Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest SM Dev (Ste)

Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

Recommended Posts

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

I don't recall ever being "told that U-21 players wouldn't develop concerns" but perhaps one of the devs said that on this thread somewhere?

I think you read only what it suits you in this thread and close your eyes to other.

Read again my post below (only 3 days old' date=' just 2 pages back), read the two quotes from the devs and tell us exactly what you don't understand or isn't clear in the two quotes:

[url']http://forum.soccermanager.com/showpost.php?p=2125563&postcount=1957[/url]

The first one is part from the very first post of this thread, actually the statement about concerns when they were introduced...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

These new player concerns are a joke! How can I have a 75 rated player for Dortmund with concerns for lack of first team opportunities.

Come on SM, sort it out!

picture.php?albumid=380&pictureid=2972

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

If you have say 22 players' date=' all on the same rating, two for each position, then each player is likely to think they are good enough to be in your first team. They are right. They will expect about 70/75% of games. If you rotate them all then this is obviously not going to happen; they will all only get 50%. If it was me I would field my favourite XI, and once they reached a Level 2/3 concern I would switch to my second XI. Then the concerns of the first string will rise and the concerns of the second string will fall. It is a risky strategy but if you want to keep all 22 players then it is one option, loaning is another.

[/quote']

Reading the above, it seems as though you're saying that if you have a squad of 22 players all around 90 rated, it is likely that you will have to sell players as player concerns will spiral.

So if you're in a position where you can't improve that squad of 22 players by adding 93/94 rated player, you are forced into selling valuable players to your squad?

This isn't right, something has quite obviously changed in recent weeks in regards to player concerns and I feel SM should revert back to the system that was in place previous to the change.

Small squads of 22 should not be punished like this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

First you're saying that loaning is an option if I have that concerns problems with my squad. Then you say that no one is loaning players rated that high. Decide.

I am saying that you can loan players out to help with concerns. You said you cannot loan out high rated players. I am saying that is not corretc. I also said that not many people want to loan out players rated 93/94. I don't see how that doesn't all fit together.

It says on the first post players 21 and under will not develop concerns unless they are good enough 4 the first team... and i fail to see how being 3 ratings below my average 1st team rating and that of my 2nd best winger would deem him good enough' date=' particularly as he is getting games![/quote']

It says on the first post "Youth players do not develop concerns (age 21 and under) unless good enough to play;". I would say that somebody who is 2nd or 3rd in his position is good enough to play. I am not saying they should expect to play every game or anything.

If its as you say' date=' that hes amongst the best in his position (even tho a lot lower than the player above him) then surely i should just buy some average rated 90 wingers so this is no longer the case? But surely this would go against what concerns are supposed to stop?[/quote']

If you can get better backups then I would go for it but as I think I said somewhere a little while back I would have thought that a better backup than Rodriguez would expect even more games than him so it depends how confident you would be in juggling that players more demanding requirements. Yeah concerns are there to stop people holding lots of players and not playing them but I expect if you are making use of them there is not much of an issue from SM's perspective.

It makes no sense to play him except in early cup games as keepers are always 100% and available' date=' and there isnt much demand 2 loan 89 keepers. Besides the last 89 player i loaned out got a loan concern anyway so theres not much point.

But hes still 3 ratings lower than my 1st choice and a lot younger, i could understand it when he breaks into the 90s and is deemed world class on the game, but its still a bit harsh at the mo. [/quote']

There are only 26 keepers rated 90+ on SM so I am surprised that in a competitive gameworld that there wouldn't be some demand for him on loan. If there are less than 26 clubs managed in the gameworld and you can't loan him and don't want to play him then is it worth keeping him?

Fair enough but if SM want to take realism to this extreme then it will take the fun out of the game. From what ive read on this thread' date=' i got the impression concerns were 2 stop teams player hogging and amassing lots of 90s who never play. This is fine and imo is how it should be. But this is clearly not the case with lavezzi as he plays in every game. Its only due to me being lucky with injuries he hasnt started more.

The same could be said 4 sczezeny, as having a young back up keeper of 89 is hardly star hogging, particularly as i brought him when he was much lower. I just think concerns have got to out of control and are now no longer focusing on what they should be about.[/quote']

I don't think it is that extreme though mate, if Cavani is mainly a sub it seems really plausible that he would be unhappy to me. If he was to leave yes that's a bit harsh but it is just a level one concern isn't it? I tend to think of a low level concern like a warning just to let you know to play someone more or risk losing them someday.

I don't think you're player hogging to have an 89 rated backup GK but it is still a luxury situation to be in which is why I think the concerns kick in. I know what you mean about concerns focusing on what they should focus on, player hogging, but where do you think the line should be?

these players have played exactly 24game's in legaal game's from the 26 don't count the cup's and smfa than the have play more.is not a big team so the play almost always.

gk= 90+88+75

rb=88+86+77

lb=90+87+80

cb=90+89+89+84+83

dm=90+89+78+77

cm=91+89+86+80+78+77

am=89+89+83+82

wing=91+89+89+85+84+83

cf= 90+87+86+85+83

concerns are rolando 90+moutinho 91+hulk 91(22 game's)+fernando 90+doumbia 90(22 game's)

ticket

We have this ticket research have found no errors' date='this ticket is now closed for further atvertise, please address them to this link www.soccermanager.com/advertiser ...and when i do that i come back to my world's!

Tim when you say don't count the cups and the SMFA games though that is not quite right. The SMFA games will only have a positive effect, the other cup games maybe not.

