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

Re: Squad Sizes

To be fair - it is really frustrating seeing some clown with 150-200 players in their squad.

I think the earlier comment regarding registering players like the managers of the Premier League have to. 25 players must be registered with the 'SMFA' by the start of turn 1 or turn 2 that are officially allowed to play in matches. This list could be updated perhaps twice a season (once at turn 10ish then again at turn 24ish) to allow for transfers in or out.

Players not in this 25 man squad should then be booted into a reserve team where players would go through the 'concerns' process at a faster rate. The youth players should rightly be unaffected until such time as they are capable of breaking into the first team. Perhaps if they are within 1 or 2 rating points of the first team regular - for example if you play Jesus Navas and Arjen Robben on the wings and have pedro when he was rated 78 then he would not expect to play therefore would not develop concerns, however once he has risen to his 90, if he does not gain entry into your 25 man squad, then he would begin to become concerned.

A classic example is Shay Given, he is considering his future already having seen he will not be playing first team football due to Harts good form forcing Mancini's hand. So it can be very quick that a player in real life decides he is offski because he isnt going to play, I would suggest that a full season of being in the reserves, if the player still does not gain entry to your 25 man squad at the start of the following season then he would then be in a position of wanting to leave the club.

Does this sound feasible? I think it would strike a happy medium personally. There are sacrifices from both camps in terms of the squad cap v no squad cap. It still has the element of realism to it whilst in game, the manager does have the chance to pick who they want to use so can be no real problem with players that are not being used wanting to leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

To be fair - it is really frustrating seeing some clown with 150-200 players in their squad.

Yeah. I agree.

Im a clown because i spent hours of time and effort, making my Bournemouth for example a division 1 outfit, recruiting, and sell players to keep the club afloat.

Im a clown because i use the market to my advantage to bring good players to my club.

Most the people with 150-200 players have put a load of effort into their squads. Clown is not the correct word

:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Yeah. I agree.

Im a clown because i spent hours of time and effort' date=' making my Bournemouth for example a division 1 outfit, recruiting, and sell players to keep the club afloat.

Im a clown because i use the market to my advantage to bring good players to my club.

Most the people with 150-200 players have put a load of effort into their squads. Clown is not the correct word

:mad:[/quote']

Yeah agreed but again you are really reffering to the lower rated risers and not the higher rated players who others mean, he said Pedro would not be unhappy at a lower rating but someone like Given would

im guessing using his example if you had pedro and he did rise to 90 he would either get into your team or you would sell him for a very big profit? if so I dont think you count for 1 of the people these guys are reffering to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Yeah. I agree.

Im a clown because i spent hours of time and effort' date=' making my Bournemouth for example a division 1 outfit, recruiting, and sell players to keep the club afloat.

Im a clown because i use the market to my advantage to bring good players to my club.

Most the people with 150-200 players have put a load of effort into their squads. Clown is not the correct word

:mad:[/quote']

Perhaps not, but it's not realistic for Bournemouth to have 200 players...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Yeah. I agree.

Im a clown because i spent hours of time and effort' date=' making my Bournemouth for example a division 1 outfit, recruiting, and sell players to keep the club afloat.

Im a clown because i use the market to my advantage to bring good players to my club.

Most the people with 150-200 players have put a load of effort into their squads. Clown is not the correct word

:mad:[/quote']

Most people? Are you serious? I would stake a large wager that in fact, most people have simply input 'young risers' or something of that nature into the search function of the forum and brougt in players that way. Now I am not particularly critical of people doing that, but I reject the idea that each person or indeed most people with those size squads have dedicated hours researching leagues and picking out risers or talents. If you believe this to be the case, then yes I would consider you a clown. Perhaps you have indeed spent time building your team with your own research, if this is the case - well done good work. Unfortunately I do not share your luxury of affording that much time. That is not a criticism or snide remark, I genuinely would like to have that much time to do that kind of work on the game.

And as stated, did I not say that youth teams would not be affected?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Yeah. I agree.

Im a clown because i spent hours of time and effort' date=' making my Bournemouth for example a division 1 outfit, recruiting, and sell players to keep the club afloat.

Im a clown because i use the market to my advantage to bring good players to my club.

