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

I disagree. Match day income has to cover both home and away matches (the latter you barely get any money for). No team amasses £200 million from match day income.

Fact is money spinning is the main way to generate cash in SM and large squad sizes facilitate this. Without it unmanaged teams couldnt be raped because the cash wouldnt be there to do it. New teams dont get a transfer kitty big enough to rape other teams.

Yes unmanaged teams build up cash once they have been pillaged but by that point people have made their cash already and have no need to sell so the £180 million kitty is essentially worthless to acquire high rated players.

I dont think SM would be better without money spinning' date=' it would be very boring not to be able to generate cash. After all buying players and managing your squad is the most interesting part of SM. I just think people can go to extremes with the 255 limit.[/quote']

Of course these teams which remain unmanaged with a squad of 21-30 make a decent profit every week, even taking into account the away fixture, after 2/3 seasons+ that builds up the balance plenty, not saying £200mil :rolleyes: player sells help compliment this but again most teams build the money naturally to purchase these. I think lack of squad limits is too much of a scape-goat for many issues.

Seriously take a proper look at any of your older set-ups and the unmanaged team's finances.

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

Of course these teams which remain unmanaged with a squad of 21-30 make a decent profit every week' date=' even taking into account the away fixture, after 2/3 seasons+ that builds up the balance plenty, not saying £200mil :rolleyes: player sells help compliment this but again most teams build the money naturally to purchase these. I think lack of squad limits is too much of a scape-goat for many issues.

[b']Seriously take a proper look at any of your older set-ups and the unmanaged team's finances.[/b]

Finances are all fine and dandy but when you can't buy any players of any worth due to all the managers who have been at the big clubs for a while or they're at clubs with 21 players, it's pointless to have that much money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Finances are all fine and dandy but when you can't buy any players of any worth due to all the managers who have been at the big clubs for a while or they're at clubs with 21 players' date=' it's pointless to have that much money.[/quote']

I'm not arguing that, read the previous posts :rolleyes: I'm merely saying that the bigger squads don't devalue cash to the extent that people say. Other factors come into play (I've mentioned these previously)

I don't disagree with you but your point is another one altogether.

Re: Danny.

I'm saying that there's a lot of factors which devalue cash and to entirely pin it all on lack of squad limits is unfair and actually inaccurate. Buying from unmanaged clubs is probably the biggest issue but this is not just enabled through having bigger squads. Plenty of 'normal' size squads contribute to this problem. Gate receipts built up over 2/3 seasons is 40-60mil, add to that losing a few of key players, we're already talking about 120mil+. When most clubs have that kind of fund of course money will be devalued.

Inactive and uncompetitive game-worlds are by far the biggest issue which relates to most of the problems I can see. Something SM does not help with the sheer volume they create.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I think the recent wage+opportunity concerns do much more good than any squad cap. A squad cap of 50 would allow me to still keep every single truly desirable player in the game.

If you sit Ozil on the bench in favor of Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Sneijder, and Kaka, he should be allowed to leave. Who cares if you have some 80-rated risers? No one cares about them. Properly designed concerns force people to stop hogging top quality talent and make setups more interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I am new here in soccermanager.Today I was looking for a team in Gold championship and there were not many good team left obviously. So I didnt choose any.

But what I noticed was in every league there are 7,8 teams which have values twice or three times the value over the rest of the teams left in that league. And in some teams there are over 80+ players even 100+ players in many teams. Noticed a Barcelona with 150 players and avg rating is 92+ . Now what is happening here?

This is in no way realistic and that will surely make the other team in that league unmanageable. And to be honest most gold championship is like that. Why is that? How can a new manager come and play properly if this is the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

asking cristianoballotelli to expand on a post and actually provide something of reasonable intelligence is one of the stupidest things i have seen on this forum.

i know why you asked it' date=' but lets face it we both know it isnt going to happen.[/quote']

OK...

I am new here in soccermanager.Today I was looking for a team in Gold championship and there were not many good team left obviously. So I didnt choose any.

