Jump to content

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


Guest SM Dev (Ste)

Recommended Posts

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

As I mentioned in an earlier post' date=' 'concerns' don't seem to be adversely affecting GC's to anywhere like the same degree as in other types of setup. Do you have any non GC's with large squads?[/quote']

Yes and you're right there - I have a Barcelona in a Spanish Championship with 83 players, of which 26 of them are 90+ rated. Since the beginning of this month, 14 of them have developed lack of games concerns ranging from Welbeck (89) up to Abidal (92).

The concerns for this team could simply be because this is the best team I have in any setup (there are 5 clubs in Division 1 with most of the best players between them, Real Madrid have 27 90+ players too), none of my GC teams have so many "top" players...GCs tend to be harder to build good teams in as there are more teams fighting for players, fewer external teams to buy from and more managers asking for 8 21 year old 89 rated players for their 34 year old 92 rated player!

Unless concerns in non-GCs really have been tweaked so they are a bit more frequent, which would be a very serious issue that needs looking at!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help) I think a nice feature would be to have the min number of games a player has to play within his profile. As alot of people who pl

Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help) the only problems I can see with the new concerns are youth developing concerns eg under 21s and players supposedly developing c

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

So as I see it now the way to play this game is as follows.

Build your starting 11 as normal with the best u can buy, then buy another 11 really bad players who only play when our first 11 have fitness problems, which if you play 3 times a week won't be long.

Then you keep your first 11 happy and your rubbish players dont get concerns.

Hmm, how rubbish! Sort out these concerns!! You have to rotate to play all the games your put in yet by trying to rotate with good players they all get concerns. Having 3 90+ forwards and roating them will lead to them all becoming unhappy as non would play 75% of games only 66%.

Rubbish rubbish rubbish!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

this thread makes interesting reading and I am also experiencing the same problems. I think I have 22 player concerns with my one team!

Will SM do anything about this as it seems to be affecting alot of members?!

I was looking to become a gold member as I really enjoy playing the game but this has made me think twice before I spend my money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Log'd in tonite to see that ahmed musa and frimpong (two good talents) are leaving because their wages reached level 5..

Im active on said team i wda thaught when they went to level 3 that id at least have a week to bother renewing their contract but now level 5

anybody that was away on hols for the last 3/4 week is coming home to a nice suprise. if i had not logged into my teams to renew contracts i would be losing a shed load on all teams i have, various reasons why i may not have renewd before which include that it is time consuming for 25/30 teams to do every player that got a concern last week aswell as tight financis at clubs..

i spent years waiting for these players etc i kept them happy for years, now in one/two week this happen, you only gna screw less active dedicated managers more than the likes of me so....

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

This is becoming beyond a joke, i have a team were i have 22 first team players, and this season played about 50 games and nearly all have played about 25 each or say 30 and 20 the others, and now most my team have level 1 concerns, Now i have not jumped on the "player concerns is a bad thing outcry" as i think stockpiling players/talents is not realistic, squads of 100, or more or even say 50 is totally unrealistic, but this is not realistic either SM, as you can see from my comments I have fairly rotated my squad, which most teams do now IRL:confused:, and i am playing as realistic to a real manager as i can only to find i'm being punished, this needs your attention asap.:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Log'd in tonite to see that ahmed musa and frimpong (two good talents) are leaving because their wages reached level 5..

Im active on said team(s) i wda thaught when they went to level 3 that id at least have a week to bother renewing their contract but now level 5

anybody that was away on hols for the last 3/4 week is coming home to a nice suprise. if i had not logged into my teams to renew contracts i would be losing a shed load on all teams i have' date=' various reasons why i may not have renewd before which include that it is time consuming for 25/30 teams to do every player that got a concern last week aswell as tight financis at clubs..

i spent years waiting for these players etc i kept them happy for years, now in one/two week this happen, you only gna screw less active dedicated managers more than the likes of me so....[/quote']

Agree.

Love the sig btw. Sadly it is very true. As sad as it sounds, I love doing scouting when I have nothing else to do, and these concerns just punish you for putting more work into your team than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Log'd in tonite to see that ahmed musa and frimpong (two good talents) are leaving because their wages reached level 5..

Im active on said team(s) i wda thaught when they went to level 3 that id at least have a week to bother renewing their contract but now level 5

anybody that was away on hols for the last 3/4 week is coming home to a nice suprise. if i had not logged into my teams to renew contracts i would be losing a shed load on all teams i have' date=' various reasons why i may not have renewd before which include that it is time consuming for 25/30 teams to do every player that got a concern last week aswell as tight financis at clubs..

i spent years waiting for these players etc i kept them happy for years, now in one/two week this happen, you only gna screw less active dedicated managers more than the likes of me so....[/quote']

thats crazy I had about 25 riser develope level 1 wage concern about 2/3 months ago and now its only on level 3 and these players were bought about a year ago

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Please all take your time to vote in the player concern poll on the following link...

Are player concerns ('lack of games') ruining your SM experience?

I voted in the poll but was disappointed to see the usual 'head in the sand comments' that "concerns are easy to manage blah blah blah..."

Don't these idiots realise that the escalation of concerns is going to be a game changer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I voted in the poll but was disappointed to see the usual 'head in the sand comments' that "concerns are easy to manage blah blah blah..."

Don't these idiots realise that the escalation of concerns is going to be a game changer?

maybe these 'idiots' are actually better at this game than you and can manage a squad? however everyone agrees that the youth concerns are wrong. people are not idiots just because they have a different view than you and besides isnt the whole point of a forum that everyone can freely express their opinions?

of course the system is not perfect.there have been a few good suggestions as to how improve the system.

I have not once heard you make a suggest any ideas or make any constuctive/positive contributions all you have done is moan and complain. which do you think is more likely of the following.....

1. sm admitting they were completely wrong and reverting back to the old system after childish bully tactics by some people eg. treatening to leave.

2. accepting people are not 100% happy with the new system and finding out the major problems and adjusting it eg. stopping youth getting concerns/slowing down concern development/players who are a certain rating below the first team average needing a lower amount of games

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 wish I knew the answer to this question, unfortunately I don't.

My opinion is that the changes you feel are unnecessary are, in fact, necessary. The devs are of the same opinion so I guess that makes it a "no" at present, but I suppose if enough people object to what has been done and give good reasons besides being personally annoyed/disadvantaged they might consider changing it.

I know quite a few people have posted about not liking the changes here but it is hard to say whether these people represent the forum community, let alone the entire SM community, many of whom have either not noticed, don't care, or approve.

Even more player concerns today! This is just preposterous and really has me peeved off with the lack of feedback from anyone at SM.

I've reported my concerns via the ticket system and also sent a message to SMDevJohn a few days back

The response to the ticket was the usual automated bull

I've not had a response from SMDevJohn as yet

Don' think John has come on the forum since Tuesday' date=' probably better off contacting SM Dev (Ste) who is on the forum more often. They should respond to your ticket soon even with just holding a response, normally takes them up to three working days for that.
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?
The only reason your player should have concerns is if, whilst uninjured, you did not play him enough. The games he misses through injury don't count towards him getting a concern.
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' date=' 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. "[/quote']

I know it feels like the rules have changed and can see where you and everyone else is coming from, but for me the rules have not changed as the Online Help has never said that players of a certain rating are exempt from concerns so I think SM have just put things in line with what the "rules" were always intended to be.

I appreciate some people think it was better uncorrected.

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' date=' 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...........:([/quote']

I would see how it pans out, personally. I expect that like me and many others you will have picked up a lot of Level One concerns but that should give you a decent amount of time to put this right if you can be bothered.

Out of interest why don't you find it fun to try and manage these concerns to keep hold out of players that you have accumulated? Personally I am quite enjoying the challenge and am not finding it time-consuming. I gather in other games (FM etc) managing players is a popular feature and whilst I know that SM is not as sophisticated it still seems a step in the right direction to me.

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']

Yes I think your options are to sell some players or juggle a squad to keep them happy. I don't understand why the latter is onerous when you have a well balanced squad and lots of similar rated players?

I would recommend that you take the concerns acquired as an indicator that you need to give the players in question a greater emphasis, but this can be done in a number of ways. I think that too often people think that a player concern means they are going to lose the player; they need not.

Looking at the squad you posted up, which is great by the way, I definitely think you are going to be kept on your toes keeping them happy but the squad doesn't seem excessive enough that you will necessarily lose anyone.

So as I see it now the way to play this game is as follows.

Build your starting 11 as normal with the best u can buy' date=' then buy another 11 really bad players who only play when our first 11 have fitness problems, which if you play 3 times a week won't be long.

Then you keep your first 11 happy and your rubbish players dont get concerns.

Hmm, how rubbish! Sort out these concerns!! You have to rotate to play all the games your put in yet by trying to rotate with good players they all get concerns. Having 3 90+ forwards and roating them will lead to them all becoming unhappy as non would play 75% of games only 66%.

Rubbish rubbish rubbish![/quote']You could do it like that but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Ultimately your opponents are going to be in the same position.