For instance;

24/26 league games = 92%, the player should be happy

24/26 league games, 1/10 cup games, = 25/36 = 69%, a possible problem.

You keep saying about the Online Help' date=' but that is not "help" at all. It's just a general description and nothing more. Not to mention that in some languages isn't even readable.[/quote']

I keep referring to the Online Help because it is the resource that describes accurately how concerns should work at the moment, it is kept up to date unlike old dev posts on this thread etc.

If the translations are poor in other languages that is obviously not good and needs fixing. I don't understand how the English version is not helpful, I agree it is imperfect though.

I have offered SM to help them improve the Online Help but have no idea whether they will take me up on the offer. I hope so, but fear not.

I want SM to tell us something that would be truly helpful. Like:

- Something about the percentages needed by the players. I know they won't tell the exact number (because they say it would be too easy for us' date=' but anyway IT'S NOT, NOT ANYMORE!), but something approximately would be nice and what the 2nd choices, 3rd, 4th etc need, again approximately.[/quote']

I completely agree, this would be really useful.

- They told us that the Cup/SMFA games only count in a POSITIVE way and not in a negative one. This is what i had in mind the past 2 years when i was calculating concerns and i was able to manage them. That's what they 've changed now and the concerns are unmanageable. At least they could give us an explanation:

Let's say i have a player who needs 75% gametime. The club's games are so far:

20 League games

3 Cups

6 SMFA

The player has played:

15 League games

0 Cups

3 SMFA

What does this mean? He played 15/20? 18/20? 18/29? Until now it was the second. Now what' date=' is it the third, 18/29? This would mean we won't be able to have a first squad more than 15 players...[/quote']

It would be 18/23 (i.e. count all games played, don't count SMFA cup games in max games possible) as far as I know, and has always been like this.

As far as I am aware, the rules in this regard have not changed... why do you think the SMFA cup game bit has changed? You mention that it has changed in some of your later comments too. I am not being petty when I ask this - if they have been confirmed as having changed, I have overlooked this and would like to be corrected, and if this is based upon your experience then it doesn't match mine and I would be interested to hear detailed examples.

Still, how the SMFA cup works is pretty unclear and the cause of mass confusion so I agree the Online Help needs improving here too.

- How is the pecking order for each position decided? If they told us this' date=' at least we could know the status for each player in the pecking order. For example, let's say i have "X player", a 90 rated LB/RB. In my team i have 2 higher rated LBs, but no RB. Would this player considered as a 3rd choice, or as 1st choice?

- If i have Bosingwa (91, RB) in my team, is he considered above the "X player", or not?

- If i have Bale (92, Winger/LB), is he considered above "X", or not?

- Is Ramos (94, CB/RB) considered above X, or not?

- Is Puyol (96, Def) considered above X, or not?[/quote']Again, I agree, this would be really useful if this was made clear on the Online Help. At the moment people are too dependent on guesswork, experience, and the community to answer the above.

My understanding is that a LB/RB is just a "defender" and that he would be compared to all other players whose primary position was defense. For instance, they would be compared to a CB/DM but not a DM/CB.

So in you example, Bosingwa, Ramos and Puyol would be ahead of your 90 rated player LB/RB, but Bale would not be compared as he falls under the midfielders. Why the Online Help can't say this... I don't know.

The Online Help' date=' as i said, is just a general description not helpful at all. This situation is like playing chess, but you don't know the strength of your pawns, or the moves they are allowed to move- when your opposite knows! This is surely not a fun game![/quote']

I agree. As concerns become more important in the game (which people seem to think they have) then SM need to make the help on this more detailed so that people have a decent resource they can refer to for the "rules".

Of course there is a lot of negativity here' date=' since everybody is unhappy and frustrated (the least i can say...) with the new changes in the Concerns! Well, everybody here except you!

SM should take into consideration what people (THEIR CUSTOMERS!) think and feel about this, or everything else in the game. They used to do that, but now they seem that they couldn't care less about what the community feels or has to say!

What they did wasn't just "closing some loopholes", i find it very SHAMEFUL that they call it that way, because they don't want to admit the changes they have done. And i also find this DISRESPECTFUL to their customers.[/quote']

Maybe they were taking note of all the people on the squad sizes thread saying that squads are still too large and that concerns are not doing enough? If people said more constructive things (like you did above, to be fair; great post) then perhaps SM would take greater note of this thread too.

Two major things have changed' date=' they (and you) call it "loopholes", but we all recognize it as CHANGING THE RULES REGARDING CONCERNS:

1st. We were told that Cup/ SMFA games would count only in a positive way and not negatively, and this RULE was standing until last month. Now it has CHANGED.

2nd. The RULE about youth players was that "youth players do not develop concerns (age 21 and under) unless good enough to play". It was, too, standing for the last two years, until recently CHANGED. [/quote']Have talked about SMFA above so won't again here.

Regarding youth, "good enough to play" is pretty open to interpretation. I would say that an 88/89 rated player who is amongst the better players in his position is "good enough to play" - just not good enough to play a lot. So is the problem the mere fact that the youth players have picked up concerns (I find that hard to understand) or that they are expecting too many games (in which case it would be good to hear people's comments on how many games their unhappy youth have played, and how many they think is reasonable).

