Jump to content

Squad Sizes


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: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.

If I remember rightly the current squad limit is for technical reasons' date=' not because of any recognition of the need for a cap.

I doubt SM would introduce a squad cap for three reasons:

[list']

[*]There is not one in real life. As far as I know this is true worldwide and certainly in most "major" leagues the last time I looked.

[*]Lots of SM customers already have massive squads, quite fairly, and introducing a "cap" would penalise them when they have done nothing wrong.

[*]As things stand no manager can ever own ALL the best players in SM (even if they did, ratings are not everything) and anyone joining any Game World has the ability to put together a winning side with time and effort.

Polls have been done in the past that overwhelming result in people saying a squad cap is needed. I think this is because it is the "obvious" solution to the problem (i.e. the increasing number of oversized squads), rather than the "right" solution to the problem.

Why do most clubs in the world not have huge squads? If you can answer that question, your answer is likely to be the starting point for an idea SM need to eventually introduce to the game.

1. real life competitions have squad cap and restrictions on selection.

2. cap should be prospective in new gameworld, not retrospective.

3. no manager can own all the best players. but any number more than 30 top stars is actually quite ridiculous already. if you want to talk about reality, then relating to real life, that would mean ego, competition selection, playing time and sky high wages.

in real life there are more injuries every club too, if this is how it is, why do SM allow >50 players squads?

squad cap will help the smaller teams more, which promotes a more competitive world.

squads with lots of players right now actually have a large number youths, most just blindly snapping up talents because they can afford to, some just cannot be bothered to manage their squad prudently.

conclusion, squad cap is good, but make it an option (cap of 30-100 selection/no limit) only in the custom game world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

1. real life competitions have squad cap and restrictions on selection.
Which competitions have a cap on how many players a club can own?

I thought that some cap the amount of players that can appear in the competition' date=' yes, but not how many a club can [i']own[/i]?

I agree SM should have caps on the number of players you can choose for competitions; i.e. a name a 25 man squad for competition X, Y, Z feature.

2. cap should be prospective in new gameworld' date=' not retrospective.[/quote']This could be done so as not to penalise existing managers, I agree.

I doubt it would be done for the other reasons mentioned though, and because having different rules between one standard Game World and another would confuse a lot of people needlessly.

Ultimately, other features could be introduced that would have the same effect as a squad cap without actually annoying anyone and without introducing anything that does not exist in real life.

I suppose a cap would make a decent Custom Game World feature (not sure if this exists as not in any) but personally I would not want to join a Game World where a feature unreal to life has been added as a quick fix.

3. no manager can own all the best players. but any number more than 30 top stars is actually quite ridiculous already. if you want to talk about reality' date=' then relating to real life, that would mean ego, competition selection, playing time and sky high wages.[/quote']I am happy to talk about reality. I was saying that factors that exist in real life (such as those you mentioned) are good ideas.
in real life there are more injuries every club too' date=' if this is how it is, why do SM allow >50 players squads?[/quote']

Don't really understand the question. You think more injuries should occur? I agree, but most people don't. I suppose getting a balance with injuries is hard.

SM allow players of more than 50 squads because there is no limit in reality on how many players a club can own and because people should be able to build whatever squad they want if they are prepared to put in the time juggling concerns, ratings, wages, etc.

squad cap will help the smaller teams more' date=' which promotes a more competitive world.

squads with lots of players right now actually have a large number youths, most just blindly snapping up talents because they can afford to, some just cannot be bothered to manage their squad prudently.[/quote']People who minesweep will never do better than a manager who cherry picks the best players available. Concerns and finances will catch up with the minesweepers.

A squad cap would certainly help small teams but personally I don't really think that they need the help. Anyone taking a small team must know they are going for a "challenge".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yup I mentioned competitions have restrictions, though I didn't relate it to the maximum club size. Was just implying that if we want to compare to reality then the restrictions could have a direct impact on how SM should run.

~

I don't think different worlds with different rules will "confuse" people, after all there are so many different rules among the custom games already, one more is nothing, and you actually get to see those rules before you apply for the world. Announcements are made too.

If we want to be picky, then a maximum cap can also be applied to all existing worlds too. A reasonable number should be set, for e.g. 100. Then any clubs with more than 100 currently cannot make any more new bids until they trim their squad. This number can be derived judgmentally from real clubs numbers if you like, and also feed backs from all SM users.

