Jump to content

Squad Sizes  

1 member has voted

  1. 1.

    • No
      232
    • Capped at 50
      202
    • Capped at 100
      123
    • Capped at 150
      18
    • Capped at 200
      32


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: Squad Sizes

Re: Squad Sizes Feeling a bit despondent about all of this and whether SM is actually worth playing anymore. The fun has been ripped out of the game for me and fellow coaches don't understand my stra

Re: Squad Sizes

Dislike this idea immensely.

How will this improve the game for anybody?

I don't think 'hogging' is an issue' date=' as there are so many players on the database, and talent arrives practically every day providing everyone an opportunity.

The people who complain about high wages and debt are not usually those with large squads, but those with small ones who have spent unwisely and acquired old high wage players with rating decreases, or have inherited this situation. Any manager inheriting a club with an unwanted size is easily able to release them as most of the players in large squads are so low rated.

The people with large squads are those who like to acquire assets as their clubs are too small to make much money from gate receipts. They are also the people who find scouting the most enjoyable element of the game. I think large squads are a harmless managerial choice that is very viable for these smaller clubs.

If it is capped, stadium increases need to be implemented to allow good managers to make comparable amounts of money to the larger teams, as capping it will hinder a popular money making method.

It may not be realistic to have large squads in that most real life clubs do not have a 100 players (although i expect the number of players on club's books do come near this when incorporating players of all levels - something SM cannot offer) but it is also not realistic to introduce a cap as that does not exist in real life.

Many people have been incredulous at large squads but these are normally just managers who are disappointed that their transfer target is taken. Beyond that, I have never witnessed anyone suffering.[/quote']

100 PERCENT IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU

TERRIBLE IDEA...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

i think it depends on how big the cap is, i agree with the majority that a cap of 100 is stupid, but perhaps if SM need to control the squad sizes they should put a cap on that suits the majority of people, i.e 200 youth squad.

I think that would keep the scouts happy and also keep the pressure on the system down as well.

just a thought.....

(sorry if this has already been said, i scrolled through the pages quickly and might have missed it:rolleyes: )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

i think it depends on how big the cap is' date=' i agree with the majority that a cap of 100 is stupid, but perhaps if SM need to control the squad sizes they should put a cap on that suits the majority of people, i.e 200 youth squad.

I think that would keep the scouts happy and also keep the pressure on the system down as well.

just a thought.....

(sorry if this has already been said, i scrolled through the pages quickly and might have missed it:rolleyes: )[/quote']

Thats reasonable...

A cap of 50 youth and 50 in your main squad

im strongly against...

And im certainly not the only one

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I don't see why you are so excited about that team. What harm is it doing? He obviously has money, some are recent signings I think. Another 20,000 or so players left in the setup. If he hasn't cheated, and I know for a fact he hasn't been buying at random, then what is the harm? This has all been gone over in this thread..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I don't see why you are so excited about that team. What harm is it doing? He obviously has money' date=' some are recent signings I think. Another 20,000 or so players left in the setup. If he hasn't cheated, and I know for a fact he hasn't been buying at random, then what is the harm? This has all been gone over in this thread..[/quote']

It's actually a bloody good team as he is one hell of a scout on this forum. Nothing wrong with it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

It's actually a bloody good team as he is one hell of a scout on this forum. Nothing wrong with it :)

Have to disagree with you then contradict myself here. I mean it is ridiculas to have that many players however that is his enjoyment from the game and as you state he is one heck of a scout. The introduction of a limit on players in my eyes though is a big no no as its all about choice.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Have to disagree with you then contradict myself here. I mean it is ridiculas to have that many players however that is his enjoyment from the game and as you state he is one heck of a scout. The introduction of a limit on players in my eyes though is a big no no as its all about choice.:)

Thanks for the support Eclipse and TheReb.

The irony is that the guy who posted this message is trying to do deals with me!

I've said more or less everything I can on this. I won the cup last season, finished respectably in the league.

Have well over £100M cash and a squad to be proud of. Proving once again large squads doesn't necessarily mean bankruptcy!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Toggs

Re: Squad Sizes

I think its now a year and as far as im aware, no cap has been implimented.

I do understand SM's concern about unrealisticness and the fact of debt. Have been through that route myself but there is ways to get out of this.

We are doing a Bristol City challenge in the EC7?? (Dpending on what league the forumer is in.) At the start of the season, im defo sure Teb did, we ended up buying a near 50 people in pre-season. In my case; Got close to debt before the TB's go and then sell a certain percentage of those players (Around in my case, a third) that we now dont think will be a benefit to our squad and maybe use those players to get new ones. In most of my deals for these new players i have use 2 old players i now longer think are worth-while, meaning 2 players turn into 1.

So really, that is decreasing my squad numbers and as for wages, we have looked to sign the players before their rises (I.e - Gonul Gokhan is on Pennies comparing he is an 86 now.) because i signed him whlist he was rated 70, meaning i only pay his 70rated wage until i have to renew his contract. When this contract is renewed then oviously i would have to think about selling him but by then, my squad currently with around 80 players, would acceftivly turn into 60ish with players that leave, that cycle continues until Gokhan's contract is to be renewed and i should be able to keep his wages, considering where i look to be with my City in 2 years time.