The least they could do was to give us a notice about these changes. We could have at least the time to manage with that. Now' date=' suddenly, in a couple weeks i have my whole first squad and many youngsters rated 87-89 with lack of games concerns.[/quote']I don't understand why they would give notice about fixing a bug/closing a loophole. The rules have not changed because the "rules" are what is in the Online Help (hence why I keep referring to them) and this has never suggested that youth players were exempt. People have just gotten used to them being exempt and now seem annoyed that the error has been addressed.
It's pretty obvious that many people have the same problems with these changes (except you...) and many people are unhappy (except you...). Some have already said that they are so unhappy that they seriously consider not to renew their Gold membership' date=' or even quit the game! I think SM should look more seriously on this and listen to their customers, instead of just saying " we have just closed some loopholes"![/quote']The people posting on here represent a really small percentage of the community though. People are always unhappy everytime SM change any feature in the game because they become dependent on the "old way" which means they have to change strategy if they want to survive under the "new way" and nobody likes change. I don't love change myself but am trying to be objective about it; is SM allowing younger players to have concerns good or bad for the game? What do you think? Why is it bad for the game? People generally seem to be saying it is bad because:

1) It is unmanageable - this is literally incorrect; you can manage them if you are prepared to consider them. There is no evidence to the contrary - has anyone lost a top youth player yet from the tweaks made in recent weeks?

2) They risk losing their prospects - yes there is a risk but surely there should be a risk of losing good young players if you don't play them. You can still massively mitigate this risk if you can be bothered. It might be irksome to you or I to lose a good young player but for most managers who don't have the luxury of depth this new risk is a massive boon.

It's very simple: Nothing should have changed! The concerns were working in a very good way: Nobody could hoard all the good 90+ players in a gameworld' date=' but everybody could still do his scouting and develop his youth squad. Now, we are forced to have a maximum of around 15 first team players, and almost no young talents, because they all develop concerns even if they are 3rd, 4th, 5th etc choice! Some people in here have said that they have now concerns even for players U21 rated 78, 80, 83... This is becoming a joke now![/quote']

In GC1, I have 71 players out on loan of which 32 are rated 88 or above. A further 36 players are back at base rated 88+. I have 41 players rated 90 or above, in total. This is the joke. Granted I am not hoarding "all" the 90+ players but clearly concerns were not working when squads like this were possible.

I think you read only what it suits you in this thread and close your eyes to other.

Read again my post below (only 3 days old' date=' just 2 pages back), read the two quotes from the devs and tell us exactly what you don't understand or isn't clear in the two quotes:

[url']http://forum.soccermanager.com/showpost.php?p=2125563&postcount=1957[/url]

The first one is part from the very first post of this thread, actually the statement about concerns when they were introduced...

Jeez... I am sorry I didn't remember your post and didn't comment specifically on it at the time, and that I didn't remember John's post from 2009! Should I assume that as you have not commented on everything I have ever said on this thread, that you are "closing your eyes" to some of the things I have said?! Harsh mate!

Looking again your post was quoting SM Dev (Ste)'s recent comment confirming that nothing has changed in recent weeks. Ste was confirming that concerns have not changed pace (they are still at the same intervals) and that they have closed some loopholes (youth ducking the system).

You then talked about the impact of SMFA games having changed which as far as I know is not one of the loopholes he was referring to and thus should not have changed. Maybe it has? Can you give us all the numbers for the players you mentioned (as I said before would be genuinely interested to see examples supporting this)?

You then state that something has changed as Courtois got a concern and yeah that has changed; he used to be exempt and now that is fixed. He is your third choice keeper but a quality one so will expect some games. This was one of the loopholes that have been closed. You then quote a 2009 post from Ste where he says that players "good enough to play" under 21 will expect games, which is a category Courtois falls into so I don't think it contradicts what he said. As above, how many games should be enough is up for debate - how many has he played for you?

You then quote John saying you shouldn't lose players unless they are the same or similar to your first team. OK i agree it seems odd that Courtois is picking up concerns when he is third choice, 5 rating points off the pace, and young, so I would suggest that you contact SM Dev (John) as he said to in the rest of his post back in 2009. Refer to the post. Or better yet send a bug ticket pointing out that the game is not operating in the fashion confirmed by the Online Help and a dev on the forum.

Fundamentally though, I am not sure that it is "wrong" that someone like Courtois is getting concerned by not playing when he is a quality keeper and capable of playing regularly at another side. If you have Valdes or Neuer then how long are you planning on keeping Courtois waiting? How long should he be prepared to wait, in your opinion? In real life he would be second best on rating in Chelsea's team, they loaned him out, and he had a full season abroad as probably wouldn't have been content to never play behind Cech.

I do think that for keepers, it might be more appropriate if there were more "lack of opportunity" concerns and less "lack of games" concern as that seems to fit the situation better. Boils down to much the same though.

These new player concerns are a joke! How can I have a 75 rated player for Dortmund with concerns for lack of first team opportunities.

Come on SM' date=' sort it out![/quote']

I suppose you would get that concern if a player is quite a way down the pecking order...? Is that the case? Is it unreasonable for a player to be concerned if there are lots of players ahead of him?

Reading the above' date=' it seems as though you're saying that if you have a squad of 22 players all around 90 rated, it is likely that you will have to sell players as player concerns will spiral.

So if you're in a position where you can't improve that squad of 22 players by adding 93/94 rated player, you are forced into selling valuable players to your squad?

This isn't right, something has quite obviously changed in recent weeks in regards to player concerns and I feel SM should revert back to the system that was in place previous to the change.

Small squads of 22 should not be punished like this![/quote']

That is the opposite to what I meant to say so I am sorry if my post was unclear mate, all I meant was that if you have two XIs of 90 rated players you can just flip your XI now and again and you will stand a good chance of keeping them but they will all get concerns at some point (but never enough to leave).

