buy a few money makers but again all within budget.

Player hoarding does exist and I think the long term future of playing SM would benefit if it was less about making quick money and more about playing and managing football teams.

I think this all makes a lot of sense to me and I agree with most of it. Harsher consequences for being overdrawn, players becoming disgruntled, youth development fees... all sensible and fairly easy steps to improve SM.

I have no idea why SM have not done some of these things. I appreciate the 'big one' of players requesting to leave (or walking out) has to be handled delicately, but most ideas in this regard are pretty black and white (at least from a non-programmers perspective).

I can only speak for my own experience.

I started playing SM in November 2007' date=' taking over a struggling Notts County at the bottom of division 4 in English Championship 18. Its a game world thats been on the go a fair while, and had been when I joined.

I started to build a decent team by scouting out risers either by simply reading the forum, or scouting my own to steal a march on the other players who were bidding for risers. I've steadily climbed the divisions and am awaiting a playoff to get into the top flight now. My squad size is pretty big, I'd never be able to afford any decent players on gate incomes alone so ive financed my march up the leagues by massively buying and selling. My current squad size is about 115. About 20 first team players. Another 15 hot prospects loaned out. And about 80 others ill sell on once theyve risen and the transfer ban is up.

In EC18 its very hard to buy any players rated over 90. A number of the large premier teams hold most of the top players. Thats to be expected. I've steadily built a team comprising some of the worlds best young talents and I expect in a season or two to be up there challenging.

This would have been impossible, at least over the already fairly lengthy timescale I've done it in, had squad caps been in place. Its pretty hard to take a wee team from zeroes to heroes as it is.

Some people say they want more realism in SM. Lets be clear what realism in football means - how many different teams have won the Scottish Premier in the past 20 years? The English Premiership? Its the same big teams that always dominate. I dont particularly want to play that game.

Yes, I notice that quite a lot of managers join EC18 and very quickly leave. Well, I've been playing it for well over a year. If someone is disappointed because they cant buy a team of superstars in a few days then I dont feel sorry for them!

I play SM because I like to take wee teams and try to build them (I also manage a couple of partick thistles). The fun in the game for me is getting the young talents, keeping the best of them and selling the rest so I can compete with the big clubs. If its not possible to do that then my interest in the game will surely wane.[/quote']

I really like this post too, particularly the bit about not wanting to play a game where certain sides dominate. Playing these types of games is all about creating a dream team and for some people converting the little sides into big sides with loads of superstars and talented youth is great fun. I am one of them. Such people (which include me) then get accused of being greedy when they make their team a top side but retain their desire to buy rising players, when there is not much else to do on the game.

This is why SM need to be really careful that some ideas don't kill scouting. Managers who bust a gut scouting should still reap the dividends but it should not be so easy as it currently is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

tebthereb i have read ur posts and im still confused. I cant figure out if u for or against it. U say u like to 'acculamate' players but dont believe in hoarding then u also add that things need to change becos the focus is on buying risers and not soccermanagement. This may be a game but there has to be drawn a line somewhere just like anywere in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Scouting wont die out if squad wage cap transfer requets or wat ever was implemented. U dont need 250players to build up a 'dream team' i hav a crewe alexandra in div3 wit 150mil total squad value and 55players and none ofmy squads hav excede 70-80players. Why do u think footballermanager fifa09 PES09 r the best sportgames

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Or maybe if player goes from 74-84 his wage should go up aswell 3500-12000. I hav viarti85 and a 5y contract 7500wage that means if he went up to say 90 in this year his wage wont go up. Maybe then we dont need squad or wage cap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Basically, I just mean I don't believe "Player Hoarding" exists in the sense most people use it; ie to mean that managers accumulate squads that prevent others from having fun. I do think that Squad Sizes is a concern though because it is tied in to the issue of money having no value, amongst others. It illustrates that the game has become more about players than about management and tactics, and winning trophies. I am completely against a squad 'cap' but approve of suggestions that will naturally cap squads such as players growing happy and requesting transfers, or higher coaching fees, etc.