The player cap in my case is a neutral idea, as i agree with both SM's ideas for the Cap and forumers reasons against it. I think Soccermanager shouldnt over-do the ban though (i.e - make the highest squad numbers (Youth+FirstTeam) only around 60) as alot of managers, aswell as me, take buying youth as a priority. I think that the ban should be implimented, but not as severe as SM may be thinking about.

:) Their, my side of the story :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I disagree with complaints about Bestpay's squad there are 400+ players, the majority of which young talent. If the majority became top class players, wouldn't he have to sell some of his players to stay out of debt?

So really no-one loses out. Bestpay still has a healthy squad of players, and a lot of cash, while other managers will have the high rated players.

And Teb's post is spot on. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Thanks for the support Eclipse and TheReb.

The irony is that the guy who posted this message is trying to do deals with me!

I've said more or less everything I can on this. I won the cup last season' date=' finished respectably in the league.

Have well over £100M cash and a squad to be proud of. Proving once again large squads doesn't necessarily mean bankruptcy![/quote']

FAIR PLAY BESTPAY,AND STILL HAVE £100 MIL

ITS A GREAT GAME,AND AS MUCH AS I LOVE WINNING GAMES

ITS JUST AS GOOD TO FIND YOUNG TALENT FOR 10K

AND FLOGGING ON FOR A BIG PROFIT AS YOUR DOING

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK

WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK SCOUTING MORE,

JC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I have to say i don't think there is a problem with large squads in set-ups with 80 or fewer teams, as has been said previously there are plenty players to go round, and i'm sure we as forumers have all enjoyed the experience of finding you're the only forumer in a particular set-up and then being able to snap up all the young talent :D

However.......GOLD CHAMPIONSHIPS :rolleyes:

Unless i'm much mistaken, GC's are supposed to be SM's flagship set-ups, yet many of the GC's have become dull and boring with few transfers being done and those that are done are usually for ridiculous prices.

This is usually due to people amassing huge squads and then refusing to sell anyone. Other Managers then become disillusioned and quit the set-up, eventually resulting in a minority of teams having a monopoly on all the best players and upcoming talent, half-empty leagues, and the GC then slowly stagnates.

Now, before anyone tells me "ah but Machine in a GC that's when you need a large squad more than ever" i agree up to a point - but a "large" squad by anyone's definition is surely 50+ not 150+...!

I would argue that as GC's are for the "elite" managers then a cap of 100 would be perfectly reasonable and great for the GC's - as a manager you would then have to really think about what players you think are worth keeping or buying, there would be a lot more movement in the transfer markets, and more managers to deal with.

This seems to have turned into a rant :o

Er, to sum up then: CAP of 80 - 100 for GC's, NO CAP for all other set-ups.

Thank you for your time! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

How I Miss this :mad:

I Have No Problim With Somebody Having 1 Million Players But Once Those Players Reach 22/23 In Reality They Will Get Unhappy & WILL Want To Move On..

My problim Is Not With Large Sqauds Its With Large Squads Of Senior Players Who Dont Get a Game:

Neller Will Back Me Up On This & Is In Agreement With The Suggestion We Have Both Recomended To SM/Forum About A Player Having To Play X% Of Games Every Two Seasons If Over a Certain Age/Quality..

The Problim Is You get 1 Team With 90/91 Rated Players Not Even Getting Games @ Clubs That Means It Make The Tranfer Market Less Existent (Triggle Down Effect) Thios 90/91 Rated Players Could Be Bought & Be Playing At Other Division 1 Clubs While The 88/89 Rated Players Could Be At Div2 Clu8bs Ect Ect...

But Because There Is Some Managers Out There Buying Up Everyone Of The Teams Looking To Improve There Sqauds (The Likes OF Celtic/Rangers/Sporting Teams Of This Quality Cant Get Hold Of These Players.

Thus Effecting The Transfer Market In a Negative Way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I have to say i don't think there is a problem with large squads in set-ups with 80 or fewer teams' date=' as has been said previously there are plenty players to go round, and i'm sure we as forumers have all enjoyed the experience of finding you're the only forumer in a particular set-up and then being able to snap up all the young talent :D

However.......GOLD CHAMPIONSHIPS :rolleyes:

Unless i'm much mistaken, GC's are supposed to be SM's flagship set-ups, yet many of the GC's have become dull and boring with few transfers being done and those that are done are usually for ridiculous prices.[/quote']

Dunno what gamme your playing but its obviously not SM in the Gold setups as you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried! The Gold setups are easily the most active setups on the game, they have the most active managers, the highest percentage of teams managed and also there are more deals done in the golds every turn then any other setups on the game. Where do you get your info from? I'd love to know!

I have watched the golds continue to grow in popularity and even older GC's have new managers taking teams all the time. About November 2007 GC1 had around 190 managed teams, it has 222 managed teams as of now so where are all the disillusioned managers quitting their teams?

There are in excess of 20000 players on the database which allows 200 teams to have 100+ squads! I never see that happening for a start and even if it does, who cares? The database is ever increasing with new players anyway so there's always the next big thing to go for.