I can't see that small squads are being punished in any way and they are certainly being penalised far less than larger squads so they will find a lot more opportunities on the transfer market if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

It would be 18/23 (i.e. count all games played' date=' don't count SMFA cup games in max games possible) as far as I know, and has always been like this.

As far as I am aware, the rules in this regard have not changed... why do you think the SMFA cup game bit has changed? You mention that it has changed in some of your later comments too. I am not being petty when I ask this - if they have been confirmed as having changed, I have overlooked this and would like to be corrected, and if this is based upon your experience then it doesn't match mine and I would be interested to hear detailed examples.

Still, how the SMFA cup works is pretty unclear and the cause of mass confusion so I agree the Online Help needs improving here too.[/quote']

As i mentioned is this thread:

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showpost.php?p=2125563&postcount=1957

First team players like Puyol and Aguero got concerns for lack of games. Up to Turn 22, Puyol had played 22,5 games (not 23 as i mentioned in the thread above, he has 1 sub) and Aguero 21.

Until Turn 22, my team had played:

22 League games

7 Cup/Shield

6 SMFA

Total 35.

Puyol's 22,5 games were:

12,5 League

4 Cup/Shield

6 SMFA

With the old system, the 22,5 would be more than enough to be happy. It would be 22,5/22=102% (as i calculated the last two years), or 22,5/29=78% (as you say above).

But, with the new rules, after turn 22 Puyol was unhappy! The only explanation is that the SMFA games now count negatively as well! There is nothing else here. So, Puyol's percentage is 22,5/35=64%, that's why he developed the concern.

Aguero is same case. 21 games:

12 League

5 Cup/Shield

4 SMFA

His 21 games would be enough to stay happy before. Now, because as it seems the SMFA count in a negative way, the percentage is 21/35=60%.

It's not just Puyol and Aguero, it's almost my whole first team, plus some youngsters i have rated 89 or below. And this is a small squad, about only 30-35 players, which i chose to keep small because i have a very strong first XI. Still, almost all the players have now concerns! What i think about this? It's unmanageable; it's a joke; ridiculous; takes the fun out of the game (i can't say more because i 'll be banned).

And this is happening in all my teams, small or large squads. I'm spending already too much time each turn to calculate the percentages needed every time. As i see it, the only way now to play the game would be to have around 15 first XI players and around 10 youngsters. If you have more, you will lose some on concerns. But this isn't the game i want to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

Also, i must say that i'm not a gold member, so i don't have control of my teams in SMFA games. With the new rules (that SMFA now count in a negative way towards concerns), this means that I'M BEING PUNISHED WITH CONCERNS FOR GAMES THAT I DON'T EVEN CONTROL AND DON'T CHOOSE THE STARTING XI!!

This is just insane. I would like to know who thought about this and implemented it to the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

As i mentioned is this thread:

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showpost.php?p=2125563&postcount=1957

First team players like Puyol and Aguero got concerns for lack of games. Up to Turn 22' date=' Puyol had played 22,5 games (not 23 as i mentioned in the thread above, he has 1 sub) and Aguero 21.

Until Turn 22, my team had played:

22 League games

7 Cup/Shield

6 SMFA

Total 35.

Puyol's 22,5 games were:

12,5 League

4 Cup/Shield

6 SMFA

With the old system, the 22,5 would be more than enough to be happy. It would be 22,5/22=102% (as i calculated the last two years), or 22,5/29=78% (as you say above).

But, with the new rules, after turn 22 Puyol was unhappy! The only explanation is that the SMFA games now count negatively as well! There is nothing else here. So, Puyol's percentage is 22,5/35=64%, that's why he developed the concern.

Aguero is same case. 21 games:

12 League

5 Cup/Shield

4 SMFA

His 21 games would be enough to stay happy before. Now, because as it seems the SMFA count in a negative way, the percentage is 21/35=60%.

It's not just Puyol and Aguero, it's almost my whole first team, plus some youngsters i have rated 89 or below. And this is a small squad, about only 30-35 players, which i chose to keep small because i have a very strong first XI. Still, almost all the players have now concerns! What i think about this? It's unmanageable; it's a joke; ridiculous; takes the fun out of the game (i can say more because i 'll be banned).

And this is happening in all my teams, small or large squads. I'm spending already too much time each turn to calculate the percentages needed every time. As i see it, the only way now to play the game would be to have around 15 first XI players and around 10 youngsters. If you have more, you will lose some on concerns. But this isn't the game i want to play.[/quote']

You're wasting your time debating with Teb mate. He's a SM fanboy who only see what he wants to see. Likewise, us expecting SM to give any credence to our concerns (pun intended) is a pointless exercise. The only thing they'll understand is when we all walk away.

I can already see the number of managers in my setups dwindling and I suspect that the reasons are: dissatisfaction with concerns, inconsistency of results (rubbish match engine) and cheating being ignored/fair deals being prevented. Two of the three issues continue to be ignored and the other is being tinkered with for the worse. Pathetic isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

It says on the first post "Youth players do not develop concerns (age 21 and under) unless good enough to play;". I would say that somebody who is 2nd or 3rd in his position is good enough to play. I am not saying they should expect to play every game or anything.

Rodriguez is 3rd in his position but his 3 ratings behind mata who is 2nd' date=' and is 3 ratings behind my average 1st 11. I also have more players of higher rating whos secondary position is winger. Therefore i cannot see how he can be good enough, and how this doesnt go against whats stated in the opening post. It would be bad enough if he wasnt getting minutes, but the fact he is makes it even more ridiculous!