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 :(
I see the discussion went about my team. I play SM for over 4 years. I took FC Porto in it's 1st season. Their squad was very very weak' date=' there were 3 fixtures to end of the season and I couldn't help them. Next season I got promoted and started to building my squad. For over 4 years I have built one of the best squad on the server but no one gave me these players for nothing. As someone said earlier I spent many many hours trying to buy best players. I attached to that team. Why should now I sell them to other players? They don't even need to try to buy them if my team has over 20 concerns. And it took me so long time to have that strong team. It's only thanks to me, not some concerns. And my squad for the first team presents like this:

GK - Casillas + De Gea(concerned)

RB - Lahm + Ramos (both concerned)

LB - Marcelo(concerned) + Alba

CB - Pique + Chiellini + Kompany + Hummels (all concerned)

CM/DM/AM - Mascherano + Modric + Fabregas + Silva (all concerned)

Wing/AM - Muller(concerned) + Goetze + Di Maria(concerned) + Hazard

Fwd - Messi + Aguero + Rooney + Sanchez

In the past concern system was okay but now it's ridicoulus as I HAVE to reduce my squad and give my best players away for money...and money means **** on my server. Still think it's fair?[/quote']

Lahm 28(1) ' date=' Ramos 29

Marcelo 23 , Alba was just bought

Chiellini 28, Kompany 24(3), Hummels 9(2) due to long term injuries , Pique 28(2)

Mascherano 25(14), Modric 30(10), Fabregas 33(10), Silva 35(11), Muller 25(8)

Gotze 25(4), Di Maria 30(3).

All these players are concerned. I counted SMFA games as they are counting.[/quote']

With respect, no you don't HAVE to reduce your squad. You would only have to reduce it if you are unprepared to address the concerns.

I can see why you would want to keep all your players, as you have a host of great talent. However, this is also why the players are getting concerned. You can't expect to have a super squad and not expect some players to get concerns.

Hard to say why your individual players are concerned as it is not clear from what you have said how many games they could have played. The number of games played looks high for some, but as they are top players they are understandably going to expect a high percentage of games.

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' date=' 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

Yeah, you can't expect to have a super squad and not have them pick up concerns.
(teb keeps saying loan out.. he missing the point.. teb likes to loan out in gc-1' date=' soon he must either sell his top/aging players or lose star propects or 2nd 11 players[/quote']

Good! My team is ridiculous! Although I disagree I must either sell my top players or lose them. I can play them if I really want to keep them. If I don't really want to keep them that much then I don't care about losing them.

WHENEVER I loan out players they become unhappy' date=' 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..[/quote']

Again, I think this is a good thing. Although I disagree SM are forcing you to play weaker teams. They are just forcing you to make a decision about who you want long term and to balance this against the short term - which again I think is a good thing.

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.
You acknowledge that Casillas is not old. So why do you require a world class keeper in reserve? De Gea is too good to be playing second fiddle to Casillas for potentially years to come. If you expect him to surpass Casillas soon' date=' then recognise this by giving him more opportunities.
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

Personally I intend to play my highest rated players, give my most talented fringe players more game time, and sell anyone I am not able to keep happy outside of that by loaning them or giving them very minor roles. Yes that is going to make me lose some players I would rather keep. It's not about what any individual wants though (I want all the best players and prospects, but that's selfish, unsustainable, and bad for the game) and it is about what will improve gameworlds.

Standard gameworlds are a mess' date=' 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']..

The mess you describe is one of the reasons these changes are necessary.

SM have carried out extensive research with both active and non-active managers regarding why they left a Game World and the majority of the feedback centered around the fact that most of the good 88/89+ rated players were all within a handful of clubs within the Game World. When they tried to buy the players they were rejected straight away with "not for sale" or "part exchange only".

Yes it is leveling the playing field if more 90 rated players are freed up but you still get to choose which ones leave so you are still at a massive advantage having been playing for years. If the game carried on as it was, don't you think there would be a risk of you eventually owning the vast majority of the best players, and the number of managers shrinking to a really uncompetitive level? It is getting a bit like that in some Game Worlds that I am in.

Im sick having to look into SM everyday i see i either need to sell xavi* or witsel.. or choose between villa & neymar' date=' if i choose neymar my amigo get villa, now his team better.. easy[/quote']So you have the luxury of having multiple quality players, you previously didn't have to manage this, now you do. Isn't this realistic? You face the risk of your competitors taking good players if you don't keep them happy. Isn't this realistic? Don't your competitors face the same problem? I don't understand why any of this is bad apart from the demand on your time you face from having to now manage concerns - but it takes, what, 10 seconds to look at the Reports tab and determine who needs greater emphasis?
maybe i cud get pato off someone for villa' date=' but reailty is villa is 95 pato 92, this game about building the best possible team. at least let us play them.[/quote']You can still build the best possible team. You just can't have the best of both worlds. You can't expect to have a super squad, present and future, with ease. You need to strike a balance as teams in real life would.
maybe SM needs to change the rating systym' date=' 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 ;))[/quote']

I know SM are planning to speed up rating reviews, is that the sort of change you would welcome?

I think most of the players you mentioned are looking at rating increases next time they are reviewed and that they will all be reviewed much sooner than it would take them to go from Level 1 to 5. Of course, not all players are ever going to be reviewed as you or I or any customer would like as it is all so subjective.

iv'e already proven with stats that trying to keep a 90/91 rated as your 2nd choice gk can become very hard to manage' date=' & only manageable by droping your first choice gk.. there's no logic to this for anyone.. the only person who gains is another player/noob to setup/or rival etc etc etc[/quote']

The logic is precisely that the people who will gain are the newcomers who might otherwise have left, when faced with only the prospect of signing trash keepers when you have one you are unlikely to use for years to come.

you lose for being good manager having good players/no too many players but quality players/with potential} SM must recognaise potential espcially when giuly and dzagoev have same rating.

i am 100% opposed to players under 23 getting unhappy ;) regardless of rating unless there 93/94 and never play.. there's a limit but not SM's current limit or how they rate players.

Younger players get unhappy less easily. From the Online Help:

The younger players within your squad (especially those under 21) are content to bide their time unless of course they are good enough to play (due to being amongst the higher rated players within your squad). This is because the younger players do not expect to play as many games as older players and therefore won't develop concerns about not playing. It is also worth noting that younger players (especially those under 21) stay happier for longer (unless they are good enough to play in the team) and once they get over this age limit they start to want more games or will wish to move on to further their careers.

You seem to be saying that you think "good enough" should be players rated 93/94 but I think it is ridiculous that it is acceptable that players 89-92 (who would expect game time in most squads in reality) should be content not to play just because they are young.

you cant keep a first 11.. a 2nd 11 {witsels benegas etc 92+} and your best 89/91 youths..

I'm pretty sure this is the way SM want it.. they need to be made aware of why this is simply not a good idea gamewide' date=' espcially in standards.[/quote']

I agree SM don't want the norm to be for people to have a first 11, second 11 and a host of young 89-91 youths. Can you please elaborate on why this is not a good idea, as I don't follow?

if SM want to remove my 2nd 11.. then let me play my first 11 100% of the time like they do in real life

They don't want you to remove your second XI if you need them and are happy to give them games. They want you to make a decision about who you need and get rid of the rest. Seems fair to me.
understand how angry i am when a player ive had 4/5 years since he was 16 17 starts getting unhappy because his rating is still 89 and not good enuff YETTTTTTT for my first 11' date=' I SACRIFICED (wether i needed to or not) my first 11 quality for years to sign such players. when players like ibaza and giuly are considered the same level/quality as neymar lucas etc[/quote']OK but you must be able to understand how angry people get when they join a gameworld where someone like you or I have set up camp and built a monstrous empire? I get PMs telling me how annoyed people are at my sides quite regularly and frankly I can't blame them. The fact that we have become accustomed to having an unrealistically huge and talented squad does not make this fun, realistic, or good for the long term future of the game.
5 too many' date=' SM really about getting the highest rated players, so you can play them, SM should also allow you to keep youths REGARDLESS if they ever play or not, because this is another philosophy of how to Play SM, you should not be punished by having the best star players & best youths, [b']thats the point of this game.[/b] shels never asked for handouts of players 6 years ago but now i need to ((sell)) dzagoev neymar de gea cause they start get unhappy.

SM should respect those who can build such teams, ITS NOT HARD.. you want team like me then do it, it's not difficult game but dont make it easy.

about driving away managers, tommorow will be too late if people are already doing this, once someone quits a setup they are unlikly to return so onow instead if 15 managers ina setup you get 12 then the new teams free wont be picked up because all players level 3 4 5 unhappy.. this what will happen soon at current speed of concerns.

Shouldn't a football management game be about managing your team and winning rather than having all the best players and prospects as you are saying? I know the tactical side of things is flawed but I don't think it is a bad thing if SM are trying to take the emphasis of building super squads.