I am no doubt one of the managers you speak of that won't sell their players for ridiculous prices but think about it.....if I was to sell you say Sergio Ramos in GC8 for example, for £50 million, who is going to sell me a similar replacement for the same sort of money.....errrr nobody! So I would be weakening my side just to keep other managers happy, I don't think so!

I have no problem selling top players in the golds, take for example GC7, I am Chelsea and have a current squad of 135 players. I plan to continue increasing that squad as well as I like to buy players who I have scouted and think will rise in rating/value. But, since I took them over last June I have sold the following players....Drogba, Terry, Cech, Lampard, Henry, Nesta, Kaka, Xavi, Gerrard and many, many others. So it is clear I have no issues sellig players and I believe that nobody does, it's all a matter of shopping in the right markets.

If you pick up a team like Sunderland for example in any GC then you shouldn't be targeting Ronaldinho and Messi as you just don't have the resources available to interest the manager into selling those players. So what you need to do is be clever, go scouting, look around the football world for youngsters that are breaking into their first teams and are in for hefty rises, these will be the players that you can use to strengthen the team in the long run. Success in a GC is a marathon and not a sprint, particularly if you are not fortunate enought to have a 'big team'. It is not difficult for anyone to find these future stars at all, this is an internet based game therefore we all have the information available at our fingertips. It's just a case that some can be more bothered than others and fair play, those that put the most effort in should get the biggest rewards! But even for the lazy gits that rely on other people to do their research for them we have this forum where 100's of rising players are posted on a weekly basis. So there is no excuse for anyone saying they can't find good young players.

I think that the Gold Championships are easily SM's flagships competitions and more and more people want to be in them, you only have to be on a the creation of any new GC to see that. There is a mad rush for teams and well over 100 teams are taken within minutes, that would fill ANY other setup on the game, so tell me, how are they dull and boring?

People are forever talking about realism on this game and how SM should make it as realistic as possible, well perhaps the players of this game need to be more realistic. If you were AZ Alkmaar manager in real life you would not be making Lionel Messi or Alexandre Pato your no. 1 targets. If the managers on SM were more realistic about who their team should be transfering in then there would be far less complaints and posts like this on the forum I think! If you want to turn AZ Alkmaar into a superpower with world class players then join a Dutch Championship where you are only competing with 19 other managers maximum for the 20000+ players and 500+ 90+ rated players on the database!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Dunno what gamme your playing but its obviously not SM in the Gold setups as you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried! The Gold setups are easily the most active setups on the game' date=' they have the most active managers, the highest percentage of teams managed and also there are more deals done in the golds every turn then any other setups on the game. Where do you get your info from? I'd love to know!

I have watched the golds continue to grow in popularity and even older GC's have new managers taking teams all the time. About November 2007 GC1 had around 190 managed teams, it has 222 managed teams as of now so where are all the disillusioned managers quitting their teams?

There are in excess of 20000 players on the database which allows 200 teams to have 100+ squads! I never see that happening for a start and even if it does, who cares? The database is ever increasing with new players anyway so there's always the next big thing to go for.

I am no doubt one of the managers you speak of that won't sell their players for ridiculous prices but think about it.....if I was to sell you say Sergio Ramos in GC8 for example, for £50 million, who is going to sell me a similar replacement for the same sort of money.....errrr nobody! So I would be weakening my side just to keep other managers happy, I don't think so!

I have no problem selling top players in the golds, take for example GC7, I am Chelsea and have a current squad of 135 players. I plan to continue increasing that squad as well as I like to buy players who I have scouted and think will rise in rating/value. But, since I took them over last June I have sold the following players....Drogba, Terry, Cech, Lampard, Henry, Nesta, Kaka, Xavi, Gerrard and many, many others. So it is clear I have no issues sellig players and I believe that nobody does, it's all a matter of shopping in the right markets.

If you pick up a team like Sunderland for example in any GC then you shouldn't be targeting Ronaldinho and Messi as you just don't have the resources available to interest the manager into selling those players. So what you need to do is be clever, go scouting, look around the football world for youngsters that are breaking into their first teams and are in for hefty rises, these will be the players that you can use to strengthen the team in the long run. Success in a GC is a marathon and not a sprint, particularly if you are not fortunate enought to have a 'big team'. It is not difficult for anyone to find these future stars at all, this is an internet based game therefore we all have the information available at our fingertips. It's just a case that some can be more bothered than others and fair play, those that put the most effort in should get the biggest rewards! But even for the lazy gits that rely on other people to do their research for them we have this forum where 100's of rising players are posted on a weekly basis. So there is no excuse for anyone saying they can't find good young players.

I think that the Gold Championships are easily SM's flagships competitions and more and more people want to be in them, you only have to be on a the creation of any new GC to see that. There is a mad rush for teams and well over 100 teams are taken within minutes, that would fill ANY other setup on the game, so tell me, how are they dull and boring?