To me, I prefer the idea to be introduced to only custom game world at a retrospective manner. Those game worlds are more regulated, players know what they are in for, owners can set new rules each season. The same restriction from above can be applied for people who exceed the max squad set by game owner.

~

I think the main problem is that it is too easy to minesweep? The big clubs in SM can easily sustain a humongous squad because their finances are too good. Again in reality, no big clubs in the world can do the same.

I think SM should have a new concern called "Overwhelmed by squad size". Time to give me a SM title lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I think the main problem is that it is too easy to minesweep? The big clubs in SM can easily sustain a humongous squad because their finances are too good. Again in reality' date=' no big clubs in the world can do the same.

[b']I think SM should have a new concern called "Overwhelmed by squad size"[/b]. Time to give me a SM title lol.

Like this. i think a concern along the lines of.."unhappy with competition for places/too much competition" or something, bit like football manager.

that would work a treat.

to limit 'minesweeping' you need more manager in gameworlds to make them more competitive. maybe start shutting old ones down and encouraging managers to move to other gameworlds to fill them up somehow? or simply stop opening so many so quick. in my opinion GW with less than 25% managers have failed ultimately, and yes im guilty of still playing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

What some managers fail to grasp, particularly with the small sized clubs like Gretna, Eastbourne Borough and Grays etc, etc, is the only way to grow from the bottom up is by building a large squad.

Nobody with a large rating is going to want to sign on for your club if you play in front of a crowd of 4000 and your average team rating is 78

I set myself a rule. I sign nobody costing £1M or more. That means I bid on youngsters that might one day grow into 87+ rated players.

My goal is to have a squad of around 50 players one day, with all players having cost less than £1M each.

My Eastbourne Borough have 209 players of which 14 are goalkeepers. I may end up with 252 players at some point, who knows?

We all the play the game a different way. I love it when my team manage to beat the likes of Barcelona or Manchester United in a Cup game.

As a gold member, if a squad cap was introduced I would never play the game as to my knowledge no club in real life has a squad limit.

Player concerns will sort out my squad as it progresses up the leagues.

Hoovering up the youngsters is all part of the game. If I can afford to spend an hour a day searching for youngsters that one day might come good why should I feel penalised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

What some managers fail to grasp' date=' particularly with the small sized clubs like Gretna, Eastbourne Borough and Grays etc, etc, is the only way to grow from the bottom up is by building a large squad.

Nobody with a large rating is going to want to sign on for your club if you play in front of a crowd of 4000 and your average team rating is 78

I set myself a rule. I sign nobody costing £1M or more. That means I bid on youngsters that might one day grow into 87+ rated players.

My goal is to have a squad of around 50 players one day, with all players having cost less than £1M each.

My Eastbourne Borough have 209 players of which 14 are goalkeepers. I may end up with 252 players at some point, who knows?

We all the play the game a different way. I love it when my team manage to beat the likes of Barcelona or Manchester United in a Cup game.

As a gold member, if a squad cap was introduced I would never play the game as to my knowledge no club in real life has a squad limit.

Player concerns will sort out my squad as it progresses up the leagues.

Hoovering up the youngsters is all part of the game. If I can afford to spend an hour a day searching for youngsters that one day might come good why should I feel penalised?[/quote']

Like I said before, you are one of those types of managers who spend an hour a day buying up random youth players in their 70's hoping that they will rise to be a star. There is no research required to do that, and pretty much a 2 yr old who knows nothing about soccer can do the same thing. If you want realism, there should be some scouting involved. Buying/selling should only be allowed during a transfer period, with so many bids allocated to each team based on team performance. For example Chelsea may get 5 bids each transfer period, while a team like norwich maybe gets 2. So you can only sell/buy that many players per period. This will make managers think before scooping up just about anyone.

Referring back to my old posts, I have brought up a 70 rated team before from division 4 to division 1 by buying and selling players I thought could help out my team. I started with very little funds and an average rating mid to high 70's. But in the end I ended up with lots of money, making 300-500k profit a week, and an average rating of 90-91 for stating 11. This whole time I never went over 50 guys, and realized that with proper scouting, research and knowledge on football/soccer players, there is no need for 255 player squads.