GC Team rooney puyol milner concerned' date=' because i was playing 89 rated players instead :(

HAD TOO.[/quote']

Surely you CHOSE TO rather than HAD TO? Who on earth were you playing above Rooney? Presumably he is still your main man and you expect him to be a while, so give him more time than the 89 rated forward you benched him for and his concern will drop. The 89 rated one might get one, granted (although perhaps not as he should not want much, and you might have already given him enough), but you can always switch back again if you really want to keep both.

This game is all about transfers' date=' signing your favourte players etc, the first thing I wanted to do after finding a club is do transfers, stoping honest transfers, "REMEMEBER YOUR STOPING HONEST CUSTOMERS" is not good for you, & there's too much of it, even if you don't realise it.[/quote']I think this game is about different things for everyone.
2nd is the topic were on' date=' things are alittle bad, but i think they gona get worse.. so heres a heads up, why dont you do a poll on facebook asking 2 questions

1) Is anti cheat prevention systyme in place is sufficient

& 2, a question which might be better to ask in awhile after managers start losing there fav players/teams

2) Are player concerns ruining your enjoyment of SM?

Find out for yourself what 200,000 people think.

with regards q1, i understand that maybe there's no better/afordable option than there currently is, but if this was the case just come out and say so.

question two is not about taking concerns away, it's about altering a few things.

Fact is, & thats not to say the forum is bad or anytin, but logging into forum instead of the game first in the morning says something.

THIS TOPIC IS 137+ PAGES LADS.[/quote']

I would like to see SM do a public poll to all users of the game about concerns and to try and obtain constructive criticism, there has been very little on here other than "put it back to how it was" which is obviously an opinion people are entitled to have but it is pretty clear that concerns were not harsh enough in the past and too easy to wriggle around.

The problem with forum polls is that the results are generally populated by people who have a problem and then find the thread or have been talking about it for a long time. The average user, who has no issues, wouldn't bother with a thread or see the poll to give any support. Not sure how it works on Facebook as I don't use it much but if it just pops up in all members faces it's a good idea.

I think that even if the majority say they don't like concerns, SM are not going to reverse the changes unless someone can come up with some better practical solutions as to how to ramp up concerns without very similar effects.

Have you noticed that every time SM change something significant in the game, the community goes nuts and then gets over it within a few months? People are always resistant to change and I think if SM conducted a poll and changed their mind based upon negative feedback the game would never see any changes.

Fernandez Gabi' date=' my best DM (89) is uhappy starting 14 games and 2 subs appearences since arriving from another club were he had already played 15 league games

HOW THE IS HE UNHAPPY, he's practically played every single gamne since joining.[/quote']It doesn't matter how many games he played at his last club. 14 games and 2 sub appearances out of how many possible games?

Log'd in tonite to see that ahmed musa and frimpong (two good talents) are leaving because their wages reached level 5..

Im active on said team i wda thaught when they went to level 3 that id at least have a week to bother renewing their contract but now level 5

anybody that was away on hols for the last 3/4 week is coming home to a nice suprise. if i had not logged into my teams to renew contracts i would be losing a shed load on all teams i have' date=' various reasons why i may not have renewd before which include that it is time consuming for 25/30 teams to do every player that got a concern last week aswell as tight financis at clubs..

i spent years waiting for these players etc i kept them happy for years, now in one/two week this happen, you only gna screw less active dedicated managers more than the likes of me so.... [/quote']So inactive people who fail to log on regularly are at risk of not seeing their players' concerns increasing, and risk losing them....What is the issue here? If I was going on holiday and had players on high concerns about wages I would have just renewed them. Nothing should be happening in 3/4 weeks that can't be reversed unless the concern was allowed to build up long before that.

I lost my best keeper in EC1 to a wage concern and my backup was rated 6 points lower. I was gutted about it but it was my own stupid fault as I had just been deleting Club Messages. Incidentally this is the only player I have wanted to keep that I have lost to concerns so far.

If you are saying that Frimpong and Musa went from Level 3 to 5 in one go then I would send a bug ticket in as that is not right. If they went from Level 3 to 5 in a very short space of time, a few weeks, I would do the same as that seems wrong too.

Maybe SM wants to spread the top players around more but in the end they will find they've alienated and persecuted a large portion of their members' date=' members that have played for years and built teams that they are attached too, have spent hours working on and probably loads of money too with gold memberships etc and will see it in decreased activity, you can already see members aren't willing to continue Gold management, a large proportion of SM's revenue I'd hazard, others are willing to quit after 2/3/4 years of playing what's been up until now a great, very fun and enjoyable game. Concerns have taken some of that fun out, along with lack of customer support and cheating being ignored for the most part. [/quote']

I agree that these changes are going to upset some established members, this thread clearly proves that, but I think the changes are probably pleasing a lot of new and future managers which is an infinite number.

In the long term I think there will be established managers that are incredulous that large squads ever existed in SM because it really should not have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Realism' date=' I don't want realism I want to play [u']a game[/u] loosely based on Real life, I want to be able to play the game the way I want to play it within the rules, I've never cheated and never will yet I have awesome squads due to my hard work and effort, effort I've put in over the last 4+ years, I feel I'm now being punished for spending hundreds of dollars and investing hundreds of hours in SM.
You will keep the core of the awesome squads you have built and make massive profits from the players you decide to let go, plus you will be able to make a killing from signing players from other managers who are having to let managers go. It's gutting to lose players you signed up long ago etc but it should make your gameworlds more competitive and enjoyable to be in once the dust has settled.
You know what I just thought of' date=' it's going to be impossible to keep concerns away.

if you have a

93 Winger, (1st)

92 Winger, (2nd)

90 Winger, (= 3rd)

90 Winger, (= 3rd)

89 Winger, (5th)

88 Winger, (= 6th)

88 Winger (= 6th)

your bound to get concerns on the two 90 Wingers and maybe the 89 Winger, so you have to sell them now you have

93 (1st)

92 (2nd)

89 (3rd)

88 (= 4th)

88, (= 4th)

your 89 and 88 players will now get concerns since their role within your squad has become much more important, so no matter what you do you'll basically always have concerns if you have more then 2 players per position regardless of ratings.

93 (1st)

92 (2nd)

88 (3rd)

86 (= 4th)

86, (= 4th)

confusing but that's my current theory[/quote']

Do you think there is anything wrong with this end result?

I've never had a problem with concerns before' date=' I used to play my second team every now and again, as well as in every cup match, and some of them play whe I rotate my team round.

Until now that had been fine no one got concerns and everyone was happy, however SM must of done something to the concern engine on the game because now almost every one had got a concern.

SM need to sort this out because I can't be doing with loosing some of my best prospects because they arent good enough to get into my first team.

I'm abitious and want to be high up the league so if I don't play my best team then I won't be there!!

SM are forcing me to change the way I rotate my squad and my league position is suffering because of it! [/quote']Mmm, but everyone was not happy though. As above loads of people were leaving due to not being able to sign good players. The changes affect that in a positive way.

If you want instant success then you can play your first choice players but will need to appreciate the increased risk of your future stars getting unhappy. If you want to keep an eye on the future you will have to give your future players more time at the expense of your first choice players - that might mean less success now but will mean you are laughing in future. Or you can try and hit a middle ground, which seems like the sensible thing to me.

At the end of the day your competitors will be facing the same issues.

So far its Jack Wilshere and Thiabit Courtois who are 89 and 88 rated. I cant realistically play Courtois over Buffon and no one really knows if he wants 5 games or 70% of games so I guess I wait and see with that one! My teams are 93+ rated average starters.

I think concerns must be taking into consideration previous seasons more or something because Cavani just went to level 3 not playing concern even though hes played 36 games (28 starts' date=' 16 sub appearances) in a 19 game (thus far) season!

Gotze 28 games (23 starts, 10 sub) games in 19 league games also went up.

Concerns wil drive away casual players quite rapidly as I have seen in one or two setups. For me as a long term player it will be the same.[/quote']I am a bit confused about some of these stats, Cavani has played 36 games in a 19 game season and Gotze 28 out of 19? Presumably the 19 is just league games this season, so what about the other games?

It's a good point about concerns potentially being measured across more than one season, perhaps that has been changed as it was easy to abuse the system when the clock restarted with the each new season.

Today I have 2 delightful problems with the concern auto transfer list system.

Case 1

I bid slightly higher (200k) than the AI on a 94 rated player (auto transfer listed due to concerns) in a gameworld with a transfer window (its outside of the window).

Not only did I lose to an external club who bid less when the player would have been a sure starter (my best right back) but the transfer has gone through outside the transfer window AND I cant bid for anyone else from that team as in my club transfer history it still registers my bid. I cant withdraw it so i probably have lost out on both players...

I have no idea how transfer windows work in SM work so can't really comment on that aspect. If you bid more than an external club and they got the player' date=' don't you just need to report that as a bug? Likewise if transfers are completing outside of transfer windows, I would assume? Why can't you withdraw the bid? I don't follow how this is a problem with the concerns system other than that the player came up for grabs due to a concern.