A wage cap is arguably just an alternative type of squad cap, depending how it is done. It would be frustrating not to be able to buy a player simply as it makes you exceed such a budget, even if you can easily afford the player etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Ok i get wat ur saying. I agree if u hav enough money u can buy who ever u want. True most people dont buy lots players to stop everyone of having fun but indirectly thats wats happening. I guess it should be easier to get into debt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

I am wondering about people banging on about squad caps is a *must*. I have a few points (which has probably been said a millions times, but i'll re-emphisise it)

Unless SM can formulate some other way to bring money in to clubs then smaller clubs ARE going to suffer. Risers as it stands are the only way of generating enough money to a) not go in to debt for many a team and B) enable you to buy better players if you are a small club.

On the whole I like the challenge of taking of little/3rd/4th division clubs and building them up. That to me makes the game fun, the only way you can build them up is to generate the money through risers. If there is a squad cap it makes it ever so more difficult, for instance: I am in the "Rochdales league" so I am going to use this as an example of the problems faced in SM.

The ground only holds 10,000 and I am currently bringing in around £200,000 per home game, I know from someone else who started as Rochdale and got them promoted to the top flight that the maximum he can bring in is around £400,000 per home game.

To even have a chance of surviving in the top flight you need a first 11 average of 89. 89 rated players wages are roughly £19-22k per turn, so if you only had the bare minimum 11 starters rated at 89 with say... £20k wages each that works out at £220k per turn just for those 11, then you need another 7 (going up to 10 next month) to fill your squad, so say they are all on £7k wages as it stands that is an extra £49k per turn, going up to £70k per turn, making a total at the very least of £290k per turn on wages. Add the total of having an home game and away game that makes it work out as £580k, so you are losing at the very least (based on an income of £400k for home games) £180k every 2 turns. That doesn't add up at all does it?

The next point is, how do you get a 89 rated 1st 11 in the first place with very little money coming in? I think it's something like £3M for winning division 4, £5-6M for D3 £7-8M for D2 and just under £10M for D1. Cups are unpredictable, so you can't rely on that for extra income.

Also, you need to think, once you get to D1, do you just want to be fighting relegation every season? Of course not, you want to be challenging for as high a place as possible, so in reality I have seen D1 teams with players rated no higher than 92 win it, so those players wages are around £59k, so again 11x£59k =£590k per turn just for the starting 11, so now the amount of money you lose isn't just in away games it's home games too (in fact, any team with a capacity under 30,000 WILL lose money every 2 turns if they are a top flight club that needs the 89+ players) so going by the 11 on £59k per turn, plus 10 on £7k per turn, that is £660k per turn, £1,320,000M every 2 turns, so take away the £400k from the home game and you are losing £920k every two turns, that is a lot of money to find just to stay out of debt. Even bringing in Advertising/Sponsorship deals isn't going to cover those wages is it?

I've just got through my first lot of transfer bans from risers, I managed to buy 50 players with the £4M given to begin with and the value of my squad (think it was £8M) That got me around 27 players rated 80 or over, with only 7 being over 81, that may just be enough to get out of the division, but the wages were £250k per turn when i'm only bringing in £200k per home game, so straight away I am losing money, that unless I get more risers I will not be able to get back or improve my team any further....all the while the people who have top clubs are gradually eating away at the 90+ players, so unless I start to go for them myself by the time my next lot of risers transfer bans are up, I may not even be able to compete when I do get to D1, so this is now making the job twice as hard as it already is. I can't even buy that many youth players because the Aston Villa manager is buying all the ones below £1M and when West Ham became unmanaged I bidded for Collison, only to find a few hours later that Villa bidded too and he ended up costing me £1M in the end.

That was the last straw for me TBH and I went out and bought as many risers as my budget allowed (whilst leaving some money to help cover wages) and I am going to have to buy a D1 standard team as soon as I can whilst in D4, otherwise there is going to be nobody decent left to buy. As it stands in that setup, there is only 1 96 available, 2 players rated 95, around the same amounts of 94 and 6 or 7 93's and I am only in turn 21 of season 1, so you can imagine how difficult it is for me already.

I predict that I need at least 2 more big spend-outs (say 50 players for each time) on somewhere like South America to give me enough money to buy decent players while I still can and to cover my wages, after that it won't be a problem and i'll be able to survive on 10-20 risers a season so I won't be getting any more than that unless I need to.