I know in real life there is no limit, and that is only because no team really has a squad of over 50 players. If a team actually did that in real life, FIFA would probably create a rule for the future and penalize the team with a fine. Its just rediculous knowing some teams are like that, when I proved you don't need such rediculous amounts of players.

As per your concept on skilled players not coming to lower teams is rediculous. First off when you are in division 4 or 3, you try and get players in their 80's to build a decent team to compete. Once you hit division 2, that is the time you should start looking towards getting some high rated guys to help out. I think any manager would know not to invest on 90 rated guys for a division 4 team for 2 reasons.... a) expenses to high ......... B) they will never come. I caa tell you however, most managers look into 90 rated guys when they hit division 2 and the big named guys usually tend to come on over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Like I said before' date=' you are one of those types of managers who spend an hour a day buying up random youth players in their 70's hoping that they will rise to be a star. There is no research required to do that, and pretty much a 2 yr old who knows nothing about soccer can do the same thing. If you want realism, there should be some scouting involved. Buying/selling should only be allowed during a transfer period, with so many bids allocated to each team based on team performance. For example Chelsea may get 5 bids each transfer period, while a team like norwich maybe gets 2. So you can only sell/buy that many players per period. This will make managers think before scooping up just about anyone.

Referring back to my old posts, I have brought up a 70 rated team before from division 4 to division 1 by buying and selling players I thought could help out my team. I started with very little funds and an average rating mid to high 70's. But in the end I ended up with lots of money, making 300-500k profit a week, and an average rating of 90-91 for stating 11. This whole time I never went over 50 guys, and realized that with proper scouting, research and knowledge on football/soccer players, there is no need for 255 player squads.

I know in real life there is no limit, and that is only because no team really has a squad of over 50 players. [b']If a team actually did that in real life, FIFA would probably create a rule for the future and penalize the team with a fine.[/b] Its just rediculous knowing some teams are like that, when I proved you don't need such rediculous amounts of players.

As an observer, I have to say your post is complete and utter nonsense. Such single minded, foolish views. Also if I may, could you please justify the part of your statement I have highlighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yup I mentioned competitions have restrictions' date=' though I didn't relate it to the maximum club size. Was just implying that if we want to compare to reality then the restrictions could have a direct impact on how SM should run.[/quote']I agree there should be a limit to how many players can appear in a comp but that is different to capping how many players you can own which is what this thread seems to be arguing for.
I don't think different worlds with different rules will "confuse" people' date=' after all there are so many different rules among the custom games already, one more is nothing, and you actually get to see those rules before you apply for the world. Announcements are made too.[/quote']True, but they are known as standard Game Worlds for a reason. If people want to join Game Worlds with one off rules, they need to join a Custom Game World. That is precisely what they are for.
If we want to be picky' date=' then a maximum cap can also be applied to all existing worlds too. A reasonable number should be set, for e.g. 100. Then any clubs with more than 100 currently cannot make any more new bids until they trim their squad. This number can be derived judgmentally from real clubs numbers if you like, and also feed backs from all SM users. [/quote']II think we already covered that it would be unfair on the existing Game World managers if it was applied to everyone which is why you were talking about adding it for new Game Worlds going forward?

If someone's club is rich and has a happy large squad, why should they only be able to buy players if they sell? They were purchased fairly and that person has chosen to spend their money on prospects who would grow in value. Why should they be penalised for those decisions and restricted in what they can do? It would ruin the game for them.

To me, I prefer the idea to be introduced to only custom game world at a retrospective manner. Those game worlds are more regulated, players know what they are in for, owners can set new rules each season. The same restriction from above can be applied for people who exceed the max squad set by game owner.

I don't understand what this means but if you mean you think it best added to Custom Game Worlds as an option you have no argument from me, or anyone, I expect.