If you can get better backups then I would go for it but as I think I said somewhere a little while back I would have thought that a better backup than Rodriguez would expect even more games than him so it depends how confident you would be in juggling that players more demanding requirements. Yeah concerns are there to stop people holding lots of players and not playing them but I expect if you are making use of them there is not much of an issue from SM's perspective.

Thats fair enough, im only interested in established and rising stars or up and coming youngsters (like most managers). Id happily buy average 90 rated players if it saved the likes of rodriguez from getting concerns. But surely this would go against what concerns is about (player hogging?) iv sold 90+ rated backups to avoid concerns, to now get punished by having my lower rated youth players targeted is ridiculous and is not what concerns should be about.

There are only 26 keepers rated 90+ on SM so I am surprised that in a competitive gameworld that there wouldn't be some demand for him on loan. If there are less than 26 clubs managed in the gameworld and you can't loan him and don't want to play him then is it worth keeping him?

Its a competitive gameworld but only really in the top division' date=' so most teams have a keeper of at least 89. But as i said, if i loan out an 89 they get a concern anyway, so its a no win situation.

But, like with a lot of young players, i brought sczezeny when he was much lower rated. I then dont want to be forced to play them when they are miles below my 1st team average and not even in the 90s. It makes trying to buy young players before they become stars pointless, and takes away a key element of the game.

I don't think it is that extreme though mate, if Cavani is mainly a sub it seems really plausible that he would be unhappy to me. If he was to leave yes that's a bit harsh but it is just a level one concern isn't it? I tend to think of a low level concern like a warning just to let you know to play someone more or risk losing them someday.

I don't think you're player hogging to have an 89 rated backup GK but it is still a luxury situation to be in which is why I think the concerns kick in. I know what you mean about concerns focusing on what they should focus on, player hogging, but where do you think the line should be?

I think 90+ players should expect to feature (as a player or sub) in around 70% of games. This then allows u to have a core squad of about 14-16 to use as u wish, as starters or subs, and eliminates hoarding of 90+ players who dont play. 89 and below shouldnt be affected, except maybe 4 the lack of opportunities concern, and 21 and under absolutely shouldnt be concerned unless they are in the 90s.

At this rate concerns are going to dictate to managers who should be playing and wheres the fun in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

Well for me, I like player concerns. I think it's a big improvement to SM as it brings man management into the game rather than stockpiling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

Is there any evidence ie experience from fellow managers that an 89 rated or slightly lower player wants only a handful of games to appease his concern when the first team is an average 90+ or are they expecting 70/75% of games also?

Im not against concerns per se I just think they need to be sensible without taking the fun out of the game. I think most people now find they play the players they want to keep and worry about appearances rather than just playing a management game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

Well for me' date=' I like player concerns. I think it's a big improvement to SM as it brings man management into the game rather than stockpiling.[/quote']

It does not bring man management into the game at all. It's not as if you can sit a player down and inform him that he is very much part of the clubs future plans and assure him that if he bides his time and works hard, he will reap the rewards (that's man management).

What the new player concern system is doing is forcing managers to field weaker teams in order to keep all the players happy to counter the threat of them leaving.

There is a fine balance in making the game realistic and enjoyable and I believe SM are putting too much emphasis on making the game realistic whilst ignoring areas of the game that need to be addressed.

The system was working fine until SM tinkered with it, now it's a shambles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

What the new player concern system is doing is forcing managers to field weaker teams in order to keep all the players happy to counter the threat of them leaving.

This is what I find challenging and it gives the game depth. The man management - dealing with players at an individual level, whether it's fitness, injuries, bans, morale, contract, salary or concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

The new concerns system will stop stockpiling of players but it also kills a lot of fun. It's unrealistic for 89 rated players to develop worries when there are far better players in the squad.

I think an idea that might work is to go back to the old system where concerns only affect 90+ players but implement a squad limit both for first team and youth team. This way instead of us losing all our young talents, we can at least choose who we want to sell and who we want to keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

I have a lot of teams and the player concerns it's normal in some ways but it's not normal if my players have concerns when they injured.

For example i have a player 92+ and he is injured 12 weeks and i got concerns level 2 in 3 weeks and i have a lot of weeks to go it's sure he will drop a level again because he dont play because he is injured... :(:(:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

As i mentioned is this thread:

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showpost.php?p=2125563&postcount=1957

First team players like Puyol and Aguero got concerns for lack of games. Up to Turn 22' date=' Puyol had played 22,5 games (not 23 as i mentioned in the thread above, he has 1 sub) and Aguero 21.

Until Turn 22, my team had played:

22 League games

7 Cup/Shield

6 SMFA

Total 35.

Puyol's 22,5 games were:

12,5 League

4 Cup/Shield

6 SMFA

With the old system, the 22,5 would be more than enough to be happy. It would be 22,5/22=102% (as i calculated the last two years), or 22,5/29=78% (as you say above).

But, with the new rules, after turn 22 Puyol was unhappy! The only explanation is that the SMFA games now count negatively as well! There is nothing else here. So, Puyol's percentage is 22,5/35=64%, that's why he developed the concern.

Aguero is same case. 21 games:

12 League

5 Cup/Shield

4 SMFA

His 21 games would be enough to stay happy before. Now, because as it seems the SMFA count in a negative way, the percentage is 21/35=60%.