Hopefully people who are for the cap will take this on board as I believe from flicking through the thread that this is the most detailed example given of just how important risers are to people. Buying risers is not doing any harm at all IMO and I don't see why people are calling for the squad cap because of this. The problem within the game is the big clubs having three 90+ keepers ect, but with squad caps preventing them, it also means that the squad cap prevents the likes of me, who thoroughly enjoys playing the game and is in it for the long term by taking teams on like Rochdale suffers because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

TEBTHEREB said

A wage cap is arguably just an alternative type of squad cap, depending how it is done. It would be frustrating not to be able to buy a player simply as it makes you exceed such a budget, even if you can easily afford the player etc.

I guess it is the same situation we have now with transfer budgets, you end up with a lot of money in your balance but not a lot in your transfer budget, unless you sell players, it is quite frustrating when you have the funds but can't spend it, so a wage budget would be just an extension on that, although coupled with the ability to negotiate player contracts IMO would work well.

As a talking point if you had a wage budget of say 2 million, surely this would be plenty, you could have 30 90 or so rated players at roughly 60,000 each per turn, totalling 1,800,000 and another 200,000 for youth, which at an average of about 5000 to 6000 each would still give you the ability to keep 30 to 40 or so. These figures are just speculation maybe it could be 1,500,000, I'm not sure but at least you could spend you're money when you want as long as you don't exceed your wage budget.

I must say having tried the transfer budget system now for about 10 turns or so, I'm not a big fan of it, yet it has had the desired effect of stimulating the transfer market and put more value into cash, as I've noticed more late 80s rated players on the trasfers lists being sold for cash, but I do believe this is a result of people being caught a little unaware and not understanding the pitfalls of the system, hence a lot of teams not budgeting the previous season and ending up with small transfer budgets then they would have liked, thus having to sell players to increase their budgets. This though i must say I think will only last the first season as next season clubs will be all cashed up again and cash transfers will die again, which was and still is my opinion before transfer budgets were introduced, it is a short term solutions whereas a wage budget would be a more viable long term and ongoing solution. I have a feeling transfer budgets will eventually be scrapped when more workable solutions come to fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

How about introduce a points rating reduction for youth players/main team players etc that end up rotting away, not being played and just being used as cash cows.

This would encourage more loaning out of players and stop managers hoarding 40/50/60 youth players.

eg You buy RB Santon rated 75, if you don't play him in your main squad after one month, his rating drops by 1 for each match he doesn't play after that month.

At the moment he has a maximum rating of 75, so after a month, if he misses games 10 and 11 and 12 he loses 3 points from his maximum rating. He then drops to 72 for missing a whole month and the 3 games that follow that month. The good news, he can get his maximum rating back for each game he plays, so if he drops 3, play him 3 times and he gets back his lost 3 points.

Play a player once a month then he keeps his full rating, simple.

When the rating review comes around, assuming Santon gets a +9 to 84 then that is his new maximum rating. If you had been lazy and not played him then whatever he has dropped to, you still get + 9 added. You could still get himback to his maximum rating by playing him for a few games.

It would stop having 100+ player squads and force you to play a player at least once a month to help protect his rating.

No squad caps, no wage caps, just a consequence of just signing youth players just for cash. Coming on as a sub also counts towards playing time.

Obviously, injuries would not count towards the month of non playing time and you would expect a loaned out player to be playing at least once a month. You would receive a message in your game world saying something like "D.Santon has not played for one month, points will be deducted for future non playing time". Play him once and he is protected for a further month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

To the poster above, this is the second time i've seen a post about players not playing, not sure if both of them was by you, but i'll respond.

What is the problem about "rotting players" as you put it? In case you haven't noticed, most teams in SM aren't managed ect anyway, so I don't see how that makes a difference to the game, I think you are clutching at straws there TBH. Morale can get low whether a player plays or not too, so I don't see how that makes a difference.

Also, what criteria you are using there is rediculous. A player doesn't play for a month, so he drops? That is never going to happen due to the amount of work it would take SM to do it...and that's even if it is possible. Also, you've jused used Santon as an example....think of it this way, if someone has a player for the future then why should they be punished for it? For all you know, it could be a very small team building these players up for the future so they can save themselves a huge amount of money. Do you want to punish my little Rochdale for example, which I have explained above how hard it is to keep running?

Why is the squad sizes bothering so many people? Is it because you are missing out on players for yourself? (I know from reading this thread it isn't the case for everyone) If that is the case, then it should encourage you to look yourself for players.