People are forever talking about realism on this game and how SM should make it as realistic as possible, well perhaps the players of this game need to be more realistic. If you were AZ Alkmaar manager in real life you would not be making Lionel Messi or Alexandre Pato your no. 1 targets. If the managers on SM were more realistic about who their team should be transfering in then there would be far less complaints and posts like this on the forum I think! If you want to turn AZ Alkmaar into a superpower with world class players then join a Dutch Championship where you are only competing with 19 other managers maximum for the 20000+ players and 500+ 90+ rated players on the database![/quote']

Yikes! :eek: I seem to have touched a nerve there :P

Where to begin...???

Ok let's have a look at this - first of all you mention the "high" percentage of managed GC teams:

I am currently in GC's 4, 10, 12, 13 & 14 and was there from the start for 10, 12, 13 & 14. I witnessed the stampede for teams and players that you mentioned, and all of those set-ups started with over 90% of the teams managed - and now all sit between 61% and 64% of teams that are managed, which is a heck of a drop in only a few months. GC's 1 - 5 are much the same, averaging about the 60% mark.

Why is this? There are currently 14 Gold Championships with 380 teams so there are potentially 5,320 teams available to manage in total. SM as of today has 4,812 Gold Members so simple maths would suggest that if every Gold Member managed only 1 team then there should only be 508 unmanaged teams across all GC's.

Now, let's be generous and say the average percentage of teams managed across all GC's is 65% - this would work out at 247 managed teams and 133 unmanaged per set-up.

133 unmanaged teams across 14 set-ups = 1,862 unmanaged teams...! So straight away we're saying there are 1300+ Gold Members who could manage an unmanaged team in a GC - but choose not to! That's over 25% of all Gold Members!

This % becomes even worse when you think that many people such as myself manage a team in more than one GC, so in reality the 1300 is probably nearer 1500 - 1600.

Consider this - if every Gold Member thought GC's were great enough to want to manage a team in only 2 of the 14 set-ups, then every GC would be full and there would be people waiting for a free team!

Where are all these Gold Members? Maybe they're all glory hunters who only want to manage a big team? Maybe they're all involved in 12 custom set-ups with mates and just don't have space for a GC team? :rolleyes: Maybe they just don't fancy the challenge?

Or maybe, just maybe, they are "disillusioned" with GC's, and see no point in bothering with them for the aforementioned reason; managers who hoover up all the young talent and then charge crazy prices for established stars.

I am not criticizing managers who do this (i'm no stranger to building a huge squad either) as they are simply doing the best by their team, my point is that if there were a cap in GC's then they wouldn't be able to amass so much of the talent in the first place.

The point you make about there being more transfers each day in a GC than any other set-up:

Seeing as a GC is at least 4.75 x bigger than any other set-up then i'd expect that there would be more transfers than any other set-up. I don't think i said "there are more transfers in WC106 or SC2 than in a GC" :confused:

The point about "Where are all the disillusioned managers?": Yes i don't know where they are either, already dealt with, see above.

"There are 20,000+ players on the database": Yes there are 20,000 players on the database, but even the best scout won't have details on all 20,000, and the majority of Gold Members will all be using the same websites/ forums/ magazines and therefore will all be going for the same "next big things".

Sunderland's of the world going after Ronaldinho & Messi is not realistic: i honestly don't believe that people joining GC's as smaller teams are expecting to be able to buy Ronaldinho, Messi etc, at least not straight away (if ever). But because there is no cap, this un-realistic buying also works in reverse - big teams also compete with the smaller teams of the game for players who are only rising maybe 74 - 78, so the small teams don't get as much of a chance to buy players who will develop.

How many times in real life do you see Man Utd buying Division 3 players?

Or AC Milan buying a player simply because he's started the first 4 games of the Finnish season?

A cap would mean the big teams would have to weigh up how much of their squad they wanted to dedicate to youth, against how much of the team they wanted to be established 1st team players.

The benefit of a cap for GCs is that with limited squad size managers would have to be far more choosy as to who they bought and sold, meaning there would be more "next big things" to go around, keeping more managers interested in things and keeping more of them in the set-up.

As far as i can see, the very best managers wouldn't have anything to fear from a cap because they would know that the 60 (for example) players they had would be the best combination of proven and potential talent. People would have to scout more, instead of just reading about someone on the forum and snapping him up "just in case".

But maybe certain folk quite enjoy playing in half-empty leagues, in which case SM should just do away with all 2nd Divisions in GCs coz there's no point in them being there.

"If you want to turn AZ Alkmaar into a superpower with world class players then join a Dutch Championship" :

This is a pretty depressing comment. Many people play SM for the thrill of competing with and beating the big teams, or taking a smaller team in real life to the top of the league etc. This sounds as if you're saying that if you're not a big team in a GC then you should know your place!

Realism is all very well and good, but it's the hope and dream of seeing your team achieving things you didn't think it could that keeps the majority of us playing SM and following our teams in real life.

Unfotunately, when it comes to GCs 1300+ Gold Members seem to have taken your advice......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Machine - excellent post mate one of the best I have read in ages, I'm one of the people who doesn't manage in GC's, only GC1 but I don't really bother with my team in that much due to many of the reasons you listed I find them quite boring tbh.