Most the people with 150-200 players have put a load of effort into their squads. Clown is not the correct word

:mad:[/quote']

Yeah we can think of a few words to discribe Adam...and clown is being much to generous ;):P

On a serious note, as much as I love the recruiting, the scouting watching youngsters progress etc etc I think a squad cap is not necessarily a bad idea....my idea would be around 50players in total. But in a way it would spoil the enjoyment of what i like doing on the game but at the same time could help to spread out the distribution of players but hey you get out of this game what you put in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Yeah agreed but again you are really reffering to the lower rated risers and not the higher rated players who others mean' date=' he said Pedro would not be unhappy at a lower rating but someone like Given would

im guessing using his example if you had pedro and he did rise to 90 he would either get into your team or you would sell him for a very big profit? if so I dont think you count for 1 of the people these guys are reffering to.[/quote']

My reply was more at the use of the word "clown". Now before i say anything esle, im not against a squad cap, im actually for it, it adds to the competiviness of each individual gameworld. But lets say someone did scout or even read up on certain players and over 2 years, the Pedro's, Hazards of the world, that were added to the DB at a low rating are now high. He has a large squad of lets say 50 first teams 87+, how is he a clown for for putting together a squad like that ? How is he ? So what if he doesnt want to sell them, its his right considering he built that team from scratch. But that being said, as i stated earlier, it does take away from the competivness.

Perhaps not' date=' but it's not realistic for Bournemouth to have 200 players...[/quote']

Very true. But then if we talking realism, i shouldnt be able to sign players above the 80 mark, because thats not realistic. If the game becomes to realistic it will not be fun.

Most people? Are you serious? I would stake a large wager that in fact' date=' most people have simply input 'young risers' or something of that nature into the search function of the forum and brougt in players that way. Now I am not particularly critical of people doing that, but I reject the idea that each person or indeed most people with those size squads have dedicated hours researching leagues and picking out risers or talents. If you believe this to be the case, then yes I would consider you a clown. Perhaps you have indeed spent time building your team with your own research, if this is the case - well done good work. Unfortunately I do not share your luxury of affording that much time. That is not a criticism or snide remark, I genuinely would like to have that much time to do that kind of work on the game.

And as stated, did I not say that youth teams would not be affected?[/quote']

Considering the forum is part here, and partly so succesful to such scouting threads, i see nothing wrong with it. Also little confused to why you bring up people searching for young risers then say that youth teams wouldnt be effected, surely if thats the case, it need not matter how many youths they sign.

But these youth players do eventually turn into players who could play in the first team, if a manager has a lot of these players , like the aforementioned Hazard, Pedro and Neymar ( who will rise to the rating bracket were discussing ), i dont see why he should be forced to sell them. Yes having a huge squad is not realisitc, but many play this game to assemble strong squads, and thats there right.

Back onto you rejecting the idea of people putting effort in, even if they did search for them on here, clearly they went to more effort than you, because they have the player on their books and you dont, maybe you should use the search function a little more ?

Like i said, im not against Concerns or a squad cap, but there is two sides to every argument.

EDIT: I dont have alot of free time, but its not hard to watch a bit of football from different countries now and again and keep up to date with the media and statistic websites is it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

So what if he doesnt want to sell them' date=' its his right considering he built that team from scratch. But that being said, as i stated earlier, it does take away from the competivness. [/quote']

Agreed but isnt that what this whole thread is about? :confused: trying to stop it from happening.

I dont believe a squad cap is the right thing for SM to do as the points against it on this thread are far better than the ones for it imo I agree with most the points Teb always makes on this subject (its the only time he posts sense :D )

Lets say I had a team full of 93+ rated players and a massive squad of players I hope would raise in the future because they are low rated there wouldn't be a problem but say most those in the end rose to 92+ and they never played where is the need for them? whats the fun for me having them and it spoils the possibility of others actually using them properly.

Players who are rated that high should EXPECT to play and if they dont there concerns should develop miles faster than the lower rated players just like they would in real life.

Hogging all the higher rated players is not fun, it doesn't make the game better for them but it spoils the setup for others, sure you can say welll everyone had the chance to get them but this isnt true for people who want to join the setup a few weeks after it starts.

Then you see squads who have Villa and Drogba on the bench in case there Torres or Rooney get injured then other 94 / 95 rated strikers behind them its just nuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Agreed but isnt that what this whole thread is about? :confused: trying to stop it from happening.