But what I noticed was in every league there are 7' date='8 teams which have values twice or three times the value over the rest of the teams left in that league. And in some teams there are over 80+ players even 100+ players in many teams. Noticed a Barcelona with 150 players and avg rating is 92+ . Now what is happening here?

This is in no way realistic and that will surely make the other team in that league unmanageable. And to be honest most gold championship is like that. Why is that? How can a new manager come and play properly if this is the situation.[/quote']

To be fair there are probably countless examples of this happening. I am trying to do this in GC 7 and I don't have an issue finding and purchasing players (although my budget is a little low)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I am new here in soccermanager.Today I was looking for a team in Gold championship and there were not many good team left obviously. So I didnt choose any.

But what I noticed was in every league there are 7' date='8 teams which have values twice or three times the value over the rest of the teams left in that league. And in some teams there are over 80+ players even 100+ players in many teams. Noticed a Barcelona with 150 players and avg rating is 92+ . Now what is happening here?

This is in no way realistic and that will surely make the other team in that league unmanageable. And to be honest most gold championship is like that. Why is that? How can a new manager come and play properly if this is the situation.[/quote']

While it is true that some teams dominate setups, GC's or otherwise, it is still possible to built a team that has a large cash pile. In GC 6, for example, there is a huge opportunity for team building with players currently raiding an unmanaged CSKA Moskva. The following have already been sold: ABIDAL (£22.0M); CASSANO (£15.0M); HERNANDEZ (£29.6M); DEBUCHY (£13.0M) with bids currently in for the likes of: SALCIDO, STANKEVICIUS, ZHIRKOV and RYAZANTSEV as well as loads of youth players with great potential.

Seems to me that you could have taken over this ready made team in this setup or another team and bought some of these players. If you want my advice on how to succeed in Gold Championships it would be: be meticulous in your search for the right setup (new opportunities arise every day) and above all be patient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I am new here in soccermanager.

Noticed a Barcelona with 150 players and avg rating is 92+

And to be honest most gold championship is like that. Why is that? How can a new manager come and play properly if this is the situation.

The average rating is displayed for the best 11 i believe. That means if a team has 11 players rated 92 and 100 rated 70 it will display as 92.

And GCs aren't that hard (except for GC 1). I took over Greenock Morton in GC 100 a year ago. It was a horrible team with players rated about 78. Now in season 3 i have a bunch of 87s and tons of upcoming stars and internationals. And i don't invest much time in this setup, just a few minutes every week.

Once you know more about how SM works it gets pretty easy to build good teams.

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

Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

I am a new player and was surprised to see that some teams in existing leagues have over 200 players.

Shouldnt there be a maximum amount of players per team?,

say something like 55?

This would increase activity in the transfer market for one and make the game more like real life for two.

If this had been discussed before I did look first but could not find anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

I am a new player and was surprised to see that some teams in existing leagues have over 200 players.

Shouldnt there be a maximum amount of players per team?' date='

say something like 55?

This would increase activity in the transfer market for one and make the game more like real life for two.

If this had been discussed before I did look first but could not find anything.[/quote']

there is a limit of 255 players - otherwise those teams you see (like myself) would have far more than 255 players :)

The reason the player limit is so high is to allow players who are willing to put in the time and the effort the opportunity to make money from players therefore making it possible for smaller clubs to compete at the highest level.

I for example manage 3 charlton teams - the gate income from these is very low and normally the best i could hope for would be to get into div1 and stay there in an english set up, and div.2 and stay there in a world set up. becuse of the way the game works I am able to buy and sell a large amount of players at small profits which has allowed me to make enough money to compete against the top clubs in england (2 set ups) and also against the best clubs in the world in another set up. It takes a LOT of work to do this though, but as this is the only game I play, and with my passion for football, it makes it more of a hobbey for me than a game.