People seem to be spending too much time worrying about other peoples team than their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

I can confirm that no club in the Champions League' date=' or in the world that I know of, are troubled by a cap on the number of players they can own. :) I am all for pre-selecting a European squad for SMFA games and limiting the numbers, but this is something else entirely to what is being discussed here, isn't it?

[/quote']

There is a squad cap in the Champions League. You can only register up to 25 players as far as i'm aware.

My point wasn't different to the thread discussion - as i'm saying that capping is already in football so isn't so unrealistic. I understand that the likes of yourself who 'accumulates' players doesn't want to see it come in. I myself would like to see a squad cap to make things a bit fairer so newbies can feel like they're getting somewhere in regards to spending money and making their squads capable of challenging the bigger clubs.

The other ideas regarding finances etc could surely be brought in too.

I am not sure when the results of the poll that proved that came in. :rolleyes:

Sorry mate - never mentioned any poll. It's just the comments that i've heard from others who I had contact with, and have just stopped playing it. Nothing to do with getting their favourite club, especially since they know that before they take on any team.

Maybe it would be a good idea for SM to leave a reasons option for those wanting to stop playing, if that doesn't already happen of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Why is the squad sizes bothering so many people? Is it because you are missing out on players for yourself? (I know from reading this thread it isn't the case for everyone) If that is the case' date=' then it should encourage you to look yourself for players.

People seem to be spending too much time worrying about other peoples team than their own.[/quote']

The squad sizes are bothering so many people because it's unrealistic and is stopping some people from sticking at the game.

It boils down to this - if you want the game to be played by the few over the next lot of years, you'll be happy with the way things are going. The way the rules are now, it's stopping newer players from sticking at it.

Besides that - it's just pure greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

It's becoming apparent that unless you hoard players by the truckload, you have no hope of being able to afford or fund the 90+ rated players once you get in the top flight division and thus able to compete at the highest level.

That's fine for someone like me that has all the time in the world, being self employed and working nights but my sons are getting peeved that they haven't got the time to scout the forums to hoard players.

It's a shame that this game seems more about chasing cash than a soccer management game. I agree the current status quo is just fine and dandy for those that like to hoard players but not so good for the long term future in helping keep managers playing the game.

We are down to around 20% managers in my game world and that figure increases by 1-2 every few weeks then 2 weeks later managers resign.

If most the best young talent are contained in squads of 50/60/70 players, where is the incentive for the newbies to play on?

If Soccer Manager was fairer to all, perhaps you wouldn't have such a high churn rate and 75%+ of the leagues empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

Basically' date=' I just mean I don't believe "Player Hoarding" exists in the sense most people use it; ie to mean that managers accumulate squads that prevent others from having fun. I do think that Squad Sizes is a concern though because it is tied in to the issue of money having no value, amongst others. It illustrates that the game has become more about players than about management and tactics, and winning trophies. I am completely against a squad 'cap' but approve of suggestions that will naturally cap squads such as players growing happy and requesting transfers, or higher coaching fees, etc.

A wage cap is arguably just an alternative type of squad cap, depending how it is done. It would be frustrating not to be able to buy a player simply as it makes you exceed such a budget, even if you can easily afford the player etc.[/quote']

You're the biggest player hoarder in the history of SM. It makes sense for you to be the loadest voice in it's defence.

C'mon, surley you can see that managers such as yourself kill game worlds. You make them boring for new managers who join a game world that you're establsihed in. You build a stupid sized squad and will you sell your 22nd choice centre forward....not a chance.

I can't wait for SM to put a stop to player hoarding one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Size Option

TEBTHEREB said

I guess it is the same situation we have now with transfer budgets' date=' you end up with a lot of money in your balance but not a lot in your transfer budget, unless you sell players, it is quite frustrating when you have the funds but can't spend it, so a wage budget would be just an extension on that, although coupled with the ability to negotiate player contracts IMO would work well.

As a talking point if you had a wage budget of say 2 million, surely this would be plenty, you could have 30 90 or so rated players at roughly 60,000 each per turn, totalling 1,800,000 and another 200,000 for youth, which at an average of about 5000 to 6000 each would still give you the ability to keep 30 to 40 or so. These figures are just speculation maybe it could be 1,500,000, I'm not sure but at least you could spend you're money when you want as long as you don't exceed your wage budget.