I dont believe a squad cap is the right thing for SM to do as the points against it on this thread are far better than the ones for it imo I agree with most the points Teb always makes on this subject (its the only time he posts sense :D )

Lets say I had a team full of 93+ rated players and a massive squad of players I hope would raise in the future because they are low rated there wouldn't be a problem but say most those in the end rose to 92+ and they never played where is the need for them? whats the fun for me having them and it spoils the possibility of others actually using them properly.

Players who are rated that high should EXPECT to play and if they dont there concerns should develop miles faster than the lower rated players just like they would in real life.

Hogging all the higher rated players is not fun' date=' it doesn't make the game better for them but it spoils the setup for others, sure you can say welll everyone had the chance to get them but this isnt true for people who want to join the setup a few weeks after it starts.

Then you see squads who have Villa and Drogba on the bench in case there Torres or Rooney get injured then other 94 / 95 rated strikers behind them its just nuts.[/quote']

I do agree with you, i just veered off after the clown comment. Im not against a cap, but accelerated concerns for 92+ players are the way to go. No doubting that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Part of the reason why this topic keeps periodically getting re-ignited is the fact that despite SMs efforts, they have not yet found a solution to the problem. It's a delicate balance between trying to make more players available for all clubs to purchase and not enforcing managers to part with players they wish to keep. Most seem vehemently against the squad cap notion and it's clear that this forced SM to think of a different idea to tackle the issue. Their response was to create the concept of player AI and player concers. It seemed a good compromise as it would in theory reduce squad sizes, but leave the control in the managers hands, leaving them free to choose if they'd rather lose the higher rated player or the young starlet. This is how it should be working:

Players who are rated that high should EXPECT to play and if they dont there concerns should develop miles faster than the lower rated players just like they would in real life.

The problem with the 'player concerns' concept, as it is playing out currently, is that it is far too inconsistent and certainly not harsh enough to cause many members to sell any players as it is currently playing out. I have teams where an under-21 90 rated CM who is getting some games despite three 93-94 rated CMs ahead of him in the pecking order, has a minor concern, whilst a 25+ year old 92 rated forward who hasn't played in a season and has a much stronger cause to be a first-teamer, is not concerned at all. Two things here:

- Inconsistency - surely the forward should be more concerned about lack of games than the midfielder.

- Rate of concerns developing - far too slow. that forward should be on the verge of asking for a transfer by now or certianly be quite unhappy.

People who know me and manage in gameworlds I have teams in, will know I generally have smaller teams (most have squads between 30 and 50 players) and also that I don't have much time to do much scouting or build squads (busy work life and most days barely get to do all the tactics).

Having said that, I have acquired two huge squads by my standards in GCs. The first is a Dortmund squad with 161 players, of whom almost all the players are rated between 84-88 (one or two 89s and a few 80-84). Near enough all of them are youngish (18-23) prospects who will continue to rise in rating in coming years. Problem is, all have similar ratings and al have reasonable cause to be playing in the first team. I've had them for nearly 3 seasons now, so surely I should be awash with concerns and transfer requests - Wrong. I only have 10 concerns and only 5 are at level 2 (rest are level 1) :eek:. I have 13 defenders rated 86-87 and my first choice defenders are rated 88, 88 and 89. Understandably, the first choice play most of my games and I will play the 86s or 87s occasionally or in cups. Of the 13 I favour 3 or 4 who I know will be future 90s so I don't lose them or risk them becoming unhappy. Surely the other 8 would be unhappy or concerned. Quite the contrary, they are content despite 3 seasons of football on the bench. In fact, more concerned are two of my lower rated defenders (one 82 and one 80). I understand they are concerned as they have no chance of getting in my side, but surely the 86 rated players should be equally if not more concerned at lack of action. They're better players after all and would get in a lot of sides in my division.