If SM were to change this, many many people including myself would quit as there is little joy from winning with the big clubs - and that is mostly only newbies who enjoy that and they dont usually play for more than a few months - whereas the many people like myself, who will still be playing this game in years to come are the backbone of the game imo.

Whenever someone new comes to SM the first thing they invariably do is complain about maximum squad sizes and managers not willing to sell there best players at reasonable players. If the game was so easy that people who have joined in the last month were able to simply join a game world and buy all the players they would like to buy it would become very boring very quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

there is a limit of 255 players - otherwise those teams you see (like myself) would have far more than 255 players :)

Personally I believe SM should reduce that limit to 200 players, while still giving managers the chance to make money. This way more action occurs in the transfer market, but not hinder teams in making money.

What I see is that most managers who have 255 players are gambling on at least 200 of them to rise. What I don't get is if I can make the same amount of money per season with max 45 guys on squad, then there is proof SM should reduce cap to 150 max (for now), because there is no need for such ridiculous amount of players on 1 team.

You may think that most of my money comes from profit, but that is not the case. The thing is, most of the money I make in a season comes from player selling, which is why I don't see the need for such a high cap.

I usually buy 5-10 youth a season, around 80-85 rating, which rise 3-7 ratings by the time the transfer ban is up, and then usually sell each for 5-10 mill profit. Approximately making 60-80 million a year in player selling, while profit is like only 30 mill. Plus I use that money to end up getting players like Hazard, Higuain, Gomez, etc, so in turn i break even but once i have those players then I can swap out at end of season for mega bucks and players, which gives me even more.

So what I am getting at, it should not be about random players making managers money, but instead the onus should be on managers making wise decisions on who they should acquire. If SM wants to be like real life then reducing max players to maybe even 175 would help out the game worlds, plus make managers more conscientious in choosing their players that will make them max profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

there is a limit of 255 players - otherwise those teams you see (like myself) would have far more than 255 players :)

The reason the player limit is so high is to allow players who are willing to put in the time and the effort the opportunity to make money from players therefore making it possible for smaller clubs to compete at the highest level.

I for example manage 3 charlton teams - the gate income from these is very low and normally the best i could hope for would be to get into div1 and stay there in an english set up' date=' and div.2 and stay there in a world set up. becuse of the way the game works I am able to buy and sell a large amount of players at small profits which has allowed me to make enough money to compete against the top clubs in england (2 set ups) and also against the best clubs in the world in another set up. It takes a LOT of work to do this though, but as this is the only game I play, and with my passion for football, it makes it more of a hobbey for me than a game.

If SM were to change this, many many people including myself would quit as there is little joy from winning with the big clubs - and that is mostly only newbies who enjoy that and they dont usually play for more than a few months - whereas the many people like myself, who will still be playing this game in years to come are the backbone of the game imo.

Whenever someone new comes to SM the first thing they invariably do is complain about maximum squad sizes and managers not willing to sell there best players at reasonable players. If the game was so easy that people who have joined in the last month were able to simply join a game world and buy all the players they would like to buy it would become very boring very quickly.[/quote']

You can become competitive and profitable with a lot fewer than 250 of players. Think of the wages you're spending for a start. I would suggest your scouting isn't as good as you think it is if you need to keep your squads clogged up like that all the time.

I've done it with plenty of clubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

i have a squad of 245 players, due to this stupid unhappy players update i've pretty much lost all my subs rated 90+ and now im glad i bought alot of young players a few years ago that can happily sit on the bench. change the unhappy players update to not totally screw my team and my subs bench (as there seems to be more games now adays but im not afforded to have good players for all competitions) not the amount of players, i work very hard to find new players and other managers come and go, so i feel i deserve to have as many players as i want in my team. if the other managers care so much then they can put in the time like i do!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

Needing any more than 50 or 60 players is totally unnecessary. I play this game by getting small Div. 4 teams and growing them to the point where they are Div 1 competitors. Small parks, limited income. I leave the big teams for the noobs. I am continually buying and flipping players, and in all the years I have played SM, I have never seen an instance where there is a need for 250 players. It's absurd. I believe it ruins the play balance to horde players ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

there is a limit of 255 players - otherwise those teams you see (like myself) would have far more than 255 players :)

The reason the player limit is so high is to allow players who are willing to put in the time and the effort the opportunity to make money from players therefore making it possible for smaller clubs to compete at the highest level.