I must say having tried the transfer budget system now for about 10 turns or so, I'm not a big fan of it, yet it has had the desired effect of stimulating the transfer market and put more value into cash, as I've noticed more late 80s rated players on the trasfers lists being sold for cash, but I do believe this is a result of people being caught a little unaware and not understanding the pitfalls of the system, hence a lot of teams not budgeting the previous season and ending up with small transfer budgets then they would have liked, thus having to sell players to increase their budgets. This though i must say I think will only last the first season as next season clubs will be all cashed up again and cash transfers will die again, which was and still is my opinion before transfer budgets were introduced, it is a short term solutions whereas a wage budget would be a more viable long term and ongoing solution. I have a feeling transfer budgets will eventually be scrapped when more workable solutions come to fruition.[/quote']I agree wage budgets could work, if done well. The problem for me would be if you have a situation whereby you have a large transfer budget and balance, but find you have reached your wage budget. As long as the wage budget could be reviewed to reflect balance, then it would be quite a worthwhile addition, as well as a realistic one.

How about introduce a points rating reduction for youth players/main team players etc that end up rotting away' date=' not being played and just being used as cash cows.[/quote']

I agree with SMPL's response - SM is about player ratings and I don't think ratings changing due to in game performances would be a welcome addition, or really solve the concerns people seem to raise about squads.

There is a squad cap in the Champions League. You can only register up to 25 players as far as i'm aware.
Yes I am aware there is a cap in the number of players you can register to play in the Champions League' date=' and like I said, I would welcome this. However, sides competing in CL are not capped on how many players they can [i']own[/i].
My point wasn't different to the thread discussion - as i'm saying that capping is already in football so isn't so unrealistic. I understand that the likes of yourself who 'accumulates' players doesn't want to see it come in.
Capping does not exist in football' date=' at least not in terms of possession, so to me your point about CL registrations is entirely different...Sorry...

Also, I do want to see additions that limit squad sizes! Just NOT a squad cap. :confused: I don't see how many more times I can say this in different ways.

I myself would like to see a squad cap to make things a bit fairer so newbies can feel like they're getting somewhere in regards to spending money and making their squads capable of challenging the bigger clubs. The other ideas regarding finances etc could surely be brought in too.
Why would you want to see a squad cap though, when you could just have realistic additions that would not annoy the current managers who have large squads, but which would have the same overall effect of reducing squad sizes?
Sorry mate - never mentioned any poll. It's just the comments that i've heard from others who I had contact with' date=' and have just stopped playing it. Nothing to do with getting their favourite club, especially since they know that before they take on any team.[/quote']I was just being sarcastic about the poll... a bad habit of mine, sorry... Fair enough if this is the feedback you have received, however, I maintain that there are more likely reasons why managers leave than this.
Maybe it would be a good idea for SM to leave a reasons option for those wanting to stop playing' date=' if that doesn't already happen of course.[/quote']I am surprised this is not in place as it makes total sense; would be an excellent way for SM to gauge why people leave in general (be it squad sizes, or anything else).
The squad sizes are bothering so many people because it's unrealistic and is stopping some people from sticking at the game.

It boils down to this - if you want the game to be played by the few over the next lot of years' date=' you'll be happy with the way things are going. The way the rules are now, it's stopping newer players from sticking at it.

Besides that - it's just pure greed.[/quote']It is pure sense not greed that drives me to buy more players, and I can't imagine why there is the need to make this kind of assumption about people buying lots of players. As with the excellent example given SMPL a few posts back, for many managers it is the only realistic route to success.

Speaking for myself, there is naff all else to spend the vast wealth I would have otherwise accumulated having wheeled and dealed for 3 years or so. I have one or two squads that have an SM value (ie significantly below likely selling value) of around £1,000,000,000. If I sold all but my first team what is the suggestion I do with all the cash I then have? Count it? Invest it (in what?)? The best players won't be an option, as are owned by me or people in similar situations, generally speaking.

If SM introduced the option of a squad size limit into custom game worlds' date=' at the drop of a hat, I would quit my current teams and only compete in those custom leagues.[/quote']Yep, agree it is a worthwhile custom option.
It's becoming apparent that unless you hoard players by the truckload' date=' you have no hope of being able to afford or fund the 90+ rated players once you get in the top flight division and thus able to compete at the highest level.

That's fine for someone like me that has all the time in the world, being self employed and working nights but my sons are getting peeved that they haven't got the time to scout the forums to hoard players.