Case 2

Player auto transfer listed (diferent club to case 1) Manager leaves and new manager joins said club. Player is auto transfer listed for £28 million but because of new manager the manager protection thing kicks in I have to bid £40 million. Thats just silly.

I dont think in either case the situation makes any sense. Surely a human club should have preference over an external club - isnt the game about human players after all? Not to mention in the second case that the protection system shouldnt kick in to a player that is auto transfer listed. No one is taking advantage of a new manager in that case.

I agree this doesn't make much sense! I think the issue is more about how the manager protection works than player concerns. If it was me I would be tempted to send a Bug Ticket as I am surprised if SM think the game should operate in this way. They might not feel it is a bug I suppose but I can't understand what that would be based upon.

A lot has been said regarding this important part of the game' date=' but I'd like to add two things:

1- Loans are not an option for fighting concerns.

In 95% of the cases, it's impossible to loan out even 87-88 rated players, there simply aren't enough managers in the games. And even if it were possible, good players grow concerns even about being loaned out very quickly. A possible solution would be to let even unmanaged teams, especially from lower divisions, to accept loans, but it seems SM won't allow it.[/quote']

Loans are an option for fighting lack of game concerns, because by being out on loan they should be getting games. If not, not sure why the club taking them wanted them. I agree that when being loaned out, they will get concerned about that, but you can always recall them.

I agree that in many Game Worlds it is not competitive enough that people want to loan 87-88 rated players. However, it is these Game Worlds that will hopefully become more competitive when decent players get concerned and leave.

Furthermore if a Game World is uncompetitive I am not sure why people really need 87-88 rated players on their books unless they are planning for the future in which case they will need to think whether the player is really going to be good enough long term to give games to now.

I think that SM are unlikely to let unmanaged clubs make loan bids as this will just make it easier for clubs owning lots of players to carry on as they were.

2- Teams need 22 players!

If you want to compete in a league' date=' a cup, a shield and an international cup you'll play three matches a week for almost the whole season. It's simply impossible to use the same players saturday-monday-wednesday, if you want to have fit players, so teams need two good XI. But if you use this strategy with the new concerns, almost all the players would grow concerns, because they are all missing at least 1 match out of 3 every week. I'd love to use my best XI in every match, without needing any substitutes, but I just can't.[/quote']I agree it is impossible to play the same team three times a week if you are in the luxury position of playing in multiple competitions all season. However, there is nothing to say you have to field a fully fit side to be successful. Many people don't put much store in this.

In any case, you are right in that concerns will afflict some of your players in the situation you describe as they can't all get 75% of games. I think in the majority of games you should be able to use your best XI and then bring on fringe players when you are winning or from the start in cup games. The jury seems to be out on whether this is actually enough to keep fringe players happy though.

Hopefully SM will see sense and change it back before its too late' date=' or maybe abolish concerns altogether, as they clearly don't work, don't achieve what they should set out 2 do, go against key elements of the game, and alienate way too many people![/quote']The changes have been in place a matter of weeks, so I think it is harsh to say they don't work etc. What effect do you see the changes having, and what effect do you think they should be having?
These "loopholes" that were plugged' date=' have led to changes which have made the SM experience, for many users, distressing. Teams that have had years of effort and work pumped into them are either being dismantled by concerns, or being forced to field weaker sides.[/quote']Neither of these things are happening to my teams. I have been having to field different sides to what I would otherwise have chosen since Player Concerns were introduced, the changes have just brought in a greater number of players to those I have to give consideration to.
I'm going to be honest' date=' after joining SM in 2007 I never thought I'd still be playing in 2012. And until recently, I never thought that a few loopholes being plugged would make me consider quitting... yet here we are.[/quote']This seems a real shame to me. :( Don't you think a few weeks into these changes is far too soon to make a decision upon, after years of playing?
I have no problem with squad sizes being combated if it is for the benefit of the community - and it is player concerns which seems to be combating squad sizes - but it seems to be adding to a growing list of problems* instead of solving one.]

*customer support [lack thereof]' date=' cheating, SM Credits farce, relatively basic engine [on the surface there appears to be too few variables, mainly limited to formation and rating'], innocent deals being reversed, and in many worlds cash has little/no value.

The only people benefiting from the current situation are those who frequently hop between worlds, whilst those who commit themselves to a world are having the benefits of longevity taken away.

Longevity should never really have been a benefit though, should it? Loyalty is of course something to admire but it is wrong that people should be able to acquire the monopoly on players over time, and that tends to be what has happened in SM where a manager stays put at the same club for a long time.

Changing that is not punishing loyalty it is just putting right a longstanding wrong that loyal people have happened to be the main beneficiaries of. The cynic in me would say that many managers have only remained loyal to some clubs because of the advantage having been there so long has provided.

I don't understand what problem you feel the change in player concerns has created or added to? You have said you don't mind squad sizes being combated and acknowledge that it is squad sizes that are doing this.

If there is a punishment for lots of scouting' date=' a punishment for spending years building, a punishment for dominance, and yet minute punishment for cheaters and little customer support / explanations....[/quote']You are suggesting that more players getting concerns is punishing people who scout players? I can't understand it. I have spent years scouting too, and I don't feel punished in the slightest. I have reaped the benefits for years of scouting players and will reap massive financial benefits even if I find myself needing to sell some of my huge squads of players. Did anyone who has been playing for years and scouting on a large scale really expect this to be allowed to continue unchecked indefinitely? :confused: Ultimately the "scouts" who know their stuff and out in the time are still always going to have a massive advantage over managers in their gameworlds that are less into scouting.
Lets face it...nothing will change.

In one GW' date=' I have a team with an average rating of 88 for the first 16 players.

I have a 17 year old, 78 rated Danish riser with L1 concerns about lack of games.[/quote']

Already tried. In wc10000 I am Barcelona. Average rating of 95' date=' and 93 for first 18 players.... So all my u21s get lack of game concerns but the are rated 10 points below 1st team

SMs response...... Automated..... No bug.

Thanks sm, thanks.[/quote']

Send another bug ticket mate, quote the relevant sections of the Online Help and why your circumstances contradict what it says, ask for a personalised response or for your ticket to be escalated to somebody else as you are not satisfied. Keep it polite and I don't see why SM should not oblige.

If you get another automated response, drop SM Dev (Ste) a PM along the same lines as the ticket but bear in mind he gets loads. If still no joy drop me a line with details of your squad etc, I will happily try and get some attention in my role as "forum supervisor" but I can't guarantee anything as have no say in the game.

The loopholes SM fixed where to basically call their own rules around concerns nonsense. It's a joke' date=' in some GW's I've got 10+ players with concerns, and I am resigned to losing them. [/quote']

Why are you resigned to losing them? Make an effort to keep them and there is no reason why you should not be able to.

What really frustrates me... in some GW's where I have huge squads I'vebuilt over time I've got no concerns...but in others where I alread use rotation I've got them pouring out of me like I've been eating vindaloo the night before.
I would hazard a guess that the gameworlds that have not picked up lots of concerns are due for a review and that if they are large squads you will pick up batches of concerns in the next few weeks.
I sold Kuranyi from a team I have in a competitive WC 2 days ago. He is used as a sub in alternate games and plays most cup games from the start' date=' he is my 5th choice forward. However, as a result of this he has quickly reached a level 4 lack of games concern, so I sold him, begrudgingly.

Today I log in to discover that the SMFA have reversed this transfer after an investigation... I have previously reported the other manager plenty of times as have other managers as he has about 8 clubs in this gameworld and often does ridiculously one sided transfers between these clubs, i.e. Iniesta for chairman value, Canales going the other way for 25m, those kind of obviously dodgy ones. Yet SM do absolutely nothing about this guy and then reverse the one transfer I have ever done with him... How bad is this? Oh, and they didn't reverse the transfer he did for De Gea at chairman value from one of his feeder clubs on the same day. I think this just about sums up the mess up the devs have made this game in the last 12 months.

One good thing came out of it though, he lost his concerns. So there is a way around it, have multiple accounts, pass your risers around them until they are about to be reviewed, then sell them to your "Main" account at chairman value, get the rise, sell them, make profit without the fear of getting banned as SM don't care about cheats anyway.[/quote']The issue of player concerns going when deals are reversed is just a bug, which SM are aware of. What you are suggesting is of course cheating but I assume you are being sarcastic or something.

How comes you have been dealing with someone you think is a cheat?

From your post to the dev's ears! Unfortunately I don't think they give a toss what we think:mad:
SM are monitoring this thread. As I mentioned above' date=' the things they have changed about concerns was prompted by research done on departing customers.
I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that if you have "a huge squad with loads of stars" then you expect to lose some players to concerns. That has been the case for me since they were introduced. I have been willing to sell the likes of Sahin, Hamsik, Afellay etc. (for a good profit) in order to keep my core squad and the likes of Ozil, Muller and Neymar to come through. That's just the way it is. However with the escalated concerns I'll have to sell all of my future prospects and just play the same starting line up - replacing them with low rated players too low to develop concerns when they're not available through suspension, injury or lack of fitness. Also there'll be no point in scouting new players because they'll develop concerns before making it in to the team. Where's the fun in that?
Why will you have to sell all your future prospects? Won't you just have to decide which of them you value the most and give them a bit more game time to keep hold of them?