I for example manage 3 charlton teams - the gate income from these is very low and normally the best i could hope for would be to get into div1 and stay there in an english set up' date=' and div.2 and stay there in a world set up. becuse of the way the game works I am able to buy and sell a large amount of players at small profits which has allowed me to make enough money to compete against the top clubs in england (2 set ups) and also against the best clubs in the world in another set up. It takes a LOT of work to do this though, but as this is the only game I play, and with my passion for football, it makes it more of a hobbey for me than a game.

[/quote']

The largest squad I have over around 28 teams is (I think) my Wolves team which has approx 57 players, and even with that, I'm looking to get that down to around 50.

I have a Notts County team that I've taken from Div 4 to the brink of the 1st Div (miles clear in Div 2 this season) with a squad of around 30 odd. And this team is bursting with great young talent I've scouted over the last three seasons.

There is absolutely NO need to have squads of over 100, and those who have squads over 200 are just taking the mick

It's good that the player concerns aspect is addressing this a bit, but I would like to see a squad cap, even if it was just an advanced rule in a custom set up to start with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

Personally I dont see the need for clubs having 200 plus players and the 'player concern' feature that has been brought in should have stymied some of these player hogging clubs.

I think that SM should do a graduated reduction in the maximum squad allowance from 255 down to 55, maybe an initial reduction to 205 then 155, 100 and eventually 55 over a couple of seasons.

I did post a suggestion a while back of proposing having squad limits for tournaments as in real life thus before the season starts and maybe at one other point in the season you could designate your a squad of say 30 or 40 players for a competition. You might get an exemption to swap a player out of the squad if they got a long term injury eg 4 weeks or more.

Those that dont make any squad take a 'concern' hit, the higher rated they are the bigger the hit. It might help people streamline their squads and move on those that realistically wont play and just remain at clubs gathering dust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

I don't have a problem with players having large youth squads - in fact this is essentially the only way you can survive as a manager of a smaller club. It's the managers who have huge first team squads that are gaining an unfair advantage.

Youth squads should be uncapped but once players reach, say, 23, then they have to move to the First Team squad. The catch is that first team squads should be capped at 30 players. Therefore, managers have a decision to make about whether to sell a promising talent or make a judgement on which established star is about to decline - just like in real life. This would push more players into the transfer market and allow for a more even spread of talent.

The current system where the richer clubs have all the 90+ players is very frustrating (even if it is somewhat true to life!).

The player concern system doesn't really work that well because in my experience once a player goes on the transfer list they just go to another big club for an extortionate fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

I think they should knock it down to 99 for the maximum players in an entire team. You don't see people with the shirt number 100 very often and I don't see why you need more than maybe 30/40 first team players if your a top team with a lot of games per season. Personally I can get by with just 25 first team players because spares just get in the way when you don't need them. I think 99 would be ok because it allows people to go and scout for good talent as well but not buy every 10 year old on the game and hope they turn good.

Just my opinion.:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

I don't have a problem with players having large youth squads - in fact this is essentially the only way you can survive as a manager of a smaller club. It's the managers who have huge first team squads that are gaining an unfair advantage.

Youth squads should be uncapped but once players reach' date=' say, 23, then they have to move to the First Team squad. The catch is that first team squads should be capped at 30 players. Therefore, managers have a decision to make about whether to sell a promising talent or make a judgement on which established star is about to decline - just like in real life. This would push more players into the transfer market and allow for a more even spread of talent.

The current system where the richer clubs have all the 90+ players is very frustrating (even if it is somewhat true to life!).