[i']It's a shame that this game seems more about chasing cash than a soccer management game.[/i] I agree the current status quo is just fine and dandy for those that like to hoard players but not so good for the long term future in helping keep managers playing the game.

We are down to around 20% managers in my game world and that figure increases by 1-2 every few weeks then 2 weeks later managers resign.

If most the best young talent are contained in squads of 50/60/70 players, where is the incentive for the newbies to play on?

If Soccer Manager was fairer to all, perhaps you wouldn't have such a high churn rate and 75%+ of the leagues empty.

Yeah this is all good sense. Things need to change. I am not sure squad sizes are solely responsible for lower manager activity as I have said before, and do think there are enough setups that people can find a challenge anywhere that suits them and the amount of time they have. There does seem to have been an increasing shift in the last year in people going scouting crazy, probably as most of the successful managers do this, which is a shame because good management should be the best route to success, with scouting just a very useful aspect along the way.
You're the biggest player hoarder in the history of SM.
Not sure whether to laugh or cry at something like this! :)

No idea why I am being denounced as the biggest hoarder in SM. I buy and sell players frequently. I admit am difficult to please in the transfer market' date=' as:

1) I generally have so much cash or assets that cash deals bore me, or

2) If I am offered a p/e, they usually don't excite me as any player I have interest in I will have usually approached the other manager about already at some point.

I don't really feels this makes me a hoarder, whatever that means anyway?

It makes sense for you to be the loadest voice in it's defence.
Give me a break, I don't go about arguing for changes (or lack of changes) that benefit me. I have some large teams and some small teams so, frankly, such an accusation is nonsense.
C'mon' date=' surley you can see that managers such as yourself kill game worlds.[/quote']No, I can't see that. I imagine the people that compete in my gameworlds, many of whom are brilliant in a number of ways and see great results, would be a little insulted by that though. I know when I face other managers with similar signing 'policies' to my own, I think it is just an interesting challenge.
You make them boring for new managers who join a game world that you're establsihed in.
I don't really feel responsible for a new manager finding it difficult if they enter an old' date=' established gameworld. If people want a gentle easy ride when it comes to the transfer market join a new gameworld, if they want a tough one then join an older one, seems pretty simple to me.

Most managers join and just raid the unmanageable clubs for high rated players or youth, but they can't expect this in older setups, surely? As things stand in SM bigger clubs can get rich quite easily within a few seasons, so they inevitably turn to buying these players themselves so they dry up. Me sticking in a setup and doing this, along with others, does not make me the bad guy and why should I feel guilty when a new manager joins and expects me to be excited by a bid below chairman value for my "22nd choice centre forward"?

You build a stupid sized squad and will you sell your 22nd choice centre forward....not a chance.
People on SM sometimes seem incapable of putting themselves in other people's shoes.

Here is what normally happens when people join an older setup

1) They start throwing massive cash offers around for all the highest rated players (they don't think for a minute what the likely finances are of the other larger clubs around them or why someone with a huge stadium and hundreds of millions of pounds in cash and/or players will not be excited by their offer).

2) You click the reject option telling them that you will only accept players in part exchange, as you have so much money already.

3) They therefore bid their weakest players for the player from your first team they like.

4) As neither player they offered has any potential to make your first team, either now or for the forseeable future, you select the reject option telling them that the players they have offered are not good enough.

5) Steps 3-4 are repeated a few times.

6) You PM them to say you are sorry, but don't want their players.

7) They reply begging you for your players, saying how desperate they are and how little you need them, and offer their best players (who are still awful).

8) You tell them you don't need the cash or their players, and sympathise with them but have worked hard to build your side and really have no interest in cash or ballooning the squad still further with yet more players (only this time unwanted ones).

So, yes, in some setups where I am insanely asset rich I wouldn't sell my "22nd choice striker for cash", or for rubbish players. However, this is a reflection on SM and not me.

There are numerous examples of good managers joining old setups and doing extremely well and signing lots of great players, with time and effort. Average managers though should stick to average setups. I am sorry if that sounds arrogant, but what person with any sense expects to join an old/hard setup and face an easy ride?

To come back to the underlying issue, of course the game would be better if squad sizes were smaller and the chances of people having massive squads were slim to none. SM will add features that have this effect.

In the meantime though I cannot understand the need to get at people like me who have some large squads, or why squad 'caps' keep being hailed as a solution. It's a good custom option but has no place long term in the game that I can fathom.

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...