I think that for people like yourself who are knowledgeable about ratings, the changes will force you to make you more selective but that won't be a problem. The changes are also going to present a load of opportunities for people like you. So, I think you will keep hold of the best players and continue to see long term benefits from scouting.

Except that this isn't the case. In my Roma team (WC 117)' date=' for example, 42 of the 46 first team and fringe players now have concerns. These concerns range from level 1 up to level 4, meaning that I am having to play the players who have the highest concens despite the fact that I am in the final stages of the league season, where my team currently sit top by 1 point from a closely grouped chasing pack.[/quote']Wouldn't the players on Level 4 concerns have started developing their concerns long before the recent changes were put in place?
I know that I am going to have to reduce my squad further but the reality is that by the end of next season I will be lucky if I have 16 players from my first team squad left. Some of the first team squad are currently out on loan (now that cup competitions are resolved' date=' as well as a number of youth players. Next season I will not have the option of sending these players out on loan to help other managers out due to escalated 'loan out' concerns - so those players will have to go too.

The above scenario is mirrored in another 4 of my setups, with 3 more currently manageable within the concerns framework. It is only my 4 GC teams where concerns are not really an issue. Frankly, on this basis, I cannot see me renewing my gold membership when it expires. The irony is that I would pay a much higher gold membership fee if the game was improving rather than deteriorating as it is at the moment. I hope for SM's sake their business model will allow them to make money out of all the high-churn newbies that they are targetting to replace the long-term members that are the bedrock of most setups. [/quote']

Looking at your Roma example you have 49 players rated 88+ so it seems reasonable that you should have to reduce it further. What do you think would be a reasonable size squad for your Roma to compete well, and do you not think that if the changes are stretching you it is going to have the same effect on your opponents? Aren't your opponents going to have less of a luxury of selection in terms of who to keep and the amount of money they make from the players they do sell?

Latest concern report for my Roma (WC117) has just come in:

The following players have had their 'lack of games' concerns increased:

Correia Adriano Level 2

Souza Robinho Level 2

Anderson Luisao Level 4

Steve Mandanda Level 2

Gregory Van Der Wiel Level 2

Adil Rami Level 2

ToniKroos Level 2

Thomas Muller Level 2

Ranieri Sandro Level 2

Kyle Walker Level 2

All of these players last had a concern increase on June 15th. On June 19th a further 10 players had an increase in 'lack of games' concerns and on June 22nd another batch of 11 had an increase.

I'm now bracing myself for a further rise for this next group in the next 7 days. So much for Teb's claim that there are several months between concern increases on individual players!

I don't agree that players should be reviewed that often' date=' and if they are I think this needs changing. My comment about it being several months between reviews was made in good faith based upon my experience to date.

[b']If player concerns are being looked at every few weeks I agree this is far too quick.[/b]

If this happens to one of my teams I will be sending a Bug Ticket to see if SM really believe this should be happening or if it is a bug.

Bear in mind that since the last rating change I have attempted to rotate as many of these concerned players as much as possible but the reality is that at this speed of increase I will not be able to get the concerns down unless I drop all my existing starting 11...which will mean that they develop concerns and with their 75% of starts requirement they will leave before I can give them enough games. Oh yeah' date=' I should mention that I am in a League title battle with six games of the season left to complicate matters further.

This is plain and simple stupidity by SM who have not thought through the consequences of their actions. Does anybody [b']still[/b] believe the lie that this was just a case of closing a few "loopholes"?

So, drop your first XI to boost your chances of playing your fringe players, or give the fringe players more game time to keep them. Which players do you want to keep more?

I don't think SM have "lied" to us they just perceive it as closing a loophole whereas you don't.

I don't understand' date=' I mean, John Obi doesn't exactly play every game in real life either. Players like Essien being benched for Chelsea etc, Nuri Sahin of Madrid, Pedro of Barcelona. So players of high ratings play around half the games on real life which such be ilustrated in the game. Plus I am in competitions such as the Champions League on SM and got to the cup final, of which I have a cup team. The appearances of which them players have made is just in the Premier League alone. I use Cabaye over Mikel, who has made 25 appearances with 1 substitution. When you add that to the fact that players miss games due to injuries on this game is seems to make more sense! :o[/quote']Essien missed a lot of game time in 11-12 due to an injury, Sahin has played down all the recent rumours of him leaving but can't see him hacking another season without playing, and Pedro featured rather a lot for Barcelona. I think that all the players you mentioned, if playing second fiddle for any significant length of time, would pick up concerns in real life. You should be able to keep Mikel and Cabaye both if they are first and second choice in their positions but it will require some juggling as there is so little between them.
The concerns now are just ridiculous. I had no problem with them before they 'tweaked it to close loopholes'' date=' but now they're just updated way too often. My Roma in GC13 had absolutely no concerns before this tweak, as I rotated fairly, but now there are like 15+ concerns....

Also some of my players developed concerns just a couple of weeks ago, so I played them in every game since, and now they go up in concern again.... How do they expect us to manage concerns if they go this quick...

They need to communicate to us what has gone on.[/quote']Are you sure that the same player was reviewed again within a few weeks of their previous review mate? They should still be reviewed about 2-3 months apart rather than 2-3 weeks as far as I am aware. Although I would disagree with such a change, as I think it should be something that develops over a sizeable period of time, I suppose this works both ways and makes it as easy to get rid of concerns as it does to acquire them.

I have nothing new to add' date=' other than to offer support to those who have voiced their frustrations with player concerns. All of my frustrating situations are similar to those that have been described previously.

I was initially in favor of player concerns, because it can be annoying to join a set-up and look to improve your team, only to discover all the best players and most promising talents belong to just a few teams. However, I've found that, with patience, I've been able to build some pretty good teams, or get offered the chance to manage one of the big clubs.

I actually thought the player concerns were fairly effective before the so-called "tweak." I manage mostly in GCs, so I can only speak to those, but it seemed that only rarely did a 90+ player demand a move, and in those cases it seemed justified; the player really was never getting any games. So, I don't see why any change was needed. I really hope they reconsider.']

Is that no longer the case? What don't you like about the changes? It makes sense to me that a backup 88/89 rated player should want to leave if they are not getting played, same as a 90 rated player. Why should they be exempt?

I think that concerns were less of an issue in GCs because there tends to be more demand for slightly lower rated players for various reasons which means players are stockpiled less often and/or more easily loaned out.

Im up for organizing a flashmob to quit this game if we dont get satisfaction on this.

Set a specific date' date=' and if we dont hear from the developers until then we all quit.

Like i said before this is not fun anymore and anyway as soon as any of my players ask to move due to concerns im out of SM[/quote']What are you wanting to know from the developers?

Concerns are getting ridiculous now. Its getting to the point where you can't have enough players to field a team for the cup as players are not happy being rotated.

I have a squad of 24 players rated 88+ not a greedy amount by any means and yet one third of the squad are unhappy! To top it off some of these players are not even 1st team players in their real life clubs.

It is not greedy by historical SM standards but that is a lot of players who are too capable to be warming the bench.

Do you think their importance to their real life side should have any bearing on concerns?

This is becoming beyond a joke' date=' i have a team were i have 22 first team players, and this season played about 50 games and nearly all have played about 25 each or say 30 and 20 the others, and now most my team have level 1 concerns, Now i have not jumped on the "player concerns is a bad thing outcry" as i think stockpiling players/talents is not realistic, squads of 100, or more or even say 50 is totally unrealistic, but this is not realistic either SM, as you can see from my comments I have fairly rotated my squad, which most teams do now IRL:confused:, and i am playing as realistic to a real manager as i can only to find i'm being punished, this needs your attention asap.:eek:[/quote']Are all these players on similar ratings? That is what is unrealistic. They are all expecting to play almost as much as one another so you will have to juggle the concerns I think.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I have had about 3 or 4 lack of game's concerns in the last 6 months if I'm being honest.

Nearly all of my teams have a first team squad of 21-25 and the rest youth player (full squads are usually around the 50-70mark)

Looking at the pictures of the concerns list's that some have been posting with Vidic, Silva and Fabregas on them, it is pretty easy to work out whats wrong with your squad.

I mean come on......If you have a squad big enough and with ratings high enough that you can't give Fabregas a game then maybe you need to cut it..No?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nezzy

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?

The only reason your player should have concerns is if, whilst uninjured, you did not play him enough. The games he misses through injury don't count towards him getting a concern.

not agree whit this...too many concerns in the standard world's when a player have a injuried even if he have more than enough game's play before he was injuried .