It's not just Puyol and Aguero, it's almost my whole first team, plus some youngsters i have rated 89 or below. And this is a small squad, about only 30-35 players, which i chose to keep small because i have a very strong first XI. Still, almost all the players have now concerns! What i think about this? It's unmanageable; it's a joke; ridiculous; takes the fun out of the game (i can't say more because i 'll be banned).[/quote']

OK so going on how I thought it was/is calculated, Puyol has got a concern having played 78% of games, and Aguero has got a concern having played 72% of games. Puyol getting the concern surprises me, Aguero not so much, as the best players usually want 70-75% but it is still pretty borderline. Would you mind if I have a look at your team to see if anything strikes me about why this has happened? Which gameworld is it?

And this is happening in all my teams' date=' small or large squads. I'm spending already too much time each turn to calculate the percentages needed every time. As i see it, the only way now to play the game would be to have around 15 first XI players and around 10 youngsters. If you have more, you will lose some on concerns. But this isn't the game i want to play.[/quote']

Do you think it would be better if there was something on the tactics screen or squad view making it crystal clear, at a glance, each player's percentage of games played? Personally I don't bother trying to work it out but a lot of people seem concerned about not being able to manage their sides easily enough.

You're wasting your time debating with Teb mate. He's a SM fanboy who only see what he wants to see. Likewise' date=' us expecting SM to give any credence to our concerns (pun intended) is a pointless exercise. The only thing they'll understand is when we all walk away.[/quote']
+1

The guy seems like a complete tool and must be dating one of the SM developers.

How about responding to what I have said in response to your comments if you disagree with me guys' date=' rather than calling me names? Surely I don't [i']have[/i] to agree with you guys.

I can already see the number of managers in my setups dwindling and I suspect that the reasons are: dissatisfaction with concerns' date=' inconsistency of results (rubbish match engine) and cheating being ignored/fair deals being prevented. Two of the three issues continue to be ignored and the other is being tinkered with for the worse. Pathetic isn't it?[/quote']

I agree the continuing lack of development on the match engine is really hard to understand. I don't really see a lot of cheating in the gameworlds that I am in so can't really comment on that.

Rodriguez is 3rd in his position but his 3 ratings behind mata who is 2nd' date=' and is 3 ratings behind my average 1st 11. I also have more players of higher rating whos secondary position is winger. Therefore i cannot see how he can be good enough, and how this doesnt go against whats stated in the opening post. It would be bad enough if he wasnt getting minutes, but the fact he is makes it even more ridiculous![/quote']

I suppose what I would like to know is how many minutes he is getting, and how many minutes you think somebody 3rd choice should get? I think he should be expecting some match time but only a small amount.

Thats fair enough' date=' im only interested in established and rising stars or up and coming youngsters (like most managers). Id happily buy average 90 rated players if it saved the likes of rodriguez from getting concerns. But surely this would go against what concerns is about (player hogging?) iv sold 90+ rated backups to avoid concerns, to now get punished by having my lower rated youth players targeted is ridiculous and is not what concerns should be about.[/quote']

Agreed it shouldn't be about that. I don't think that "hogging" is a manager having 90 rated backups, and I think a manager should be able to do that but just needs to expect some unrest and the need to juggle players. It is the people who have high rated third, fourth, fifth choice players where concerns should be really biting.

Its a competitive gameworld but only really in the top division' date=' so most teams have a keeper of at least 89. But as i said, if i loan out an 89 they get a concern anyway, so its a no win situation.

But, like with a lot of young players, i brought sczezeny when he was much lower rated. I then dont want to be forced to play them when they are miles below my 1st team average and not even in the 90s. It makes trying to buy young players before they become stars pointless, and takes away a key element of the game.[/quote']

Yeah they will get a loan concern but then just recall them when that gets to level four and that concern will drop off. If you are not playing him at the moment then I can't suppose it matters to you if he is constantly unhappy about something, just as long as he doesn't walk out.

I think it is still just as important as always to buy rising players, they will either make your squad better or swell your coffers. I just think that when those rusers get to decent ratings, managers are now being forced to think "is this player going to be first choice for me anytime soon" rather than "I can keep him indefinitely until he increases, or sell him if he ever looks like dropping". This kind of mentality has been causing squad sizes to gradually get bigger and bigger.

I think 90+ players should expect to feature (as a player or sub) in around 70% of games. This then allows u to have a core squad of about 14-16 to use as u wish' date=' as starters or subs, and eliminates hoarding of 90+ players who dont play. 89 and below shouldnt be affected, except maybe 4 the lack of opportunities concern, and 21 and under absolutely shouldnt be concerned unless they are in the 90s.

At this rate concerns are going to dictate to managers who should be playing and wheres the fun in that?[/quote']

What you describe is basically how it used to work until recently but I think SM corrected it as too many clubs had growing pools of 89 rated players and high rated youth.

In some gameworlds these players would make some manager's first teams. I have a few clubs guilty of this and now I am going to have to decide whether I really need to keep all these players which I think is only good.

For the gameworlds where the 89 and below rated players won't get into anyone's first XI, I am more inclined to agree with you. Perhaps something could be done so that player concerns are gameworld specific.

It does not bring man management into the game at all. It's not as if you can sit a player down and inform him that he is very much part of the clubs future plans and assure him that if he bides his time and works hard' date=' he will reap the rewards (that's man management).

What the new player concern system is doing is forcing managers to field weaker teams in order to keep all the players happy to counter the threat of them leaving.

There is a fine balance in making the game realistic and enjoyable and I believe SM are putting too much emphasis on making the game realistic whilst ignoring areas of the game that need to be addressed.