I think the main problem is that it is too easy to minesweep? The big clubs in SM can easily sustain a humongous squad because their finances are too good. Again in reality' date=' no big clubs in the world can do the same. [/quote']Big clubs can do the same in real life but they don't because their managers/backroom staff are not stupid enough to let it happen.
I think SM should have a new concern called "Overwhelmed by squad size". Time to give me a SM title lol.
Like this. i think a concern along the lines of.."unhappy with competition for places/too much competition" or something' date=' bit like football manager.[/quote']

We already have concerned about Lack of First Team Opportunities. Is that not the same thing? It arises when they think there are too many players ahead of them. The existence of player concerns is one of the many reasons why a squad cap is totally unnecessary as it works towards the same outcome (smaller squads) but in a realistic and playable manner.

to limit 'minesweeping' you need more manager in gameworlds to make them more competitive. maybe start shutting old ones down and encouraging managers to move to other gameworlds to fill them up somehow? or simply stop opening so many so quick. in my opinion GW with less than 25% managers have failed ultimately' date=' and yes im guilty of still playing them.[/quote']I agree it would be good if SM took a more aggressive stance on this, but some people have worked hard on their squads and are proud of them even when other managers leave, or are content playing the AI teams. To be fair, minesweeping happens in really heavily populated Game Worlds too. I think with concerns existing these days minesweeping should dry up as you can't sit on players for years now.
What some managers fail to grasp' date=' particularly with the small sized clubs like Gretna, Eastbourne Borough and Grays etc, etc, is the only way to grow from the bottom up is by building a large squad.

Nobody with a large rating is going to want to sign on for your club if you play in front of a crowd of 4000 and your average team rating is 78

I set myself a rule. I sign nobody costing £1M or more. That means I bid on youngsters that might one day grow into 87+ rated players.

My goal is to have a squad of around 50 players one day, with all players having cost less than £1M each.

My Eastbourne Borough have 209 players of which 14 are goalkeepers. I may end up with 252 players at some point, who knows?

We all the play the game a different way. I love it when my team manage to beat the likes of Barcelona or Manchester United in a Cup game.

As a gold member, if a squad cap was introduced I would never play the game as to my knowledge no club in real life has a squad limit.

Player concerns will sort out my squad as it progresses up the leagues.

Hoovering up the youngsters is all part of the game. If I can afford to spend an hour a day searching for youngsters that one day might come good why should I feel penalised?[/quote']

I agree. Everyone plays SM differently and has different ideas of what is a challenge and they have every right to do so. As long as they are not breaking any rules then they should be allowed as large a squad as they can manage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Like this. i think a concern along the lines of.."unhappy with competition for places/too much competition" or something' date=' bit like football manager.

that would work a treat.

to limit 'minesweeping' you need more manager in gameworlds to make them more competitive. maybe start shutting old ones down and encouraging managers to move to other gameworlds to fill them up somehow? or simply stop opening so many so quick. in my opinion GW with less than 25% managers have failed ultimately, and yes im guilty of still playing them.[/quote']

Problem is if you have spent 5 years building a team, and are asked to switch over to a new one, you would probably be angry since all the hard work you put in is for nothing.

What I suggest is stop all new gameworlds for 2 months, slowly transition players out of gameoworlds by not allowing any more players to join, and any worlds where there is less than 30% managers if they would kindly move over to another world, and in doing so will recieve 50 million dollars on top of what the team's balance is, in extra funding. This would make people want to transition and make existing gamworlds more packed.

Or a faster way to do this is when the 2D engine comes out, when there are gameworlds less than 25% managed, SM sends a message saying this world doesn't support the 2D engine. If you want the 2D engine, please move to another team. Then they can shut down the non-packed worlds, plus stop creating new worlds and the existing worlds would become more packed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

As an observer' date=' I have to say your post is complete and utter nonsense. Such single minded, foolish views. Also if I may, could you please justify the part of your statement I have highlighted.[/quote']

And that is why you are only an observer and not someone who experienced it 1st hand. I have built teams from scratch, helped people build teams from scratch and have noticed if you want a good team, scouting is key and not buying at random. Its not nonsense its reality. I know I have built teams from division 4 before Valencia, Napoli, Norwich, etc, including some I helped out friends to strategise and build, but unless you don't experience it first hand, you can't say its a foolish view. Anyways, It has been proven that most managers who do proper scouting don't need rediculous amount of players on their team, and most managers who do buy players on here, buy at random.

Plus its not a single minded view, its a view based upon experience. I have never needed a 255 players squad let alone 50. Max cap for me has always been 50 and I was able to survive. Maybe if you knew what you were doing, this would be also true for you. I read up on players and teams alll the time, since soccer is my fav sport, so that is why I never need rediculous amounts of players to make my team prosperous. Smart decisions, right choices and sound acquisitions is what makes teams money.