I have hulk he have play all game's + all cup's and smfa game's, the last game he play he has a injuried for 3 weeks,now whe are on play day 21 so he have not play 9 game's (cup+smfa counted in) way he was injuried.

now he is back from the 18/07 and have play yesterday ,from the 20/07 he have a concern of lack of game's....!!! ....so for me the count it well, have more players in others "standard world" whit these sample.

the hardest hit of all worlds on sm is the standard world's.

If You look around in these world there are enough whit good talent players and over 90+ players...only rubisch managers who can not play, and go from club to club when the losses again , against these small teams or others managers whit a "normal or small " or good team but who know how to play on a fair way and don't cheat...these are now punisched and not these who complain there are no good players and go from world to world ...these are no managers only -10% stay whit there team even if the losses all game's.these are the real , the fair, who know how to play, and which have not been the best players, and these are now the hardest hit.. (but in my worlds than don't know of others)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

maybe these 'idiots' are actually better at this game than you and can manage a squad? however everyone agrees that the youth concerns are wrong. people are not idiots just because they have a different view than you and besides isnt the whole point of a forum that everyone can freely express their opinions?

of course the system is not perfect.there have been a few good suggestions as to how improve the system.

I have not once heard you make a suggest any ideas or make any constuctive/positive contributions all you have done is moan and complain. which do you think is more likely of the following.....

1. sm admitting they were completely wrong and reverting back to the old system after childish bully tactics by some people eg. treatening to leave.

2. accepting people are not 100% happy with the new system and finding out the major problems and adjusting it eg. stopping youth getting concerns/slowing down concern development/players who are a certain rating below the first team average needing a lower amount of games

I was going to respond to your jibes but frankly you're not worth the effort.

As for suggestions for resolving the 'concerns' problem:

Reset the system to where it was five weeks ago when these changes were implemented and stop tinkering with it - simples.

As for my threatening to leave? It's nothing to do with "childish bully tactics" it is due to the fact that I DON'T enjoy playing the game anymore and judging by the comments on this thread I'm not the only one. The basis of consumer activism is to let the supplier know that you are unhappy with the service and use the threat of a boycott to get things changed. Then if things don't change have the courage of your convictions and follow through with the threat. That's where I now stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

SM are monitoring this thread. As I mentioned above' date=' the things they have changed about concerns was prompted by research done on departing customers.

Great! So the current changes are based on feedback from people no longer playing the game to the detriment of people that still are! Typical knee-jerk reaction.

Why will you have to sell all your future prospects? Won't you just have to decide which of them you value the most and give them a bit more game time to keep hold of them?

For now yes but under the present system the increased frequency of concern reviews will increase faster than rating reviews so an 88 to 90 rated player will go from level 1 to level 5 before having a rating increase to justify playing him in a 92-93 rated first team.

I think that for people like yourself who are knowledgeable about ratings, the changes will force you to make you more selective but that won't be a problem. The changes are also going to present a load of opportunities for people like you. So, I think you will keep hold of the best players and continue to see long term benefits from scouting.

I disagree for the reason stated above. The only option that I can see is to attempt to benefit from the 'churn' of increased transfers around the gameworld. Which is not my idea of scouting or managing a team.

Wouldn't the players on Level 4 concerns have started developing their concerns long before the recent changes were put in place?

There was only one player, Luisao, on level 4 and I had already resolved to lose him. All the rest are at level 1 or level 2 and have achieved those levels in the last five weeks - since the changes. Interestingly, for the first time since concerns started, concerns are only increasing now and not decreasing.

Looking at your Roma example you have 49 players rated 88+ so it seems reasonable that you should have to reduce it further. What do you think would be a reasonable size squad for your Roma to compete well, and do you not think that if the changes are stretching you it is going to have the same effect on your opponents? Aren't your opponents going to have less of a luxury of selection in terms of who to keep and the amount of money they make from the players they do sell?

I think that I need at least 25-30 players rated 88+ in that gameworld to remain competitive. The majority of my opponents in the setup are going to have similar frustrations, probably to the point where they no longer enjoy playing the game and leave. I'm already seeing this in other gameworlds. As for money: It's already meaningless why do you think a few hundred million more will make any difference?

I don't agree that players should be reviewed that often, and if they are I think this needs changing. My comment about it being several months between reviews was made in good faith based upon my experience to date.

If player concerns are being looked at every few weeks I agree this is far too quick.

I have been trying to tell you for the past month that the frequency of concerns has increased. At least we are in agreement that this is wrong. This is my only issue regarding concerns and if you look back further in this thread you will see that up to now I have been a supporter of the system.

If this happens to one of my teams I will be sending a Bug Ticket to see if SM really believe this should be happening or if it is a bug.

This is what I plan to do this week, after the current sequence of concerns is concluded. Although I can pretty much predict the outcome:(

So, drop your first XI to boost your chances of playing your fringe players, or give the fringe players more game time to keep them. Which players do you want to keep more?

As I have stated previously, I am currently in the final stages of a league title fight - in a setup that I have been trying to win for 14 seasons. In my next game, away to Barcelona (who have a starting 11 rated 94), your solution is to drop my chosen 11 (rated 92) and play a second 11 (rated 89-90) - Surely that goes against the whole ethos of the game? Incidentally, I am already playing some concerned players during the title run-in but dropping them all is a step too far as they will soon develop concerns and at the current rate of escalation with become unrecoverable.

I don't think SM have "lied" to us they just perceive it as closing a loophole whereas you don't.

You know what you think and I beg to differ.

Replies to your comments in red.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I wish I knew the answer to this question' date=' unfortunately I don't.

My opinion is that the changes you feel are unnecessary are, in fact, necessary. The devs are of the same opinion so I guess that makes it a "no" at present, but I suppose if enough people object to what has been done and give good reasons besides being personally annoyed/disadvantaged they might consider changing it.

I know quite a few people have posted about not liking the changes here [b']but it is hard to say whether these people represent the forum community, let alone the entire SM community[/b], many of whom have either not noticed, don't care, or approve.

Don' think John has come on the forum since Tuesday, probably better off contacting SM Dev (Ste) who is on the forum more often. They should respond to your ticket soon even with just holding a response, normally takes them up to three working days for that.

What attempts have SM made to obtain feedback on the player concern changes? As you can see, I've created a poll in which you have voted. Maybe SM need to create a poll on their Facebook page and ask a very specific question on whether people feel the new changes to player concern system are are the right thing for the game?

I feel you should listen to those who have played the game for many years and not those who drift in and out of the game.

I do appreciate you taking the time to answer all the questions, however I do feel their is a complete lack of customer support on this subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I know it feels like the rules have changed and can see where you and everyone else is coming from' date=' but for me the rules have not changed[/quote']

Only for you the rules have not changed. EVERYONE ELSE (agree or disagree with the changes) see and understand the OBVIOUS, that the rules HAVE CHANGED.

With respect' date=' no you don't HAVE to reduce your squad.[/quote']

With respect, he will HAVE to reduce his squad. He will be FORCED to, because of the new rules regarding concerns.

I think most of the players you mentioned are looking at rating increases next time they are reviewed and that they will all be reviewed much sooner than it would take them to go from Level 1 to 5.

That is either ignorance or lie! The concerns were updated about every 1' date='5 month with the old system. Now, with the changes it seems that are updated even faster: I have now a player (he was one of the first "victims" of the new rules in my teams), who went from level 1 to level 2 in just 4 weeks! This is less than a month! (I guess i should be expecting the others in the next coming days...)

On the other hand, the reviews are only done twice a year (every 6 months) or once a year. Some leagues now are never reviewed at all! Only the Big 5 are done 3 times a year, but the way SM do their updates, this doesn't mean that your player is going to have an increase each time, even if he is playing great. In fact, in the second review there are very very few upgrades on high-rated players. Plus, the 1st review of the season, is about six months after the last one. Plus, this year we haven't seen any 3rd review yet!

So, the (new) reality is that a player can easily go from level 1 to 5, and we will lose the player before he gets his rise, even if he deserves it, even if he is a great talent and in reality he plays like a 92 player, but in SM is still rated 88/89!

You are suggesting that more players getting concerns is punishing people who scout players? I can't understand it.

Yes, exactly that, it's punishment for the managers who put the most effort and spend many hours for this game. And again, you seem to be the only one in here who doesn't understand it... Well, if you haven't understood what is going on here after all these messages, it's your problem. But i think you understand very well, otherwise you wouldn't reply in every message in SM's defense in such a dedicated way.

Send another bug ticket mate' date=' quote the relevant sections of the Online Help and why your circumstances contradict what it says, ask for a personalised response or for your ticket to be escalated to somebody else as you are not satisfied. Keep it polite and I don't see why SM should not oblige.

If you get another automated response, drop SM Dev (Ste) a PM along the same lines as the ticket but bear in mind he gets loads. If still no joy drop me a line with details of your squad etc, I will happily try and get some attention in my role as "forum supervisor" but I can't guarantee anything as have no say in the game.

[/quote']

We 've all been through this and nothing has been done or a decent answer is given... It just shows the bad level of customer service...