You are about to get jumped on by Teb and Leigh ;) so you are going to have a longggggg debate on your hands so good luck mate, I agree with all of what your saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I enjoyed reading that, Machine, but I agree with little of it as Nells predicted. :D

[..stats...]Where are all these Gold Members? Maybe they're all glory hunters who only want to manage a big team? Maybe they're all involved in 12 custom set-ups with mates and just don't have space for a GC team? :rolleyes: Maybe they just don't fancy the challenge?

Or maybe' date=' just maybe, they are "disillusioned" with GC's, and see no point in bothering with them for the aforementioned reason; managers who hoover up all the young talent and then charge crazy prices for established stars.[/quote']A lot of managers get Gold Membership as they can only be a custom setup owner by being a GM. Never appealed to me personally, but LOTS of people buy GM's for custom setup owner powers. They also join for prestige, the ability to manage extra clubs... many reasons in fact. If Gold Setups did not exist, I know I would still have one and i suspect many others would too. One of the main reasons I have a GM is to have all my teams under one account; I have two GC teams but GC's are my favourite setups. So, much as I liked your stats, I think they are largely moot as you are assuming the imbalance between GM's and GC teams managed is a criticism of GCs - when it could as easily be a compliment to other GM features.

I am not criticizing managers who do this (i'm no stranger to building a huge squad either) as they are simply doing the best by their team, my point is that if there were a cap in GC's then they wouldn't be able to amass so much of the talent in the first place.
Yes, but I think the point of this thread - or at least the point I have been shouting myself hoarse over - is that everyone wants a more realistic game and squad sizes (and don't recall even one person suggesting otherwise). This includes me as a large-squad-lover. A horrendous mistake though would be slapping a cap on, as there are dozens of other, better, ways that SM can use to achieve the same effect of realistic squad sizes. Many have been listed on this thread in the past. The cap just creates as many problems as it solves.
The point you make about there being more transfers each day in a GC than any other set-up:

Seeing as a GC is at least 4.75 x bigger than any other set-up then i'd expect that there would be more transfers than any other set-up. I don't think i said "there are more transfers in WC106 or SC2 than in a GC" :confused:

I think Leigh's point is that there is plenty of movement in the transfer market. I am only in Gc1 and Gc13 with Spartak (monster club in all respects) and Stevenage (minnows in all respects) and see lots of transfer action with both. The market is far less stale than in other setups I am in as the managers are the smartest on SM by and large, and if you shop realistically and make good negotiations and send decent PM's then people respond in kind. People who don't do this get generally get short shrift and leave - who cares? Not me, as a better manager will take their place for good, or a worse one will join and leave as well. In other setups there is more unmanaged activity as managers will just shop there rather than bother talking to another manager, but I would be surprised if there were more manager/manager deals in the 4 divisions in an EC than in the English league in GC-whatever.
"There are 20,000+ players on the database": Yes there are 20,000 players on the database, but even the best scout won't have details on all 20,000, and the majority of Gold Members will all be using the same websites/ forums/ magazines and therefore will all be going for the same "next big things".
I don't follow your point; Leigh is saying there are plenty of players for everyone, and that it will never get near the point where all players are owned. People might have access to the same info (we all have the internet) but judgement is the beauty of transfers in real life and SM which is why everyone wants different players. The more competitive the setups, and the closer the quality of scouts in a setup, the more judgement is important. A bad thing? Not for me. It gets better when that happens as you have to pit your wits and/or gamble more.
Sunderland's of the world going after Ronaldinho & Messi is not realistic: i honestly don't believe that people joining GC's as smaller teams are expecting to be able to buy Ronaldinho, Messi etc, at least not straight away (if ever). But because there is no cap, this un-realistic buying also works in reverse - big teams also compete with the smaller teams of the game for players who are only rising maybe 74 - 78, so the small teams don't get as much of a chance to buy players who will develop.
Well I just received a bid of 99m from a team whose average rating is 85 for Van Nistelrooy, so clearly people do expect to buy superstars and think they can punch above their weight. It wouldn't be remotely realistic to encourage such dillusion. In real life RVN wouldn't entertain joining them anyway.

Of course big teams will compete for lower rated players, the game is set up to encourage signing youth and scouting so it makes sense to go for youth. With Stevenage I made a host of good (not great) signings and sure I got beaten to some better targets (by bigger clubs, fair enough - true to life) but big deal, another few thousand players out there I can sign that will rise that nobody has shortlisted. This is true in EVERY setup I am.

How many times in real life do you see Man Utd buying Division 3 players?

Or AC Milan buying a player simply because he's started the first 4 games of the Finnish season?

You see big clubs signing talent all the time if you look closely. They often do it before professional apps are made though. There is no SM equivalent to this besides buying youth on the database. So, if you want to invest in the future, what other choice is there but to look at likely risers?

Besides Man Utd wouldn't buy a rubbish Div 3 player in reality, only a prospect. Big clubs do the same in SM and like in real life the big clubs generally get the cream of the crop.