The player concern system doesn't really work that well because in my experience once a player goes on the transfer list they just go to another big club for an extortionate fee.[/quote']

this is the best of the comments so far - at least MR Shark here understands that it's the mass trading of youngster's that generates the profit needed so that any club can compete at any level (see my previous post about my 3 charlton's of which i'm very proud :) ).

however, he misses the point with concern's. yes they sell for extra ordinary prices when they request transfer, but the point is if you have made the effort and done your research, and traded wisely and made your money - you are able to pay those large sums for those players, who otherwise would not come available for ANY price. Once a game world get's old you'll find most clubs/managers just dont care about money anymore anyway.

And in further defence of SM's current policy of 255 player limit, and the concern's system - the lower your average squad rating, the more you are able to bid for a player, giving a new progressing team a better chance of buying in these circumstances.

i'll explain that bit. In many game worlds I am constantly outbid for young talent either from external clubs or free transfer, and also for highly rated players who are transfer requested. This is despite having very large amounts of money in the bank, and making my bid as high as the chairman will allow.

The reason for this is becuase the rating of my best 18 is higher than many of the other clubs, therefore my chairman will not let me bid as much for a star player, or for a risky youth.

two recent examples:

1)

Ashley cole - transfer requested

My bid £37mil (chairman max.) - my average rating of that squad's best 18 = 92, money in bank = 300million.

Winning bid - 41million - the winning team, plymouth, avg rating of top 18 players = 89, money in bank (under 200mil according to manager).

2)

Pogba (manchester united player added to database just this week)

i bid 2.6mill - chairman max

winning bid 2.7 mil, chairman max

key difference between my team and winning bidder, my teams average rating is 2 points above there's.

As someone who has been playing this game for approaching two years, and as someone who use to have a very big issue with top teams hogging all the best players and lastly as someone who derives joy from developing a small club to be able to compete with top clubs - I'd say SM has got it all just about right at the moment.

In fact the only tweek i think sm need to make is player concernes should develop for top players should develop only when getting less than 50% of games, as i think 65% is too high. My reason for this is if you have worked hard on your team, and you have a great 1st team, and a great bunch of kids coming through too, you need to be able to rotate the squad fully so as not to be forced to sell your hazard's and neymar's while they are at that tricky 90/91 stage.

Again, I would like to point out that in 'most' cases the people who complain about squad sizes are those who are new to the game, or people who dont put in the time and effort, but want to get the same results as those who do - sorry, if any game worked that way, it would be boring.

In this instance, I think SM have got the balance very nearly perfect, and support them completely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

there is a limit of 255 players - otherwise those teams you see (like myself) would have far more than 255 players :)

The reason the player limit is so high is to allow players who are willing to put in the time and the effort the opportunity to make money from players therefore making it possible for smaller clubs to compete at the highest level.

I for example manage 3 charlton teams - the gate income from these is very low and normally the best i could hope for would be to get into div1 and stay there in an english set up' date=' and div.2 and stay there in a world set up. becuse of the way the game works I am able to buy and sell a large amount of players at small profits which has allowed me to make enough money to compete against the top clubs in england (2 set ups) and also against the best clubs in the world in another set up. It takes a LOT of work to do this though, but as this is the only game I play, and with my passion for football, it makes it more of a hobbey for me than a game.

If SM were to change this, many many people including myself would quit as there is little joy from winning with the big clubs - and that is mostly only newbies who enjoy that and they dont usually play for more than a few months - whereas the many people like myself, who will still be playing this game in years to come are the backbone of the game imo.

Whenever someone new comes to SM the first thing they invariably do is complain about maximum squad sizes and managers not willing to sell there best players at reasonable players. If the game was so easy that people who have joined in the last month were able to simply join a game world and buy all the players they would like to buy it would become very boring very quickly.[/quote']

I havent played long enough to know the proper answers, but I would have thought that you can still make money with a smaller squad...........

Lots on new players might come and go because its not like real life.....perhaps more would stay if it was.