The system was working fine until SM tinkered with it, now it's a shambles. [/quote']

I think it only forces managers into fielding weaker teams if they have faith in their weaker players one day surpassing their first XI. I don't understand why that is a bad thing. If they don't expect the weaker players to ever be first choice, why bother keeping them? If they are just wanting to keep them as backup, they shouldn't have to play them much.

Why do you think the system was working fine until now? My experience was that it was a shambles as so many players dodged the system and squads were getting huge.

Is there any evidence ie experience from fellow managers that an 89 rated or slightly lower player wants only a handful of games to appease his concern when the first team is an average 90+ or are they expecting 70/75% of games also?
This is what I would like to know really' date=' quite a few people have complained that backups are picking up concerns, but I am not clear whether these games have played 0%, 20, 50% etc.
I have a lot of teams and the player concerns it's normal in some ways but it's not normal if my players have concerns when they injured.

For example i have a player 92+ and he is injured 12 weeks and i got concerns level 2 in 3 weeks and i have a lot of weeks to go it's sure he will drop a level again because he dont play because he is injured...

Your player will only pick up injuries whilst injured if he hadn't played enough games before getting injured mate, injuries freeze their percentage but the player will still get reviewed every few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

@ tebthereb

There is an obvious concern here amongst experienced SM users and I would like to ask this simple question:

Is anything going to be done to rectify the unnecessary changes to the player concern system? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

If this was merely an attempt to reduce squad sizes, I feel it has not been implemented correctly and has been forced through without enough thought going into the process and change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

I have a lot of teams and the player concerns it's normal in some ways but it's not normal if my players have concerns when they injured.

For example i have a player 92+ and he is injured 12 weeks and i got concerns level 2 in 3 weeks and i have a lot of weeks to go it's sure he will drop a level again because he dont play because he is injured... :(:(:(

He got injured before a long term injure and that's the reason that he coulnd't play enough matches and had concerns it is not fair to get concerns if someone has 2 times a long injured in 1 season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

This sentence here from your quote TEB confirms to me that the goalposts have been moved recently or in other words the rules changed regarding concerns, Not so much fixing loopholes but slightly changing the rules IMO.

"What you describe is basically how it used to work until recently but I think SM corrected it as too many clubs had growing pools of 89 rated players and high rated youth. "

I do appreciate all your replies that ive seen TEB but for me now and even when concerns 1st started i just dont enjoy them.

I would much more enjoy say a squad cap of 50 players, Even with one of my teams that have 100+ players i still think i would find it more fun trimming down that squad than the concern saga.

I would not enjoy quitting my teams of over 3 years as im attached to them and done loads of work on them but the fun is being drained right out of it for me.

SM is committing euthanasia IMO...........:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

These new player concerns are crazy. I’ve spent years getting my team to where it is now, having 22 players all 89 or over (2 in each position) so i'm able to cope with the multiple of games.

Last season I got to the final of both cups and the European cup, so needed all 22 players just to keep everyone fit, as at times I was playing 3 games in 3 days for week after week. At the end of last season I had 1 player who was unhappy at lack of games, fair enough. Now this season I have kept the same approach, currently in both domestic cups at semi final stage and still in Europe. However, the latest player concerns have turned 11 players unhappy due to lack of games (my squad has hardly changed, 1 midfielder out and 1 in).

On this 75% of games keeps people happy basis, how can that work when you have all the cups to play too. Even if I sold a forward so only having 3, sold 1 winger so only having 3 would mean they still wouldn’t be happy as they would only play 66% of games (on the basis they miss 1 in 3). So how are you expected to keep a squad big enough to compete in all the games and keep them happy?!?

It’s a bit stupid if the expectation is that you have say 14 really good players and the rest and much lower rated! Look at the premiership, teams have a good 20 players and then the fringe players, not just a starting 11.

At the moment it seems I’m expected to sell approx. 7 players from my 22 man squad and replace them with much worse players that are happy not playing but in reality will have to play as you can’t play 3 games in 3 days with the same team.

Seriously not impressed. It took a lot of work to get my squad to where it is, now one rule change later and it looks like i have to sell half it off, either that or try and juggle an unhappy squad,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

I've been playing since 2008 with only one club. My FC Porto has now the best team on server. I have 2 or even more players on same position and now I will have to sell half of my squad? If it looks like this then this isn't fun anymore for me. IF it won't change to the way it was let's say two weeks ago I will quit this game :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

@ tebthereb

There is an obvious concern here amongst experienced SM users and I would like to ask this simple question:

Is anything going to be done to rectify the unnecessary changes to the player concern system? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

If this was merely an attempt to reduce squad sizes' date=' I feel it has not been implemented correctly and has been forced through without enough thought going into the process and change.[/quote']

I would like to know as well. Does SM intend to keep the concerns the way they are right now? Is this how the game will be for good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

These new player concerns are crazy. I’ve spent years getting my team to where it is now' date=' having 22 players all 89 or over (2 in each position) so i'm able to cope with the multiple of games.

Last season I got to the final of both cups and the European cup, so needed all 22 players just to keep everyone fit, as at times I was playing 3 games in 3 days for week after week. At the end of last season I had 1 player who was unhappy at lack of games, fair enough. Now this season I have kept the same approach, currently in both domestic cups at semi final stage and still in Europe. However, the latest player concerns have turned 11 players unhappy due to lack of games (my squad has hardly changed, 1 midfielder out and 1 in).

