Jump to content

The Minor Improvments Thread


Recommended Posts

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

the Dev's read the forum sometimes i think' date=' best thing to do is send a support ticket for each one. that is until a dev subscribes to this thread for sure :)

also i agree that average points should also be displayed, i am doing brilliantly in my game world but i am still 3rd purely because other managers have been there from the start, i took over 20 games in :([/quote']

Problem is with the new system you can on;y send a multiple account support ticket if there are 2 managers cheating. When only one remains, how do I go about reporting him for being involved in multiple-account cheating? :confused:

In the gameworld I'm talking about, there has been something like 5+ multiple accounts (and I'm suspecting there's still more, just I don't have enough evidence and/or time). Each time I report a pair, one is removed. Then I report another pair, one is removed. Etc. etc.

Just once did they remove both, and yet these are all for the same things (exact same birthdate, log-on within minutes of each other repeatedly, etc), so why the inconsistency with SM? Drives me crazy!

I set up this thread in the hope that Devs may give a simple answer to a simple question (and for others too), but no, nothing...:(

and often that maybe due to only one person doing dodgy deals.

if a club gets offers too good to turn down it sells them' date=' they dont know the other person is being stupid.

it is to prevent people accepting deals innocently and getting removed for cheating.

they havnt done anything wrong except take advantage of a poor /noob manager.

something we would all do if we had the chance ;)[/quote']

Yeah, see what you mean, but no, this is not dodgy deals (though there may have been some), it is blatant multiple accounts (as I've said above).

(didnt you get done for this before? i remember something along those lines and you got punished. if not apologies ! )

Well, something like that, though not quite as you say. I detailed all what happened here way back when...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 699
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

They leave the major improvements to themselves to mess up. Plus, I don't even think they listen to any "minor" suggestions either. It's been so negative on here, twitter, and whatever media

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread No bug your squad tells you the players current fitness & on the tactics page the fitness rating is what is the players projected fitness for the next game.

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

try submitting the "club" section with the same name twice or something ?

eg if the guy has roma just put :

roma' date=' roma and use words to explain the case :)[/quote']

Very good idea! I just checked and I think it does work :)

But, my gripe is not just that I can't do it, but that I have to bother going through this extra step when clearly SM should be just removing both managers (seeing as they are the same person, and by definition this person is a cheat).

And the ultimate gripe is that there is no way to ask SM this basic question of why they are only removing 1 person and getting a basic response. Why does it have to be so hard when they make taking my money so easy? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

Very good idea! I just checked and I think it does work :)

But' date=' my gripe is not just that I can't do it, but that I have to bother going through this extra step when clearly SM should be just removing both managers (seeing as they are the same person, and by definition this person is a cheat).

And the ultimate gripe is that there is no way to ask SM this basic question of why they are only removing 1 person and getting a basic response. Why does it have to be so hard when they make taking my money so easy? :rolleyes:[/quote']

i have made numerous complaints about the lack of SM support when cheating occurs.

i cba to argue it. just don't renew your gold membership tbh.

its a joke you are paying for this service, no offence and im sure you know how i mean it when i say that.

until they get customer services sorted why pay for it ?

i have the same problem in my setup. 3 times they reverse the deal, the 3 new accounts are removed but the one original isn't.

oh well. SM dont even reply to you so not worth discussing is it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

Not just there but under 'community' ---> 'best managers'. It would be great to see you ranking against ALL managers' date=' much as [url']http://fantasy.premierleague.com/[/url] does.

And with that in mind, another improvement within would be to also rank managers according to average points (a measure of how well a manager has done over time) instead of/as well as total points (basically who has done the best for the longest). Any new manager can compete on the 2nd measure, (making it more inclusive) but they would never be able to be able to compete on the first one.