As for the highlighted stuff, FIFA has been known to penalize/charge teams for stupid things. Just recently they made a rule all teams must provide their financial records too see which teams are over spending and which teams are not, this way they can regulate to some extent what $$ requires a team to put down in order to get a player and not make the best teams to over-spend just cause they have the cash. I would bet that if any team were to ahve daft amount of players, FIFA would impose a fine on them and ask to sell off the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

=tebthereb;1765216

We already have concerned about Lack of First Team Opportunities. Is that not the same thing? It arises when they think there are too many players ahead of them. The existence of player concerns is one of the many reasons why a squad cap is totally unnecessary as it works towards the same outcome (smaller squads) but in a realistic and playable manner.

that would work a treat.

never knew this! maybe coz im such a good manager it has never occured to me ;)

one thing id like to stress is that the concerns maybe should be 'sped' up a little...then we could see players being 'recycled' at lot quicker through the transfer market, as in real life an unhappy player wouldnt sit at a club, he'd be transfer listed...IMO it just seems to take a long time to hit a level 5, longer than it should be. managers should be acting as soon as they get a level 1, and not given the opportunity to let it drag on to reach level 5 which can take a few months....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

right now the game is setup to suit everyone's playing style' date=' if they change that they will lose alot of customers.[/quote']

That's untrue, every poll I have ever seen on this subject shows that the majority agree with a squad cap.

As for losing customers, from what people have told me when they've left game worlds, they've left because there is no way to buy top players when you haven't any yourself and have become fed up.

I myself would rather not see a squad cap, but from what I've seen over the last few months monitoring player concerns, it isn't effective - so what's the point in using it to make the game fairer? A top player should be complaining after not playing 4 games in a row and the concern levels should rise weekly and maybe fall monthly. In one of my gameworlds, Pique (who I am waiting to become available) has been sitting at level 4 for the last 7 weeks, and he still isn't being played - that's most of the season, and his concerns haven't risen?

One more thing.... We seem to get stuck on wanting SoccerManager to be more realistic. Why? I can buy any player I want from unmanaged and external teams at whatever part of the season I want. My injured players can play in friendlies etc etc - what's realistic about that? I just want to see less turnover in most of the leagues I play in so that there is proper competition and not 2/3 of the teams being unmanaged.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

one thing id like to stress is that the concerns maybe should be 'sped' up a little...then we could see players being 'recycled' at lot quicker through the transfer market' date=' as in real life an unhappy player wouldnt sit at a club, he'd be transfer listed...IMO it just seems to take a long time to hit a level 5, longer than it should be. managers should be acting as soon as they get a level 1, and not given the opportunity to let it drag on to reach level 5 which can take a few months....[/quote']

This!

I should have read this before writing mine below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

from what I've seen over the last few months monitoring player concerns' date=' it isn't effective - so what's the point in using it to make the game fairer? A top player should be complaining after not playing 4 games in a row and the concern levels should rise weekly and maybe fall monthly. In one of my gameworlds, Pique (who I am waiting to become available) has been sitting at level 4 for the last 7 weeks, and he still isn't being played - that's most of the season, and his concerns haven't risen?[/quote']I am a bit puzzled that you can say player concerns are ineffective and then talk about a top player on a high concern that you are hoping to sign soon.

Concerns are reviewed roughly every 2-3 months so I would assume the player you mention will have his concern reviewed shortly and if he has not played then he will reach Level 5 and be transfer listed.

This is one of the main reasons why concerns exist; to stop players remaining at clubs where they never get a game. They achieve this. I see players requesting transfers and moving clubs following this all the time.

In some Game Worlds it is only really starting to kick in as it is a gradual process. It is meant to be gradual as the game would be really unplayabale otherwise. Some people will argue it should be sped up, some that it should be slowed down. Personally I agree concerns are perhaps a little slow at present.

I think player concerns are great. I am having to juggle players or sell players far more often to maintain large squads these days and I see other people doing the same. All with varying degrees of success, but on every occasion the transfer market is stimulated.