The other large side is a Milan with 122 players. Again I've held them for a similar length of time. The ratings in this side are more spread out with the likes of Totti, Berbatov, Maicon, Kaka followed by a number of 88-92 players, then goign down to mid 80 players and some 70 rated players. The first team is much more defined and the second team gets even less of a chance than in my Dortmund side. Surely I should have more unhappy players in this side - Nope only 3 concerns. Admittedly, more players will have got a game or two, but should maybe 4 games in 3 years placate a player to the extent they don't get concerned. Similarly, looking at the Dortmund example above, my low 80 rated players should be showing concern as they have no chance of getting in my first team. But for some reason, in this Milan side, they are much more content :confused:

The fact is, despite others who will argue strongly against the case (Simon :P ), that concerns are just not developing fast enough. That, coupled with the baffling scenarios like the one above which shows total inconsistency of pattern of concern development (there are numerous other examples accross my teams), shows that the system is not managing what it set out to achieve. My examples suggest, that in effect you are almost as free as you were before player concerns to build monster squads without fear of losing players. The system needs to be looked at to make it more consistent to real-life scenarios and concerns have to be developed much faster if it is to achieve the desired effect, in my opinion :) . Otherwise, this squad size issue will continue to come up again and again (and perhaps rightly so)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Perhaps you have indeed spent time building your team with your own research' date=' if this is the case - well done good work. Unfortunately I do not share your luxury of affording that much time.[/quote']

So, you think it would be fair, to make a rule giving advantage to you, just because you are lazy, or you don't want to, or can't spend much time on the game?

If you don't spend much time on the game (whichever the reason is), and someone else does, it's normal the other guy to have more success than you! And either you try to compete him, or accept that he's better. It's unfair to change the rules so that people who spend less time for the game, earn an advantage!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

To be fair - it is really frustrating seeing some clown with 150-200 players in their squad.

CLOWN? :mad: I have a team with 216 players mate, and i'm no clown :mad:

(About 100-120 of them are going to be sold, when their transfer ban ends).

It's the only way to be competitive, if you are in a competitive set up and you have a small club.

I have AZ Alkmaar, in a world with Barcelonas, Reals, Chelseas, Man. Uniteds, Bayerns and all that. If i wasn't able to buy as many players i want, so that i can make money from risers, i wouldn't be able to do nothing in a set up like this.

BUT... But, i have spent many hours and effort on that team, and now i have players like Canales, Pedro, Neymar, Ganso, Lukaku, Kolarov, Boateng, Badstuber, David Luiz, Javier Hernandez and many many more like them in my team. And i'm proud of it and i like it. (My top player now is Ozil, and i bought him when some of the other managers in the set up didn't even know that he existed...:D )

If there was a squad cap, i couldn't buy most of them. I could buy only a few of them, and again (if there was a quick-developing concern system) i would be forced to sell many of them. And all these players, would end up to the big teams' youth squads, 8-10 (or more) to each big club.

(Of course, those lazy guys with the big teams, would have bought them now that they are 87-88-89, and not when they were 70-75-80 rated, like i did, after hours and hours of searching and scouting- both in sites with stats and by watching real games).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Part of the reason why this topic keeps periodically getting re-ignited is the fact that despite SMs efforts' date=' they have not yet found a solution to the problem. It's a delicate balance between trying to make more players available for all clubs to purchase and not enforcing managers to part with players they wish to keep. [/quote']

If i've got my cynical hat on i'd suggest that unfortunately SM are quite happy with the way things are.

Why should they care if managers get frustrated and leave a set-up? After all, the frustration results in more managers buying standard gameworlds, customs, and paying to reserve clubs in new GC's.

If squad cap/ player concerns worked then older gameworlds would have more appeal and thus SM would make less out of the new gameworlds.

It's actually in their financial interests to have 2 GC's 25% full than to have 1 GC 50% full, because they can then sell 2 x Barca, 2 x Man U, 2 X Inter etc etc.

This is why there are now 132-odd GC's (and counting), and why one year later they've still not introduced the promised new GC format. GC's haven't been "elite" or "unique" for a loooong time, and are clearly now only cash cows to SM (rather than the challenging set-ups they were supposed to be).

As for the squad cap, i'd love to see SM trial it in a one-off GC but i doubt they ever would :rolleyes:

For that matter if SM would even introduce a squad cap as an option in a custom i'd be happy to use one of my custom gameworlds as a test set-up in the interest of SM science & research, if anyone from SM is still listening/ reading anymore.....? :confused::)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I have Crewe in EC3; which is of course one of the first leagues created, and so is now in Season 13. It's a competitive setup, where nearly every team is taken, along with all players over 88.

Last season I finished high up in Division One, which was purely down to having gradually assembled a team of 90+ players, including the risers such as Pedro and Busquets. My stadium capacity at first was 10k, making it entirely impossible to sustain such a team financially without scouting around and creating a mammoth squad of risers.