I'm confused! Are you saying that there should be a list on the community>best managers area listing all 300,000 odd managers? I think that would be a little unwieldy. Also, there is a list of the top fifty best managers graded by both points total and average points rating. It seems to me that the former comprises most of the top managers in the game competing in the toughest gameworlds, whereas the latter are mostly newbies averaging 4 or 5 points a game in weak setups. I don't know where you get the idea that the top managers "would never be able to compete on the first one" when you need a points average of at least 2.5 to get in the list anyway. In my own instance I'm represented twice - both in GC's - with Rangers where I've played 492 games at an average of 2.71 and Real Madrid (though most of my games were with Zurich) where I've had 509 games at 2.67 which are 1st and 2nd best averages in the setups respectively.

So in defence of 'senior' managers I don't think you should say that we wouldn't be able to compete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

How about when we go on a clubs 'Real Life' page, next to the clubs name, we should have what League it is in. The league name should be hyperlinked to another page, and it should show all the clubs which are present in the eague, and basic information such as when the league was last reviewed.

Opinions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

I'm confused! Are you saying that there should be a list on the community>best managers area listing all 300' date='000 odd managers? I think that would be a little unwieldy.[/quote']

No, not saying that at all. The way the Fantasy Premier League works is that is just tells you your position out of all of the managers. You can still see the top 50 or whatever, you're just told your ranking relative to that 50. That way the list means something to everyone, not just the odd few who happen to make it.

Also' date=' there is a list of the top fifty best managers graded by both points total and average points rating. It seems to me that the former comprises most of the top managers in the game competing in the toughest gameworlds, whereas the latter are mostly newbies averaging 4 or 5 points a game in weak setups.[/quote']

No, it would be more accurate to say that the former comprises of the top managers who also have stuck around the longest. And my guess is that the latter is managers who have joined a league, won something after a few games, then left, though what you say could be the case too.

I don't know where you get the idea that the top managers "would never be able to compete on the first one" when you need a points average of at least 2.5 to get in the list anyway. In my own instance I'm represented twice - both in GC's - with Rangers where I've played 492 games at an average of 2.71 and Real Madrid (though most of my games were with Zurich) where I've had 509 games at 2.67 which are 1st and 2nd best averages in the setups respectively.

So in defence of 'senior' managers I don't think you should say that we wouldn't be able to compete.

How couldn't they compete? Okay, here's a scenario. A new manager joins an old gameworld (though it could be any gameworld). Suppose this guy is the best there has ever been, he's a tactical and transfer wizard and wipes the floor with anyone he plays. Given that the rankings go on the total points each manager has, how long does he have to go at it to catch you and your 500 games up? He's the best manager, by definition, but the rankings wouldn't recognise him as such.

Besides, the 'total points' ranking doesn't recognise the best managers on SM, it recognises the best records by managers with 1 club in 1 league. These managers might have high scores here because they happened to get in on the gameworld early, scored a great club,or took advantage of people leaving and/or SM not being popular in the beginning and over time they've built up a monopoly on the good players. Of course they're going to get more points than others having been there longer and having most of the best players. But how does it follow that they are the best manager? :confused:

But if you compare the performance on SM across all clubs (so the average points on their SM account) against others, you do get a more accurate picture of how good a manager is (and so who is 'best'), while also allowing newer managers to compete (there'd have to be some qualifier so that managers had had a requisite number of games/teams to avoid distortion of the figures). No system is perfect but the current one is elitist and it's inaccurate to call it the 'the best'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

How couldn't they compete? Okay' date=' here's a scenario. A new manager joins an old gameworld (though it could be any gameworld). Suppose this guy is the best there has ever been, he's a tactical and transfer wizard and wipes the floor with anyone he plays. Given that the rankings go on the total points each manager has, how long does he have to go at it to catch you and your 500 games up? He's the best manager, by definition, but the rankings wouldn't recognise him as such.

[/quote']

I think you miss the point. It doesn't matter how many points you have in a 'best manager' list. What is most significant is your average points rating. I cited the example in the overall list as an illustration of how most of the managers who have accrued a large number of points also have a very high average.