One more thing.... We seem to get stuck on wanting SoccerManager to be more realistic. Why? I can buy any player I want from unmanaged and external teams at whatever part of the season I want. My injured players can play in friendlies etc etc - what's realistic about that? I just want to see less turnover in most of the leagues I play in so that there is proper competition and not 2/3 of the teams being unmanaged.

James.

I think it is about maintaining a balance between realism and playability. People come to play SM with their mates a lot of the time and use friendlies for this rather than as a manager would in real life hence the ability to field injured players I guess. At the same time it is a football management simulation so there needs to be a close resemblance to reality otherwise people won't bother.

For me a squad cap fails on both fronts. It would make the game unplayable for a sizeable number of members. It also doesn't exist in real life so it would put me off as someone looking to join a realistic experience. Everyone wants more competition and less unmanaged teams and whilst in the short term a squad cap would probably delight a lot of managers I doubt it would please them when the clubs with large squads became uber rich clubs instead who simply outbid them on every quality player available.

Plus, some of the people with large squads are amongst the most dedicated and loyal members of the community so it seems rather foolhardy to penalise them when they have done nothing wrong.

Most managers leave due to not being able to sign who they want or not winning enough and this would be true with or without a squad cap, unless they are the best manager in the Game World or have the patience of a saint or a total lack of competitive spirit (unlikely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I've commented on this before, and as someone who used to troll the lower leagues of the world I used to have squads of 200+

The searching for risers was actually part of the fun for me - more so than deciding between a 352 or a 451 for example.

If SM were to intro squad caps to make the game more realistic, they should also stop 90+ rated players joining lower league teams.

Risers who rise from 70 to +90 should ask for a transfer to a bigger league etc.

They should also introduce TV revenue - so the rich stay rich and the poor get into debt trying to catch up :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Not sure if this had been discussed before... but if it is already decided that we are going to have squad caps (by SM devs), maybe we can have a wage cap, and designated player rule too? (as in american sports) and maybe even drafting system?

I know at first this might upset english players, but it is actually very fun to try to manage a team within the limits. it also "balances" the league out a bit so that one team wouldn't win 10 titles in a row.

I know we want this game to be as realistic as possible, (as do i) but this is only a game and it should promote playability, because right now, small teams have no chance of beating man city, chelsea. I know this is true in real life and people accept it as it is, but in the game i think it should be a tad bit more "fair".

just a thought :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I am a bit puzzled that you can say player concerns are ineffective and then talk about a top player on a high concern that you are hoping to sign soon.

I don't understand how it's puzzling. One of the best Central Defenders in the game has hardly played in the last 3 seasons' date=' yet he's still at the club - that's ineffective to me, but to be pedantic - it's just not effective enough.

Concerns are reviewed roughly every 2-3 months so I would assume the player you mention will have his concern reviewed shortly and if he has not played then he will reach Level 5 and be transfer listed.

I just don't think it's quick enough.

I think player concerns are great. I am having to juggle players or sell players far more often to maintain large squads these days and I see other people doing the same. All with varying degrees of success' date=' but on every occasion the transfer market is stimulated.[/quote']

I definitely agree with them, and think it's a better idea than squad capping, but it needs to be quicker. That being said, it's unjustified penalising someone who has brought a small team up from the bottom using these methods - there would need to be a more sophisticated mind than my own who could find an answer to make it fair for all.

I do agree with most of what you've said, but I also see the point of those who would like to introduce squad capping also. I suppose this is a situation that'll stay until a balance is found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I don't understand how it's puzzling. One of the best Central Defenders in the game has hardly played in the last 3 seasons' date=' yet he's still at the club - that's ineffective to me, but to be pedantic - it's just not effective enough.

I just don't think it's quick enough.

I definitely agree with them, and think it's a better idea than squad capping, but it needs to be quicker. That being said, it's unjustified penalising someone who has brought a small team up from the bottom using these methods - there would need to be a more sophisticated mind than my own who could find an answer to make it fair for all.

I do agree with most of what you've said, but I also see the point of those who would like to introduce squad capping also. I suppose this is a situation that'll stay until a balance is found.[/quote']

I agree with James. The player concerns system is a good idea, just needs to be re-coded so it works more quickly... in both directions....as perfectly illustrated by the aformentioned Pique example.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...