As the poster above said, it's not actually fair that the game should be levelled to negate the effort of scouters and squad builders - it's the tactic they choose in a FANTASY game. Taking the fantasy element out merely reduces the standard of management and competition, rather than creating a fairer game world scenario. I scout and build my squad to sustain my twenty superstars. My success, through the conduit of my squad size, is therefore the natural result of my choice or ability to commit more time to the game than Dazinho might be. Germlad's comment aboe above is harsh but correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

CLOWN? :mad: I have a team with 216 players mate' date=' and i'm no clown :mad:

(About 100-120 of them are going to be sold, when their transfer ban ends).

[b']It's the only way to be competitive[/b], if you are in a competitive set up and you have a small club.

Bolded part is the problem in a nutshell regarding risers - the way the system works just now everyone who wants to be competitive is forced into an "arms race" scenario - for example: your rival buys 3 risers so you need to then buy 3 risers just as good to stay competing.

If your rival buys 50 risers you, to remain competitive, then need to also buy 50 risers.

Where a squad cap helps is that a point is eventually reached where your rivals cannot buy anyone else which then means that you don't have to spend as much time searching forums and stat sites.

As i stated previously, a squad cap doesn't harm a good scout as a good scout will hear of the best players and spot the highest risers before anyone else so they'll get the cream of the crop. Also a good scout won't have a problem deciding which one of two players to buy as they'll have knowledge of the players.

Those who a squad cap would most effect would be the managers who go on the forum, read threads about risers, and then try and snap up every possible riser they can afford as with a limited squad size they might actually have to stop and think about which of the 2 players expected to rise +5 is the better long-term prospect - just now there's no problem as the easy answer is - buy them both!

My single biggest problem with the existing situation is that far too often the questions a manager asks themselves are financial, "can i afford him?", "how much will he rise?" rather than footballing, "is this player a better prospect than that player?" or, "how will he fit into my team plans?".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

The only problem is that a squad cap would mainly serve to reinforce the status quo. Manager A takes Manchester United, and Manager B takes Lincoln City. At the moment, Manager B can scout around, take on the better risers, sell them and and within a few seasons can buy 90+ players and compete with Manager A.

With a squad cap, the 10,000 seater stadium of Lincoln would not be enough to sustain that new squad, whereas Manchester United have seven times the stadium income and will always be able to afford the team of world-class players.

The only way of taking small clubs to the top - surely a major attraction of any fantasy management game - is by utilising the money-making potential of risers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

The only problem is that a squad cap would mainly serve to reinforce the status quo. Manager A takes Manchester United' date=' and Manager B takes Lincoln City. At the moment, Manager B can scout around, take on the better risers, sell them and and within a few seasons can buy 90+ players and compete with Manager A.

With a squad cap, the 10,000 seater stadium of Lincoln would not be enough to sustain that new squad, whereas Manchester United have seven times the stadium income and will always be able to afford the team of world-class players.

The only way of taking small clubs to the top - surely a major attraction of any fantasy management game - is by utilising the money-making potential of risers.[/quote']

I defo agree: the smaller the club then the more time/ effort will be required to get them up the leagues.

I have first hand experience of this with my Histon team in GC56, but the Lincoln's and the Histon's of the world aren't the problem as they are not going to retain large squads of 50+ for any length of time; they will buy some risers and then immediately sell them to finance the wages of their better players.

In a competitive set-up it is highly unlikely that they will have 30+ risers at any one time so a cap of no less than 50 wouldn't affect any small teams trying to climb up the leagues.

Also, bear in mind that as soon as the small club gets to a 1st XI average rating of 87/88 the improvement will come to a grinding halt as unlimited squad size/ inadequate player concerns means there will be fewer (if any) 89/90's available to them (or available to them for a fair price :rolleyes:).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

A few people do not seem to be quite getting the point here

For a start - how is it considered 'lazy' if I choose not to sit and trawl through websites looking for stats? I do watch a fair whack of football in Scotland, England, Spain, Germany and France. But I am not interested in sitting through whatever website you guys look into and analysing stats.

Yes I will stand by comments regarding the clown issue. In my own personal opinion, people hoarding players put new managers off the set ups and ultimately bring the games standards down. Nobody wants to join a set up where every player worth having is already at the same managed club. If you try to buy the player(s) from the manager, of course they wont want to sell as you most likely dont have anything to offer them.