Besides' date=' the 'total points' ranking doesn't recognise the best managers on SM, it recognises the best records by managers with 1 club in 1 league. These managers might have high scores here because they happened to get in on the gameworld early, scored a great club,or took advantage of people leaving and/or SM not being popular in the beginning and over time they've built up a monopoly on the good players. Of course they're going to get more points than others having been there longer and having most of the best players. But how does it follow that they are the best manager? :confused:[/quote']

Some of the managers in the overall list may well fit your profile and be taking advantage of a monopoly situation but that doesn't account for the fact that many of these managers are in the most competitive game worlds. The examples I gave of Rangers - where I took over an 87 average team and built it to what is now an 89/90 average is by no means the strongest in the setup. Likewise when I took over Zurich they were an 83 average team and by the time I left them to manage Real Madrid they were an average of 87 - again by no means dominant by Gold Championship standard.

But if you compare the performance on SM across all clubs (so the average points on their SM account) against others' date=' you do get a more accurate picture of how good a manager is (and so who is 'best'), while also allowing newer managers to compete (there'd have to be some qualifier so that managers had had a requisite number of games/teams to avoid distortion of the figures). No system is perfect but the current one is elitist and it's inaccurate to call it the 'the best'.[/quote']

I think you're right about averaging the total career games played for comparison purposes though. Mine is currently 6,245 games played at an average of 2.22, which is pretty good I think considering all my 14 teams are in competitive setups. What's yours?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

I think you miss the point. It doesn't matter how many points you have in a 'best manager' list. What is most significant is your average points rating. I cited the example in the overall list as an illustration of how most of the managers who have accrued a large number of points also have a very high average.

Huh?! :confused: It does matter' date=' that is the point!

Just to be clear, we're [b']not[/b] talking about the average points 'best managers' in the community 'best managers' list, I think we both agree that they're fly-by kinda people from less-populated set-ups (the top 5 have played a total of 103 games between them at their top-ranking club, which says it all).

So for the other 'total points' list, well, the title also says it all. It's based on total points NOT on the average points rating that you claim is significant. Of course many of these managers will have high average points with these clubs (but not necessarily other clubs, or on their SM account as a whole), but that is not how they are ranked.

For example, lee thomas is ranked 3rd with 1592 points, and his average with that club is 2.53.

Nuno Salvador is ranked 43rd with 1333 points, that club average is 2.45,

and yet you are ranked 44th with 1331 points (you've actually got 1337 points but the table hasn't updated yet), yet your average with that team (your GC6 Rangers) is 2.71.

So clearly it goes on total points, not averages, which is my point, and I don't think I'm 'missing it'. ;) I agree with you that it should be how you described, but it isn't, and seeing as it goes on total points, that's why I say that new managers can't ever compete, and that's why this system can't ever gauge the best managers (for if the very best joined just now, he would never chart here - he might chart on the other scale, but as we've said, that gets distorted by the people who come and go quickly in un-competitive gameworlds).

And that's why I reckon the whole thing should be based on the SM manager account, not one just one team.

If that was the case, including Teb, then out of the 4 I looked at it would be ranked, Nuno 2.50, lee thomas 2.33, Teb 2.23, you 2.22.

Even these rankings don't adequately account for all the challenges people set for themselves. The 'smallest' club that Nuno has taken, for example, for 10 games or more is Milan (:rolleyes:), and all of his clubs are what appear (just guessing here) to be in less popular gameworlds. Even you yourself seem to favour the big boys, and I can't speak for all the gameworlds you're in, but the only one I know for sure is 100% filled is WC1 and your average there is 1.77. That's not intended as a dig, it just shows that there's lots of factors to consider and there's no real way to capture who is best, just that some measures are better than others (managing decent teams in GCs, for example, may distort averages to make managers appear better than they perhaps are).