A cap would mean the big teams would have to weigh up how much of their squad they wanted to dedicate to youth, against how much of the team they wanted to be established 1st team players.
Yes but why should they have to do that? What happens to existing teams with large squads, like some of mine, where I have embarked on youth signing policies quite fairly rather than spend on older players? If I have to sell these players in order to trade again, my only choice is to sell at a loss.
The benefit of a cap for GCs is that with limited squad size managers would have to be far more choosy as to who they bought and sold, meaning there would be more "next big things" to go around, keeping more managers interested in things and keeping more of them in the set-up.
We all want what you are suggesting, just not through a cap. If you make unused star players unhappy for instance, it would have the same effect of making managers choosier. For lower rated players though, hurts nobody if they are owned in large numbers.
As far as i can see, the very best managers wouldn't have anything to fear from a cap because they would know that the 60 (for example) players they had would be the best combination of proven and potential talent. People would have to scout more, instead of just reading about someone on the forum and snapping him up "just in case".
Yes but when I have millions in the bank, why should I be choosey? A cap would just be annoying and I would just pool money which would then make it even more irrelevant in these setups. If I manage my club well why can't it be as big as I please? If SM want me to choosey there are more subtle ways to make me than slamming a brick wall cap in front of me, lots have been named on this and other threads.
But maybe certain folk quite enjoy playing in half-empty leagues, in which case SM should just do away with all 2nd Divisions in GCs coz there's no point in them being there.
No evidence that leagues being empty are anything to do with squad sizes. I have been in setups where there are no large squads and they are half empty. People should have the opportunity to take on a challenge so would be crazy to wipe out lower leagues.
"If you want to turn AZ Alkmaar into a superpower with world class players then join a Dutch Championship" :

This is a pretty depressing comment. Many people play SM for the thrill of competing with and beating the big teams, or taking a smaller team in real life to the top of the league etc. This sounds as if you're saying that if you're not a big team in a GC then you should know your place!

I think Leigh means if you want to turn someone into a superpower quickly than join a setup like that. SM caters to lots of tastes with different types of setup so that is why to me the variety of setups is not displeasing. A GC is just like the 'hard' setting on your favourite computer game as far as I am concerned. If people don't like it, or find it too hard, choose a more appropriate setting.
Realism is all very well and good, but it's the hope and dream of seeing your team achieving things you didn't think it could that keeps the majority of us playing SM and following our teams in real life.
Yes and anyone with an ounce of determination can do well in a GC, and any setup. Not suggesting everyone must devote their lives to SM to succeed in a GC, but if they think before buying and selling it is easy to progress.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I enjoyed reading that' date=' Machine, but I agree with little of it as Nells predicted. :D

A lot of managers get Gold Membership as they can only be a custom setup owner by being a GM. Never appealed to me but LOTS of people buy GM's for custom setup owner powers. They also join for prestige, the ability to manage extra clubs, many reasons. If Gold Setups did not exist, I would still have one and i think many others would too. So, much as I liked your stats, I think they are largely moot as you are assuming the imbalance between GM's and GC teams managed is a criticism of GCs when it could as easily be a compliment to other GM features. One of the main reasons I have a GM is to have all my teams under one account; I have two GC teams but GC's are my favourite setups.[/quote']

although that is true many, many people also don't like GC's, inc me I bet quite a few people bought gold to play in a GC but find it boring. unless you have tons of time to spend on SM every week scouting and trying to get players then GC's aint a good thing imo of course for ppl who can put the hours in and are into scouting they are good.

Yes' date=' but I think the point of this thread - or at least the point I have been shouting myself hoarse over - is that everyone wants a more realistic game and squad sizes. Including me as a large-squad-lover. What would be a horrendous mistake though would be slapping a cap on as there are dozens of other, better, ways that SM can use to achieve the same effect of realistic squad sizes. Many have been listed on this thread in the past.[/quote']

Totaly agree with that although I thought u was also against players going unhappy? which is the most realistic way and the easiest way to do things imo, most the players on SM people have rotting away in there "squad" but not getting games is a joke. I wouldnt mind if they played them or loaned them out but they dont.

I know say you and Leigh loan them out but most dont. even ppl who own these teams with the likes of Aguero and co as there 12th choice striker have to admit its stupid. not to mention people who own a youth squad contatining mainly 90's

I think Leigh's point is that there is plenty of movement in the transfer market. I am only in Gc1 and Gc13 with Spartak (monster club in all respects) and Stevenage (minnows in all respects) and see lots of transfer action with both. The market is far less stale than in other setups I am in as the managers are the smartest on SM by and large' date=' and if you shop realistically and make good negotiations and send decent PM's then people respond in kind. People who don't do this get generally get short shrift and leave - who cares? Not me, as a better manager will take their place for good, or a worse one will join and leave as well.[/quote']

yeah there is plenty of movement mainly for the people already in the setup tho, because unmanaged teams are so poorly protected and most people dont even want them better pretected as its an easy and cheap way to build a squad it makes a new managers job impossible at times.

if someone takes over a new GC team 99% of them have been totaly stripped of any half decent player they have. then all they have is a bucket load of cash and if people are rejcting 99mil bids what good is that?

yeah people can go scouting and do it that way but just like some people aint into buying the top stars more people aint into scouting

I don't follow your point; Leigh is saying there are plenty of players for everyone' date=' and that it will never get near the point where all players are owned. People might have access to the same info (we all have the internet) but judgement is the beauty of transfers in real life and SM which is why everyone wants different players. The more competitive the setups, and the closer the quality of scouts in a setup, the more judgement is important. A bad thing? Not for me. It gets better when that happens as you have to pit your wits and/or gamble more.[/quote']

I think he means everyone wants the same players, there maybe 20k players on the DB but per week there are only so many people want mainly the ones people list on here or the ones listed in real life such as Bojan and co, although on that side of things I dont have a problem whoever finds them and wins the war deserves them imo that is how it is in real life.