I understand the satisfaction managers get from looking at their squads bulging with talent and youthful risers and future world beaters, I understand you defend your position because you have 'put the work and effort in' to get those squads. What I would also point out, is that there would be no point or fun in managing in a gameworld with a few managers with awesome squads and the rest is all unmanaged.

Just imagine....lots of teams all with the same kind of squad of risers? Some would have better talents/risers than others as per real life. The argument that smaller teams would suffer because they would not be competitive is nonsense in my view, it costs less money to bring in players to be competitive in division three or four than it does for a Man United to go out and buy a 92-94 player. £20m could buy a division four club maybe four or five 84-86 rated players that would allow them to win that league whereas Man United could maybe buy one player or genuine quality to improve their first team. Fair enough it may take the division four club a little longer to reach Man Uniteds level but it would enable the game to be a little more competitive. If it didnt work then I'd put my hands up and say I was wrong but I still think the developers should even trial it in a few gameworlds and get feedback from the managers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I think you make a lot of good points.

I don't think people are "lazy" for not trawling websites either. Those who do study stat sites are in the minority of SM customers. I assume (hope) that anyone who referred to "laziness" was thinking more along the lines that they should not be held back if they are prepared to do more than the usual customer.

I do think it is a bit harsh to call people "clowns". I accept that being on your own in a gameworld, with a monopoly on all the best players (not that I believe this can ever happen tbh) might not be everyone's idea of fun (it is not mine either) but for some the game is all about signing players and building a fantasy squad. I find this understandable given the state of the match engine and the lack of complexity available with tactics. I do think someone would be a clown if they were to play the game in a way they don't enjoy, or if they were breaking rules.

I completely agree that hoarding is bad for the game and can put people off joining some gameworlds. Of course, there are new gameworlds being churned out all the time so I am not sure why this would be a major issue as there is probably a gameworld for everyone. The game overall would be better with smaller squads, but I still think a cap would be a really awkward way of achieving this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I think you make a lot of good points.

I don't think people are "lazy" for not trawling websites either. Those who do study stat sites are in the minority of SM customers. I assume (hope) that anyone who referred to "laziness" was thinking more along the lines that they should not be held back if they are prepared to do more than the usual customer.

I do think it is a bit harsh to call people "clowns". I accept that being on your own in a gameworld' date=' with a monopoly on all the best players (not that I believe this can ever happen tbh) might not be everyone's idea of fun (it is not mine either) but for some the game is all about signing players and building a fantasy squad. I find this understandable given the state of the match engine and the lack of complexity available with tactics. I do think someone [i']would [/i]be a clown if they were to play the game in a way they don't enjoy, or if they were breaking rules.

I completely agree that hoarding is bad for the game and can put people off joining some gameworlds. Of course, there are new gameworlds being churned out all the time so I am not sure why this would be a major issue as there is probably a gameworld for everyone. The game overall would be better with smaller squads, but I still think a cap would be a really awkward way of achieving this.

I agree an actual cap on how many players you can buy is probably not the answer, I do strongly feel that my earlier suggestion that asking managers to register a certain reasonable number of players to play in domestic and european competitions would benefit the game though. As I mentioned, 25-26 players is ample room to allow for injuries and/or squad rotation. I am not saying you should not be allowed to buy more than 25 players, just that you may only register that amount. That way the ones 21 or under stay in the youth team as normal until such time as they develop and you can consider moving them up to the senior team. The remainder of unregistered players who you do not consider to be 'youth players' should be moved to a seperate reserve squad. This way if a player is in this section, their concerns should be accelerated to make them want to leave if they are not looking at all likely to get into the first team. I feel this would prevent hoarding and bring a bit more realism into the game without removing the element of buying/selling risers. I think this is good for both sides of the argument.

Does anyone else feel this is a good idea and perhaps a reasonable way to meet both sides in the middle? Or if someone else has any other suggestions or even ways in which my opinion could be bettered or how they feel it is flawed i'd be interested to hear it. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

As I mentioned' date=' 25-26 players is ample room to allow for injuries and/or squad rotation. I am not saying you should not be allowed to buy more than 25 players, just that you may only register that amount. That way the ones 21 or under stay in the youth team as normal until such time as they develop and you can consider moving them up to the senior team. The remainder of unregistered players who you do not consider to be 'youth players' should be moved to a seperate reserve squad. This way if a player is in this section, their concerns should be accelerated to make them want to leave if they are not looking at all likely to get into the first team. I feel this would prevent hoarding and bring a bit more realism into the game without removing the element of buying/selling risers. I think this is good for both sides of the argument.