SM are monitoring this thread.

"...but they don't care what you guys are saying/think/feel"

I don't agree that players should be reviewed that often' date=' and if they are I think this needs changing. My comment about it being several months between reviews was made in good faith based upon my experience to date.

[b']If player concerns are being looked at every few weeks I agree this is far too quick.[/b]

If this happens to one of my teams I will be sending a Bug Ticket to see if SM really believe this should be happening or if it is a bug.

:eek::eek::eek: Tebthereb has said something that implies a (minor) arguement against concerns! I can't believe what i'm reading! :eek:

Well, guess what: This is what is happening now and it's not a bug! I have now concerns updated after only 4 weeks!

I don't think SM have "lied" to us they just perceive it as closing a loophole whereas you don't.

Oh' date=' YES THEY DID! They did, but of course they won't admit it! Again, only you agrees with them... The vast majority of us the players of this game, we recognize it as "changing the rules" and not just a "loophole"...

Plus, apart from the... "loophole", they said that nothing has changed regarding the pace of the concerns. If this is not a lie, then what is it, when the concerns are now escalating every few weeks!

Are you sure that the same player was reviewed again within a few weeks of their previous review mate? They should still be reviewed about 2-3 months apart rather than 2-3 weeks as far as I am aware. Although I would disagree with such a change, as I think it should be something that develops over a sizeable period of time, I suppose this works both ways and makes it as easy to get rid of concerns as it does to acquire them.

I 've seen again in your previous posts saying about "2-3months". This is too far from reality now. It seems that this has also changed and we are talking about weeks now. And it seems that the speed-up is only for increasing, because i haven't seen a concern decreasing at the same pace yet... :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Why can't someone at SM just simply tell us what's going on and what they intend to do to fix the problem instead of "monitoring the thread"?

Weeks and weeks of debating this subject is a flipping joke, your customers demand answers!!

The delay tactics and muddied answers are not acceptable any more!

I'd also like for SM to fix those player concerns that have been reviewed twice over the past few weeks too and downgrade them a level as it sure as hell aint right that player concerns are rising so rapidly!

Hugely fed up with SM and their so called customer support. You can't get a straight answer from anyone at SM, they're similar to a group of politicians who never actually give you an answer to the question

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

It seems that the pace of the concerns has increased too, despite what the Devs have told us that "nothing has changed" and "concerns are still running at the same pace as it always has"...

One of my players, had a level 1 concern on June 19th. Since then i 've been playing him as a starter in every single game, only to check now and see that his concern has gone to level 2, on July 17th!

That's exactly 4 weeks, only 8 turns (= 8 league games) after the 1st level of the concern! How do they expect us to manage with concerns if they work on this rate, really???

By the way, my player had played until July 17th (Turn 19):

9 league games

3 Cup/Shield games (out of 3)

6 SMFA game (out of 6)

Until last month, he would be more than happy with these appearances. Now with the New Rules, the Cup/Shield/SMFA games count in a negative way, so after Turn 19, instead of 18/19 he has 18/28=64%. How are we going to manage with concerns if everything counts negatively and if they are updated so frequently? It's just impossible!

I 've checked all my teams and at the moment the oldest updates i have for concerns is on June 26th! Most of the updates are in July! This is less than a month! It's just ridiculous!

What are the oldest updates you have, regarding "lack of games"? I'm just asking in an attempt to figure out how much exactly the escalation is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Why can't someone at SM just simply tell us what's going on and what they intend to do to fix the problem instead of "monitoring the thread"?

Weeks and weeks of debating this subject is a flipping joke' date=' your customers demand answers!!

The delay tactics and muddied answers are not acceptable any more!

I'd also like for SM to fix those player concerns that have been reviewed twice over the past few weeks too and downgrade them a level as it sure as hell aint right that player concerns are rising so rapidly!

Hugely fed up with SM and their so called customer support. You can't get a straight answer from anyone at SM, they're similar to a group of politicians who never actually give you an answer to the question[/b']

100 % agree!

I think this message sums up what the vast majority thinks about this issue and SM's handling of the matter...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Great! So the current changes are based on feedback from people no longer playing the game to the detriment of people that still are! Typical knee-jerk reaction.
Puzzled at this criticism. How else would you have SM assess people's reasons for leaving' date=' other than by asking the people leaving? :confused: It seems to me like the people leaving are the best placed to give feedback on why people are, erm, leaving.

I know you think SM have no interest on changing things based on feedback, but just because SM are not commenting here doesn't mean they are not taking feedback on board. As I have said they are keeping tabs on this thread. They probably just don't want to be drawn into a massive time-consuming debate when they have done the research and done what they think best. They probably also don't want to make any knee jerk decisions.

What specific questions do you have for them, or what suggestions would you like them to comment upon? I am not trying to be funny, if you want to set them out I will happily try and get answers from one of the Devs if you are not confident in them replying to you or don't want to try.

For now yes but under the present system the increased frequency of concern reviews will increase faster than rating reviews so an 88 to 90 rated player will go from level 1 to level 5 before having a rating increase to justify playing him in a 92-93 rated first team.
No disagreement from me that reviews of concerns every couple of weeks is far too fast.
I disagree for the reason stated above. The only option that I can see is to attempt to benefit from the 'churn' of increased transfers around the gameworld. Which is not my idea of scouting or managing a team.
What I mean is you will get to keep the cream of a crop that is already better than your opponents' crops. You will also be able to skim the cream off your opponents prospects and first teamers if they don't value their prospects enough or value them too much. I agree there will be increased "churn" but I quite like the idea of the transfer market getting a kick in some Game Worlds where' date=' frankly, it is stagnant.
There was only one player, Luisao, on level 4 and I had already resolved to lose him. All the rest are at level 1 or level 2 and have achieved those levels in the last five weeks - since the changes. Interestingly, for the first time since concerns started, concerns are only increasing now and not decreasing.
That's odd, in my teams I am seeing large amounts of players getting concerns for the first time (sub 90 rated) but am definitely still seeing a reduction in concerns for players that I have been giving more game time to. If you have a specific example I would send in a Bug Ticket. For instance this scenario should not be happening in my opinion and is an example of the game not operating correctly:

Player A - goes from level one to level two on 1 June 2012

Player B - same thing

Player A - goes from level two to three on 20 July 2012 having still not played

Player B - concern does not change up or down at the same or similar time as Player A despite having now got, say, 80% of games in the season to date.

I think that I need at least 25-30 players rated 88+ in that gameworld to remain competitive. The majority of my opponents in the setup are going to have similar frustrations' date=' probably to the point where they no longer enjoy playing the game and leave. I'm already seeing this in other gameworlds. As for money: It's already meaningless why do you think a few hundred million more will make any difference?[/quote']It is meaningless in my opinion because most players are monopolised so players are the currency. I don't sell for cash because I can't buy for cash. When myself and others have to start selling for cash, I will be buying for cash too.

I don't understand why, if your opponents are in the same boat, they will be frustrated? If you were to all have much less quality than you say is needed then you will all be equally able to be competitive. If everyone has 15-20 players 88+ and 15-20 players sub 88 rated then nobody is unfairly disadvantaged.

If you trim your squad from X amount to twenty or so 88+ rated players, you are likely to have a much better set of 88+ rated players than someone who is trimming their squad from a smaller pool of prospects and current stars. Other people will be making cuts to their prospects or current risers which will present opportunities to improve even more.

I have been trying to tell you for the past month that the frequency of concerns has increased. At least we are in agreement that this is wrong. This is my only issue regarding concerns and if you look back further in this thread you will see that up to now I have been a supporter of the system.
I admit you had been telling me this' date=' but you did not have any evidence before which is why I kept on banging on about the difference between volume and frequency. SM have said that the pace hasn't changed so perhaps this is a bug, and I certainly don't welcome any speeding up as I have said.

I still haven't noticed such quick changes in my Game Worlds although I haven't gone looking. I noticed that some of my players in a WC went up a level on 20 July 2012 having last been looked at on 8 June 2012. Six weeks is quick but not too bad, anything quicker is too quick in my opinion.

This is what I plan to do this week, after the current sequence of concerns is concluded. Although I can pretty much predict the outcome
I agree they might just reply, "there is no bug" (words to that effect) but still worth doing I think because I assume if the staff receive dozens of bug reports on concerns this will get flagged up to the powers that be. I would hope so anyway. :eek:
As I have stated previously' date=' I am currently in the final stages of a league title fight - in a setup that I have been trying to win for 14 seasons. In my next game, away to Barcelona (who have a starting 11 rated 94), your solution is to drop my chosen 11 (rated 92) and play a second 11 (rated 89-90) - Surely that goes against the whole ethos of the game? Incidentally, I am already playing some concerned players during the title run-in but dropping them all is a step too far as they will soon develop concerns and at the current rate of escalation with become unrecoverable.[/quote']I agree the timing is poor to be dropping your best players, I am just saying that concerns are about maintaining a balance between the present and future of your squad and it's success.