I think you're right about averaging the total career games played for comparison purposes though. Mine is currently 6' date='245 games played at an average of 2.22, which is pretty good I think considering all my 14 teams are in competitive setups. What's yours?[/quote']

For the record mine's 2.20 at present after 5463 games. It's been dropping recently as I've been pushing myself in terms of new challenges. I started with the bog-standards WC's, which I still do with a few non-forum mates, migrated to the GC's, then onto the forum-filled set-ups (EC's 106, 2933, 5597, 7046, 7345), and then onto the forum-customs (The Intercourse, The Trenches, Veneratio, Wasteland, Anno Domini, the Great British League, to name a few). Even my GCs these days are mostly challenges, trying to get from Div 5 to Div 1, my all Canadian team, that sort of thing...

Like I say, it's hard to truly compare, but a listing of SM account averages, with every manager getting a ranking on that listing, is surely the best way to go. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

Like I say' date=' it's hard to truly compare, but a listing of SM account averages, with every manager getting a ranking on that listing, is surely the best way to go. :)[/quote']

You're right that the ideal would be for all players to be ranked by an overall average. Unfortunately there are so many variables between gameworlds that it is almost impossible to make valid comparisons. Even within gameworlds there can be wild discrepencies. e.g my team with the worst average (Juventus in WC1): Although they usually finish high up in Division 1, the average is decimated by their very poor cup record.

You make an interesting point about me seeming to favour the big clubs, which is as much to do with my strategy of building large squads as anything else. The advantage is that you are nearly always competing in the top division against managed clubs, which is surely the objective but points are harder to come by. Having said that I am very proud of my record with Wycombe Wanderers who should really be considered one of the "big boys" now, albeit with an inadequate stadium!

My main argument is really that you should judge the best managers on a game world by gameworld level. My criteria is to measure myself against the current top ten and on that basis I usually come out top or very near it.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

well i think that it would be easier to search players if their age is displayed not in a group but as single. for example: instead of 18-21' date=' it would be easier if it was 18, 19, 20, 21 .......[/quote']

i agree with this....... but the new layout coming out lets you select a range.

still 18,21 etc but you can choose 18-35 for example.

and you can then sort on age so while it would be ideal, it isnt a big problem really :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

Okay I have one thing that's bugging me.

In one of my game worlds, Sami Khedira is on the Loan List. Problem is, when I go to make a loan bid for him, I get a message that says, "The chairman of [club name] will not loan out this player so the bid has not been submitted".

So why allow the player to be loan listed at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

Okay I have one thing that's bugging me.

In one of my game worlds' date=' Sami Khedira is on the Loan List. Problem is, when I go to make a loan bid for him, I get a message that says, "The chairman of [club name'] will not loan out this player so the bid has not been submitted".

So why allow the player to be loan listed at all?

the players usually can't be loan listed. they say the chairman wont let you loan the player so hasnt been placed on loan list.

he has placed khedira on the list, and he has either risen or he has sold another player. either way he is now further up the pecking order. so the chairman at the time would have loaned him out, but after his managerial actions he no longer can. the game has not detected this yet as it only analyses it when being initially placed on the list.

it could be good to maybe remove the player automatically if a bid collapses for this reason as a further improvement to preventing them be placed on the list in the first place :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

Will transfer deals be made a little more complex and realistic like adding wage offers for players, release clauses, buy-back clauses, percentage of next sale etc. I suppose it could perhaps improve the game a little :) And I suggested it a while back and I'm sure it's been mentioned before but will extra player attributes like Speed, Marking, Heading etc. ever be introduced because to seems to me as if the game is saying players like Matri and Van Nistelrooy have the exact same attributes when they are just rated at 89 where they are quite different in their own ways, but I suppose adding player attributes would complicate things a lot, although I would love to see it introduced :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

Will transfer deals be made a little more complex and realistic like adding wage offers for players' date=' release clauses, buy-back clauses, percentage of next sale etc. I suppose it could perhaps improve the game a little :) And I suggested it a while back and I'm sure it's been mentioned before but will extra player attributes like Speed, Marking, Heading etc. ever be introduced because to seems to me as if the game is saying players like Matri and Van Nistelrooy have the exact same attributes when they are just rated at 89 where they are quite different in their own ways, but I suppose adding player attributes would complicate things a lot, although I would love to see it introduced :)[/quote']

I like the first idea a lot. It would definitely make signings more interesting and therefore more realistic. Paying bonuses when/if a player performs at a certain level (goals, average rating, etc.) would be something I'd like to see as well as loans with an option of purchase.