If managers hog a lot of players that a good percentage of which other managers would want to buy.......then presumably it spoils the game a bit.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

two recent examples:

1)

Ashley cole - transfer requested

My bid £37mil (chairman max.) - my average rating of that squad's best 18 = 92' date=' money in bank = 300million.

Winning bid - 41million - the winning team, plymouth, avg rating of top 18 players = 89, money in bank (under 200mil according to manager).

2)

Pogba (manchester united player added to database just this week)

i bid 2.6mill - chairman max

winning bid 2.7 mil, chairman max

key difference between my team and winning bidder, my teams average rating is 2 points above there's.[/quote']

If you have that much more money in the bank then your chairmans maximum should have been the highest. Therefore I would say this should also be changed. (once again it would be more like real life aswell).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

I havent played long enough to know the proper answers' date=' but I would have thought that you can still make money with a smaller squad...........

Lots on new players might come and go because its not like real life.....perhaps more would stay if it was.

If managers hog a lot of players that a good percentage of which other managers would want to buy.......then presumably it spoils the game a bit.:)[/quote']

not really - because of player concernes you can only keep so many first team players happy. the major amount of a large squad is what's called risers. players who you buy at a rating of say 75, knowing that they will get an increase or two over the course of a season, that you can then sell for profit.

I participate in a few game worlds where there are a few of us, all with big squads. there are plenty of 'risers' to go around, so long as your willing to do the hunting.

It is the trading of these riser's that allow the plymouths, charltons, Foggias - basically any small club - to compete with the MU's and Barcelona's if managed properly.

If this was not possible, then many of the players who stay around for a long time (approaching 2 years now), simply would not. We all want to win, so eventually everyone would manage a big club, win a few things, get bored and quit. The reason real gamers like myself dont, is because of the constant challenge of finding the next profitable players before the other teams in my game world that are doing the same thing. The survival of my charltons are completely dependant on this, otherwise I would just be losing money hand over fist until I had to sell my best players and would slowly drop back to a div.2 (at best) team.

If SM were to take the route of restricting the buy/sell for profit part of this game, it would become a game only played for the short term by most people (i accept that some people are happy to manage a 2nd div team, and remain a 2nd div team, they are the rarity though).

No, the problem did exist with player hogging - when i joined, a game world would usually have 1 or 2 teams, holding nearly all the 91+ rated players.

Now, with player concernes this is no longer an issue.

My favourite game worlds are the ones where there are 2 or 3 other managers competing with me to find the next 'risers'. There's that moment of anticipation when you put in a players name and wonder if one of your competitors has already snapped him up.

Most recently, Thorgon Hazard, Paul Pogba, Ter Stegen and Frimpong have all illicited bidding wars in many of my game worlds - some i've won, some i've lost - all good fun. But that's the 'hot prospects' variaty, the bulk of my huge squad numbers are currently made up of US, Korean, Japaneese, Isreali, swedish, norwegian and belarousian youngsters. All of which i wil be sellling/trading as soon as the transfer bar is listed.

Of an average of 200 players per squad, in reality i average 20 first team players, 30 hot prospects, and 150 players who are there purely for the purpose of buy/sell - risers.

It's all very well managing a ManU and saying you dont need any more than 40 or 50 players, but when you manage a charlton and have players like aguero, higuain, ozil etc to pay wages, you need to be making 2million profit per week over and above the standard income. because of the unpredictability of SM's rating rises, that works out about 5-10 players a week, just to break even. Then if you want to be adding to your bank balance, so that you can invest in the next lucas, neymar, coutinho etc.. then you need to be trading more than this so that you can afford to do this... I hope that this gives people a clearer picture.

I admit, I am a gamer - I enjoy the challange of a good game. And for me, this is the challange that SM gives.