What I don't agree with is the pressure to field a second string in the final stages due to the frequency of concerns being as fast as you are saying, so I sympathise with you there as that is not how I think it should be. Concerns should be gradual enough that a few weeks at the end of the season does not make or break whether people stay.

What attempts have SM made to obtain feedback on the player concern changes? As you can see' date=' I've created a poll in which you have voted. Maybe SM need to create a poll on their Facebook page and ask a very specific question on whether people feel the new changes to player concern system are are the right thing for the game?

I feel you should listen to those who have played the game for many years and not those who drift in and out of the game.

I do appreciate [b']you[/b] taking the time to answer all the questions, however I do feel their is a complete lack of customer support on this subject.

Thanks. If you or anyone else want to bullet point some questions, I will happily run them by one of the devs if you are not happy to do so yourself and see what they say.

Personally I don't put too much store in forum polls but perhaps it will make SM take note. It looks to be a landslide result but I am not sure if the people voting represent the average user in the game. Facebook poll would be nice to see.

On the point about listening to the long-standing players, I think this is problematic as the people who have been playing the game the longest though are by definition a small minority of the playing population. Plus, in most cases, they are the ones most likely to have a vested interest in seeing that nothing changes as they are, quite naturally, thinking about their own interests.

I appreciate there are arguments that suggest changing back player concerns is for the good of the game but personally I think there was a lot of evidence to suggest they were not working. Perhaps some middle ground is needed; like no exemption for <90 rated players but smaller percentages of games required etc.

Only for you the rules have not changed. EVERYONE ELSE (agree or disagree with the changes) see and understand the OBVIOUS' date=' that the rules HAVE CHANGED.[/quote']The "rules" are as stated on the Online Help. Which of these are no longer true, or have changed please?
With respect' date=' he will HAVE to reduce his squad. He will be FORCED to, because of the new rules regarding concerns.[/quote']

Why can't he keep them? As far as I know the same rules apply to him as they do to me, and the way concerns are going I can't see that I will definitely lose players if I am prepared to make sacrifices.

That is either ignorance or lie! The concerns were updated about every 1' date='5 month with the old system. Now, with the changes it seems that are updated even faster: I have now a player (he was one of the first "victims" of the new rules in my teams), who went from level 1 to level 2 in just 4 weeks! This is less than a month! (I guess i should be expecting the others in the next coming days...)

On the other hand, the reviews are only done twice a year (every 6 months) or once a year. Some leagues now are never reviewed at all! Only the Big 5 are done 3 times a year, but the way SM do their updates, this doesn't mean that your player is going to have an increase each time, even if he is playing great. In fact, in the second review there are very very few upgrades on high-rated players. Plus, the 1st review of the season, is about six months after the last one. Plus, this year we haven't seen any 3rd review yet!

So, the (new) reality is that a player can easily go from level 1 to 5, and we will lose the player before he gets his rise, even if he deserves it, even if he is a great talent and in reality he plays like a 92 player, but in SM is still rated 88/89![/quote']Yikes, strong words.

In one of my Game Worlds a player has gone from Level 4 to Level 5 recently, he went to Level 4 on the 24 February 2012 and hit Level 5 on 20 July 2012. I am not lying and as I am stating a fact I don't think this makes me ignorant either. I think I have only ever said concerns were "about every 2-3 months" and however you look at I don't see that I am wildly off.

In any case, I was responding saying that most of the players mentioned were likely to be reviewed again quicker than it takes to go from Level 1 to 5, which even based on 1.5 months per review is still 7.5 months. Most of the players in SM will be reviewed in that time and that is all I am saying. He was talking about Brazilian and Premier League players so this is even more likely to be true.

I have still not experienced the lightning fast reviews people have mentioned and as I have said I don't agree it should be like this and believe it is a bug until I hear otherwise rather than a change in the "rules" or "goalposts" however you want to label it. Talking based upon my experience doesn't make me ignorant or a liar.

I have already mentioned SM's plans to speed up reviews, so even if (worst case scenario) players can go from Level 1 to 5 in 10 weeks (2 weeks per review) the chances of them being reviewed should increase too but I can't see SM sticking to fortnightly reviews if they have set that up.

Yes' date=' exactly that, it's punishment for the managers who put the most effort and spend many hours for this game. And again, you seem to be the only one in here who doesn't understand it... Well, if you haven't understood what is going on here after all these messages, it's your problem. But i think you understand very well, otherwise you wouldn't reply in every message in SM's defense in such a dedicated way.[/quote']I guess being as ignorant as I am, I have difficulty understanding the complex points. :P Perhaps you could spell it out for me how the long term managers are being punished, rather than just belittle me with how daft I am not to see it? :o

You do realise that I am one of the managers who has been playing for ages and spends hours thinking about player ratings? I have squads that I cherish too. Yet I don't feel punished.

From my perspective, I have been allowed to build up massive super squads risk free for years. I have had the benefit of cashflow, always being able to pick a fit side, always being able to field a 90 rated side even in cup games, not ever needing to sell a player unless I thought he would get a ratings decrease, selling declining players at huge profits as the other people in the Game World would probably play £20m for a two-legged dog if it could kick a football, and winning loads.

None of that has been taken away from me. It is just going to be more difficult (arguably impossible, I think not but could be wrong of course) to keep doing it.

I don't think it can be "punishment" if everyone is being subjected to the same thing. The fact that some people will feel the pinch more is a result of their own choices to date, which whilst never against the rules were never going to realistically continue unchecked forever.

What do you actually think is my motivation behind replying "in every message in SM's defense" (you later quote an example of me not supporting them by the way)? I used to love the way concerns used to work, but if I am entirely honest I loved them because they barely touched me; I could dance around them all day long. That was wrong and the recent changes are addressing that.

We 've all been through this and nothing has been done or a decent answer is given... It just shows the bad level of customer service...
I don't recall receiving any PM's on this... so who has been through the process I suggested and can say nothing has been done? I suppose I might have not responded to some PM's over the last year or two but literally that would be a handful through genuine oversight.

Out of interest' date=' when you reported a young player miles down the pecking order getting a lack of game concerns in the last few weeks (which was what I was talking about of course), got a reply saying it is not a bug, and sent another ticket asking for more information, what did SM say? Assuming it was automated and unhelpful from what you said, what did the devs on here say when you PM'd them? Perhaps the dev has not just not replied to you yet as I imagine all that would have taken you up to the recent past anyway based upon how recent all this is?

"...but they don't care what you guys are saying/think/feel"
So, if SM don't snap to attention when people complain within the first few weeks of some changes being made, and people reacting angrily (as forumers generally do to everything that ever gets changed) they don't care? I don't follow the logic of this, sorry.
:eek::eek::eek: Tebthereb has said something that implies a (minor) arguement against concerns! I can't believe what i'm reading! :eek:

Well' date=' guess what: This is what is happening now and it's not a bug! I have now concerns updated after only 4 weeks![/quote']I am happy to say when I think SM are wrong, many of my recent posts on this thread are commenting on things I don't like I just don't agree with the general consensus on here that these changes to Player Concerns are like some kind of SM Doomsday.

I am confused that some people are experiencing 2-3 weeks, you say four weeks, and I experienced 6 weeks. I don't understand why there would be a difference from one person to the next really. I am 100% certain on my dates as I record them all - out of interest are you doing the same? I guess so as you later state precise dates but I wonder if the people reporting lesser periods are being so thorough?

I know what I will be doing if I see less than 6 weeks between reviews - sending a ticket - and I would recommend other people do the same as SM did say they haven't changed the pace.

Oh' date=' YES THEY DID! They did, but of course they won't admit it! Again, only you agrees with them... The vast majority of us the players of this game, we recognize it as "changing the rules" and not just a "loophole"...

Plus, apart from the... "loophole", they said that nothing has changed regarding the pace of the concerns. If this is not a lie, then what is it, when the concerns are now escalating every few weeks![/quote']

Oh no they didn't!!! They're behind you!!! :D C'mon, it is not like there is some kind of conspiracy going on here. Maybe concerns are going quicker than they intended/realise.

As I keep saying, the Online Help is the stated "rules" on Player Concerns. Can you please tell me what they have changed recently which goes against what is stated in the Online Help (which has not changed)? I will happily admit SM have changed the rules if you can point to some examples of where the stated rules are that are no longer accurate, in which case I will agree prior warning would have been preferable.

Yeah SM said about the pace of concerns not increasing which only makes me wonder more if the varied reports of the time between individual player concerns are accurate or indeed just a bug. It may be unintentional on SM's part which is all the more reason to submit a ticket on it if you experience it, quoting SM Dev (Ste).

I 've seen again in your previous posts saying about "2-3months". This is too far from reality now. It seems that this has also changed and we are talking about weeks now. And it seems that the speed-up is only for increasing' date=' because i haven't seen a concern decreasing at the same pace yet... :mad:[/quote']Strange, my concerns seem to go up and down at the same speed, at least I haven't noticed anything to the contrary.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...