The second suggestion would be welcomed as well; I just don't think it's important & SM will probably never do it. It's not just the amount of work it would take to edit every single player, but more importantly they would have to change the way the match engine & the ratings work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

I like the first idea a lot. It would definitely make signings more interesting and therefore more realistic. Paying bonuses when/if a player performs at a certain level (goals' date=' average rating, etc.) would be something I'd like to see as well as loans with an option of purchase.[/quote']

It's what makes Football Manager so good with transfer negotiations :)

The second suggestion would be welcomed as well; I just don't think it's important & SM will probably never do it. It's not just the amount of work to would take to edit every single player' date=' but more importantly they would have to change the way the match engine & the ratings work.[/quote']

I would welcome that, the match engine is awful (sometimes I just feel like quitting some of my teams when the bloody match engine does me over :rolleyes:).

But yes your right, I don't think they would take the time to do that. It's not very different to Fifa or Football Manager where they do this once a year when they release a new games and apply occasional patches but on SM they would have to do it quite a few times, if they were to do this they would have to kiss goodbye their own social lives and dedicate their whole time to it :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

... will extra player attributes like Speed' date=' Marking, Heading etc. ever be introduced because to seems to me as if the game is saying players like Matri and Van Nistelrooy have the exact same attributes when they are just rated at 89 where they are quite different in their own ways, but I suppose adding player attributes would complicate things a lot, although I would love to see it introduced :)[/quote']

This I would like to see incorporated. It is difficult for me to believe that this isn't already in the match engine. A bit disappointing. I sort of assumed that player attributes were part of the match engine, and played accordingly (didn't read enough on the forums obviously :o ), but if it really only uses the basic info on each player then I can feel my interest waning as I write this :(. Complex is exactly what we want. The real game is complex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

This I would like to see incorporated. It is difficult for me to believe that this isn't already in the match engine. A bit disappointing. I sort of assumed that player attributes were part of the match engine' date=' and played accordingly (didn't read enough on the forums obviously :o ), but if it really only uses the basic info on each player then I can feel my interest waning as I write this :(. [b']Complex is exactly what we want. The real game is complex[/b].

I'm not really sure about that to be honest, because the rating system would have to be changed quite drastically in order to accomodate this change, plus rating changes would become nigh-on impossible because there'd be too many factors to consider. Plus the match engine would surely need to be changed to take into account the new rating system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Cheating using second accounts(transfer blocking)

Ok. So your bidding against alot of managers for a player at an unmanaged club (E.G david silva from spurs) and you win the bidding and the deal is accepted. Then one of the losing managers create another account, takes on spurs and then leaves them instantly, therefore cancelling the deal and giving them another chance to bid.

Equally doing the same to create more time to raise the funds

This is cheating but because the players quits the game world instantly you cant report them

I suggest introducing some way of reporting these 'blocking accounts' and/or changing the game rules that all pending or accepted deals continue even if someone becomes manager or if this sort of situation arises

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

If any devs read this, is it possible to remove the character limit on the VM's? Don't see the reason for a limit on characters, and it just means having to send 2/3/4 VM's at the one time, when having a discussion with someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Minor Improvments Thread

Not sure whether this has been stated before this idea is to stop managers resigning after like 10 mins of managing a club.. they should have a limit of a week of managing a club for example once you choose to manage a club you are not allowed to leave within the first week which encourages managers to stay on rather than leave because they don't get the players they want. Just an idea

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...