And as i stated previously it's even better when you share a game world with other 'gamers' and have to compete and fight. In some cases these other managers almost bankrupt me as there quicker of the mark and leave me picking up scraps and barely able to pay my wages - c'est la vie :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

not really - because of player concernes you can only keep so many first team players happy. the major amount of a large squad is what's called risers. players who you buy at a rating of say 75' date=' knowing that they will get an increase or two over the course of a season, that you can then sell for profit.

I participate in a few game worlds where there are a few of us, all with big squads. there are plenty of 'risers' to go around, so long as your willing to do the hunting.

It is the trading of these riser's that allow the plymouths, charltons, Foggias - basically any small club - to compete with the MU's and Barcelona's if managed properly.

If this was not possible, then many of the players who stay around for a long time (approaching 2 years now), simply would not. We all want to win, so eventually everyone would manage a big club, win a few things, get bored and quit. The reason real gamers like myself dont, is because of the constant challenge of finding the next profitable players before the other teams in my game world that are doing the same thing. The survival of my charltons are completely dependant on this, otherwise I would just be losing money hand over fist until I had to sell my best players and would slowly drop back to a div.2 (at best) team.

If SM were to take the route of restricting the buy/sell for profit part of this game, it would become a game only played for the short term by most people (i accept that some people are happy to manage a 2nd div team, and remain a 2nd div team, they are the rarity though).

No, the problem did exist with player hogging - when i joined, a game world would usually have 1 or 2 teams, holding nearly all the 91+ rated players.

Now, with player concernes this is no longer an issue.

My favourite game worlds are the ones where there are 2 or 3 other managers competing with me to find the next 'risers'. There's that moment of anticipation when you put in a players name and wonder if one of your competitors has already snapped him up.

Most recently, Thorgon Hazard, Paul Pogba, Ter Stegen and Frimpong have all illicited bidding wars in many of my game worlds - some i've won, some i've lost - all good fun. But that's the 'hot prospects' variaty, the bulk of my huge squad numbers are currently made up of US, Korean, Japaneese, Isreali, swedish, norwegian and belarousian youngsters. All of which i wil be sellling/trading as soon as the transfer bar is listed.

Of an average of 200 players per squad, in reality i average 20 first team players, 30 hot prospects, and 150 players who are there purely for the purpose of buy/sell - risers.

It's all very well managing a ManU and saying you dont need any more than 40 or 50 players, but when you manage a charlton and have players like aguero, higuain, ozil etc to pay wages, you need to be making 2million profit per week over and above the standard income. because of the unpredictability of SM's rating rises, that works out about 5-10 players a week, just to break even. Then if you want to be adding to your bank balance, so that you can invest in the next lucas, neymar, coutinho etc.. then you need to be trading more than this so that you can afford to do this... I hope that this gives people a clearer picture.

I admit, I am a gamer - I enjoy the challange of a good game. And for me, this is the challange that SM gives.

And as i stated previously it's even better when you share a game world with other 'gamers' and have to compete and fight. In some cases these other managers almost bankrupt me as there quicker of the mark and leave me picking up scraps and barely able to pay my wages - c'est la vie :)[/quote']

Well your statement on risers is wrong. You say that people buy 70 rated players because they know that they will rise. Unfortunatelly 90% of all the the managers who buy risers 70+ are buying in hope of an increase in rating, and not because they did research to know that the player will definately increase. Most managers are taking a gamble, and what it costs to maintain those players in salary, you barely make a profit. A million here and a million there is not good at all, especially if its over an average of 2-3 seasons.

Like I said above, If I can make the same amount of profit in 1 turn, just by buying/selling, with a squad of no more than 50 players, then those who have 255 dont need that many. Therefore, cap should be reduced.

Also would like to say that I was able to help my friend take a division 4 85 rated Rangers team with 5 mill in bank, to division 1 in 4 seasons. By teaching him the process of buying/selling, along with scouting, he was able to end up with 400 mill in bank, 28 players and an average rating 91. Goes to show with proper planning, good scouting, you dont need 255 players to make a buck. Plus the most players he ever had in 1 season was 60.

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...