Well I just received a bid of 99m from a team whose average rating is 85 for Van Nistelrooy' date=' so clearly people do expect to buy superstars and think they can punch above their weight. It wouldn't be remotely realistic to encourage such dillusion. In real life RVN wouldn't entertain joining them anyway.

Of course big teams will compete for lower rated players, the game is set up to encourage signing youth and scouting so it makes sense to go for youth. With Stevenage I made a host of good signings and sure I got beaten to some targets but big deal, another few thousand players out there I can sign that will rise that nobody has shortlisted. This is true in EVERY setup I am.[/quote']

2nd part of that isnt really true, on SM most people buy loads of players even if they aint the next big thing or even that good, but they know they are going to jump up 4 points in the next rating change then they just ship them on for a profit .... that IS NOT more realistic then Sunderland going for Ronaldinho, in fact if Sunderland had the amount of cash in real life as they do on here it isnt that unrealsitic. buying some random dude waiting for him to jump up a few points and selling him is.

I cant ever remember any of the big clubs buying any player just to sell him in a few weeks after his value jumps up a tad, but thats what you guys love doing, thats what makes SM great to you, and at the same time managing Sunderland and bringing RVN to there club might be someone else's love I know which is more realistic

You see big clubs signing talent all the time if you look closely. They often do it before professional apps are made though. There is no SM equivalent to this besides buying youth on the database. So' date=' if you want to invest in the future, what other choice is there but to look at likely risers?

Besides Man Utd wouldn't buy a rubbish Div 3 player in reality, only a prospect. Big clubs do the same in SM and like in real life the big clubs generally get the cream of the crop.

[/quote']

as above, they only really sign future prospects who have a good reputation for a young age many of which are still on the books at the big clubs.

no problem with that but when you see Barca and co signing some Russian who is never ever in a million years going to be good but is due a jump in rating (still about 20 ratings below one of there subs) just to sell them for 2mil in 20 turns is far from realistic

Yes but why should they have to do that? What happens to existing teams with large squads' date=' like some of mine, where I have embarked on youth signing policies quite fairly rather than spend on older players? If I have to sell these players in order to trade again, my only choice is to sell at a loss.

[/quote']

Im totaly against the cap now and agree with the above, use your moscow as an example the amount of work and hours you have put in would be a waste if a cap was added, a cap is also unrealsitic, isnt fun and shouldnt be added

Yes but when I have millions in the bank' date=' why should I be choosey? A cap would just be annoying and I would just pool money which would then make it even more irrelevant in these setups. If I manage my club well why can't it be as big as I please? If SM want me to choosey there are more subtle ways to make me than slamming a brick wall cap in front of me, lots have been named on this and other threads. [/quote']

yeah agree, although something needs to be done I think the best way is making players want to play X amount of games per season, although not all players it needs to be based on rating -> team rating, just like in real life now Crouch has put up with it for a season but now he seems to be coming to his wits end

No evidence that leagues being empty are anything to do with squad sizes. I have been in setups where there are no large squads and they are half empty. People should have the opportunity to take on a challenge so would be crazy to wipe out lower leagues.

lower leagues should never be taken away' date=' although any old setups are nearly pointless to join due to the points made on this thread, you join an old setup its like playing in a GC only harder (getting players that is)

I think Leigh means if you want to turn someone into a superpower quickly than join a setup like that. SM caters to lots of tastes with different types of setup so why to me the variety of setups is not displeasing. A GC is just like the 'hard' setting on your favourite computer game as far as I am concerned. If people don't like it, or find it too hard, choose a more appropriate setting.

Yes and anyone with an ounce of determination can do well in a GC, and any setup.

not really, when you play a game on hard it just makes the computer use better tactics or whatever, it doesnt make the computer buy up unrealsitic joke super sides and never sell you anyone.

on all top football games this doesnt, and in fact cant happen, on FM for example although you can own a great squad you just try not giving a decent player so many games a season, but just get ready for the transfer reuqests everytime you hit continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Cheers for the support Neller! :D

I need to clarify some things.

When i think of how many hours i've spent on my Shakhtar and Chesterfield teams, and even my GC teams (the difference being that the GC hours are usually spent trawling through the desolate wastelands of unmanaged teams trying to find players :rolleyes::P ) and then when i think that i still probably don't spend half as much time on SM as some of you do, then introducing an instant cap would be plain wrong.

Even if SM gave 6 months notice it would still be difficult for teams to shift excess players, and i do agree with the point of view that as there was no limit when Managers entered the set-up, new rules shouldn't be introduced to an existing set-up as it would be extremely unpopular with existing members.

However.....moving forward and as SM continues to grow as a business, they will have to make a decision on introducing a cap.