Does anyone else feel this is a good idea and perhaps a reasonable way to meet both sides in the middle? Or if someone else has any other suggestions or even ways in which my opinion could be bettered or how they feel it is flawed i'd be interested to hear it. :)[/quote']

a good idea, it would certainly be more realistic as if a player dosn't make this list in real life they almost immediately request to move, bellamy for example.

anyway some problems, what if you make the list then quit manager ? you can't allow them to re-select the club otherwise people would quit and re-take over just to do this.

and when would you be able to alter the list, in real life in transfer windows but there are none in SM so hmm.....

it is also very complicated and SM thrives on being a simple web based game, surely it is better to just leave concerns as they are instead of implementing all these features ? it would make it really difficult for new players to quickly grasp !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I agree an actual cap on how many players you can buy is probably not the answer' date=' I do strongly feel that my earlier suggestion that asking managers to register a certain reasonable number of players to play in domestic and european competitions would benefit the game though. As I mentioned, 25-26 players is ample room to allow for injuries and/or squad rotation. I am not saying you should not be allowed to buy more than 25 players, just that you may only register that amount. That way the ones 21 or under stay in the youth team as normal until such time as they develop and you can consider moving them up to the senior team. The remainder of unregistered players who you do not consider to be 'youth players' should be moved to a seperate reserve squad. This way if a player is in this section, their concerns should be accelerated to make them want to leave if they are not looking at all likely to get into the first team. I feel this would prevent hoarding and bring a bit more realism into the game without removing the element of buying/selling risers. I think this is good for both sides of the argument.

Does anyone else feel this is a good idea and perhaps a reasonable way to meet both sides in the middle? Or if someone else has any other suggestions or even ways in which my opinion could be bettered or how they feel it is flawed i'd be interested to hear it. :)[/quote']

Thread Closed

Reason: We have a winner

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I agree an actual cap on how many players you can buy is probably not the answer' date=' I do strongly feel that my earlier suggestion that asking managers to register a certain reasonable number of players to play in domestic and european competitions would benefit the game though. As I mentioned, 25-26 players is ample room to allow for injuries and/or squad rotation. I am not saying you should not be allowed to buy more than 25 players, just that you may only register that amount. That way the ones 21 or under stay in the youth team as normal until such time as they develop and you can consider moving them up to the senior team. The remainder of unregistered players who you do not consider to be 'youth players' should be moved to a seperate reserve squad. This way if a player is in this section, their concerns should be accelerated to make them want to leave if they are not looking at all likely to get into the first team. I feel this would prevent hoarding and bring a bit more realism into the game without removing the element of buying/selling risers. I think this is good for both sides of the argument.

Does anyone else feel this is a good idea and perhaps a reasonable way to meet both sides in the middle? Or if someone else has any other suggestions or even ways in which my opinion could be bettered or how they feel it is flawed i'd be interested to hear it. :)[/quote']

My concern would be that allowing a squad of 25-26 players, wouldn't stop 1 team from having most of the best players, for example my favourite team...

First Team

Lloris

Cole

Lahm

Alves

Pique

Albiol

Alonso

Fabregas

De Rossi

Schweinsteiger

Sneijder

Diego

Silva

Arshavin

Robben

Villa

Higuain

Van Persie

Thus my first team has 18 players, my youth team has 40 players under 21, rated between 60 and 84 and my Loaned out players include...

Asenjo

Diego Renan

Santon

Mario Fernandes

Badstuber

Otamendi

Sakho

Toloi

Ranocchia

Nordtveit

Busquets

Sandro

Gonalons

Ramsey

Merida

Pastore

Giovinco

Wijnaldum

Canales

Wilshere

Pedro

Walcott

Hazard

Feghouli

Rodriguez

Muniain

Pato

Balotelli

Muller

Neymar

Lukaku

as you can see I have 32 players loaned out and this happens every season, the same players get loaned out to the same team. Thus I can effectively by-pass a registered squad limit per season rather easily, so I feel that this option may not be the way to go. I instead would prefer concerns, not to be accelerated nor deccelerated, but rather to be made more consistent.

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...