On this 75% of games keeps people happy basis, how can that work when you have all the cups to play too. Even if I sold a forward so only having 3, sold 1 winger so only having 3 would mean they still wouldn’t be happy as they would only play 66% of games (on the basis they miss 1 in 3). So how are you expected to keep a squad big enough to compete in all the games and keep them happy?!?

It’s a bit stupid if the expectation is that you have say 14 really good players and the rest and much lower rated! Look at the premiership, teams have a good 20 players and then the fringe players, not just a starting 11.

At the moment it seems I’m expected to sell approx. 7 players from my 22 man squad and replace them with much worse players that are happy not playing but in reality will have to play as you can’t play 3 games in 3 days with the same team.

Seriously not impressed. It took a lot of work to get my squad to where it is, now one rule change later and it looks like i have to sell half it off, either that or try and juggle an unhappy squad,[/quote']

its not really that stupid to have 14 really good players higher rated than the rest.

look at united 1-96 1-95, 3-93s,3-92s,2-91s, and the rest are 90 and under. thats only 10 players above 90 and your talking about having 22.

man city have 2-94s, 4-93s, 3-92s, 3-91st and the rest 90 and under thats only 12 above 90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

My celtic team in gold championship i have mattieu rated 90 and marin rated 90 unhhappy.. both players are the best player in my team for that position, Even tough i was not under pressure to drop them i wanted to play gaitan rated 89 more and antonini rated 89 at lb. [antonini unhappy aswell] matthieu and marin have played like 20 games each in league this season aswell as most if not all champs league mtchs plus cup.

point is

I can't play a 3rd set of players ie. first 11 2nd 11, + My youths which are getting 89/90 standard (teb keeps saying loan out.. he missing the point.. teb likes to loan out in gc-1, soon he must either sell his top/aging players or lose star propects or 2nd 11 players, WHENEVER I loan out players they become unhappy, if i recall there loan concern will drop but they will want to play, if not playing they will get unhappy about not playing and now at this stage its getting dangourous because there unhappy at playing will not decrease and if i loan out to try keep i will lose them) or i can instead play them so now i must play my 89/90 rated youth instead of modric xavi piique etc, SM IS FORCE US TOO MUCH TO PLAY WEAKER TEAMS IN COMPETITIVE GAMEWORLDS.. why should somebody who has casilless who is not old for a gk be forced to play de gea in many league matches just to have a keeper for the future? if you have buffon for example then this is a worse situation for you.

I must sell eventually at current estimates my 2nd 11 players or my upcoming youths.. me nor teb should be forced to sell are highest rated players or not play them just to hold neymar ganso etc etc

Standard gameworlds are a mess, only 15/25 managers in most of them, but lots of 90+ players which will become available soon as teams must sell [MORE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, even tough i work on my team 6 years, now my rivals &noobs just into setup buy my players for cash, teams with top players wont sell you xavi for witsel+someone, and other teams have no players u need]..

Im sick having to look into SM everyday i see i either need to sell xavi* or witsel.. or choose between villa & neymar, if i choose neymar my amigo get villa, now his team better.. easy

maybe i cud get pato off someone for villa, but reailty is villa is 95 pato 92, this game about building the best possible team. at least let us play them.

maybe SM needs to change the rating systym, more players 94+ hu are really at a good level (these 92+ now) and players like neymar ganso oscar lucas etc rated i duno like 90/92.. neymar ballotelli rated same ledesma off lazio, 1 cap for italy and harnanes same as neymar & he only play friendly for brasil.. neymars lucas's of this world should be higher.. look at all the shames rated 89 on this game, but at the same time ganso alcantera dzagoev also rated 89, and neymar only 1 above ibagza and giuly etc..

if neymar went to 93 in the morning i would not bat an eyelid, would be a fair rating (i dont have this guy in gc's jus saying ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

I've been playing since 2008 with only one club. My FC Porto has now the best team on server. I have 2 or even more players on same position and now I will have to sell half of my squad? If it looks like this then this isn't fun anymore for me. IF it won't change to the way it was let's say two weeks ago I will quit this game :(

how fun is it for everyone else in your gameworld when you have all the best players. this game isnt about collecting every top player and putting them on one squad and winning everthing. most people enjoy competition for players and trophies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)

its not really that stupid to have 14 really good players higher rated than the rest.

look at united 1-96 1-95' date=' 3-93s,3-92s,2-91s, and the rest are 90 and under. thats only 10 players above 90 and your talking about having 22.

man city have 2-94s, 4-93s, 3-92s, 3-91st and the rest 90 and under thats only 12 above 90.[/quote']

Actually he said he had 22 players above 89 Man U have 16 players 90+ and 4 X 89 which is 20 players, I'd say 22 is not an unreasonable squad, in my opinion it's even a little too small, especially if you get smashed by injuries. Infact the fact he has concerns with only 22 players show how unreasonable concerns really are, that is minimum squad, concerns should be in place to punish people like me with a squad of 195 players (in my defence scouting is my way of playing the game, trophies are consequential) not managers that keep things tidy

how fun is it for everyone else in your gameworld when you have all the best players. this game isnt about collecting every top player and putting them on one squad and winning everthing. most people enjoy competition for players and trophies.

Actually that's exactly what this game is about, it's about getting the best possible team and winning everything. I've yet to see one manager on this game that forsakes high ratings or future potential ie the best players. Every manager goes for above 90's if possible and the lower div teams try and sign the best lower rated youngsters, everyone's out to make the best squad they possibly can, simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...