New managers will always be joining up and will enjoy their free membership, but along with advertising it's the uptake of Gold Memberships that makes SM money. Of those who decide to buy a Gold Membership i still maintain that the majority will do so to manage additional clubs ie in GCs rather than any other reason.

So, the new manager decides to try managing in a GC, maybe has a bit of money (coz he's only got 18 players as his team has been stripped to the bones), places a few bids, gets quoted £25m for an 88 and thinks "ok, i'm gonna try buying future talent then" - only to find that any player from any country under the age of 23/24 who has been mentioned in any forum post, magazine article or news story within the last 6 months has already been bought!

Teb, Leigh, and some of you would doubtless suggest to that manager that he should simply widen his scouting net to include the Costa Rican Super League and the Lebanese Liga to make full use of SM's much hyped 20,000+ players.

The problem is that what is more likely is that the new manager will just leave.

Teb said, "who cares? Not me, as a better manager will take their place for good, or a worse one will join and leave as well."

That's fair enough, and i accept the point that some new managers might leave the GC and buy a custom set-up. But a large percentage may simply not bother renewing his/ her Gold Membership and go back to a free membership.

Much of this is obviously speculation, as only SM will know the drop-out rate of GC's and the true percentage of Gold Memberships that are or are not being renewed.

All i'm saying is that if SM think introducing a squad limit for future set-ups will generate more interest in their flagship set-ups and increase Gold Membership take-ups/ renewals, then you can bet their not gonna think twice about doing it just because some of us like building small armies of footballers.

Especially when it's not going to affect very many people - being honest, how many of us would quit their Gold Membership or indeed SM altogether if a squad limit was announced for all future set-ups?

As much as i personally have only been arguing for a cap on GCs, i can see the day when there is a cap introduced in ALL set-ups.

Maybe a year or two from now some newbie will find this thread and be amazed that there were once teams with more than 100 players :D

And Bestpay will be able to tell his Grandkids about how he once managed a team with over 400 players :eek:;)

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

Re: Squad Sizes

Cheers for the support Neller! :D

I need to clarify some things.

When i think of how many hours i've spent on my Shakhtar and Chesterfield teams' date=' and even my GC teams (the difference being that the GC hours are usually spent trawling through the desolate wastelands of unmanaged teams trying to find players :rolleyes::P ) and then when i think that i still probably don't spend half as much time on SM as some of you do, then introducing an instant cap would be plain [b']wrong[/b].

Even if SM gave 6 months notice it would still be difficult for teams to shift excess players, and i do agree with the point of view that as there was no limit when Managers entered the set-up, new rules shouldn't be introduced to an existing set-up as it would be extremely unpopular with existing members.

However.....moving forward and as SM continues to grow as a business, they will have to make a decision on introducing a cap.

New managers will always be joining up and will enjoy their free membership, but along with advertising it's the uptake of Gold Memberships that makes SM money. Of those who decide to buy a Gold Membership i still maintain that the majority will do so to manage additional clubs ie in GCs rather than any other reason.

So, the new manager decides to try managing in a GC, maybe has a bit of money (coz he's only got 18 players as his team has been stripped to the bones), places a few bids, gets quoted £25m for an 88 and thinks "ok, i'm gonna try buying future talent then" - only to find that any player from any country under the age of 23/24 who has been mentioned in any forum post, magazine article or news story within the last 6 months has already been bought!

Teb, Leigh, and some of you would doubtless suggest to that manager that he should simply widen his scouting net to include the Costa Rican Super League and the Lebanese Liga to make full use of SM's much hyped 20,000+ players.

The problem is that what is more likely is that the new manager will just leave.

Teb said, "who cares? Not me, as a better manager will take their place for good, or a worse one will join and leave as well."

That's fair enough, and i accept the point that some new managers might leave the GC and buy a custom set-up. But a large percentage may simply not bother renewing his/ her Gold Membership and go back to a free membership.

Much of this is obviously speculation, as only SM will know the drop-out rate of GC's and the true percentage of Gold Memberships that are or are not being renewed.

All i'm saying is that if SM think introducing a squad limit for future set-ups will generate more interest in their flagship set-ups and increase Gold Membership take-ups/ renewals, then you can bet their not gonna think twice about doing it just because some of us like building small armies of footballers.

Especially when it's not going to affect very many people - being honest, how many of us would quit their Gold Membership or indeed SM altogether if a squad limit was announced for all future set-ups?

As much as i personally have only been arguing for a cap on GCs, i can see the day when there is a cap introduced in ALL set-ups.

Maybe a year or two from now some newbie will find this thread and be amazed that there were once teams with more than 100 players :D

And Bestpay will be able to tell his Grandkids about how he once managed a team with over 400 players :eek:;)

Spot on i have a team in my managed by the owner where transfers from unmanaged are disabled but its so obvious he has changed rules for himself and he has a first team squad of 52 players with an average rating of 91 and all the best players till 92 in his team now tell me will a new manager in his setup bother managing a team.. He refuses to loan forget selling.. Which team in the world has a FIRST TEAM SQUAD OF 50 PLAYERS all top class name one and i will quit soccermanager for ever..

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...