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: Squad size limits

listen' date=' standard setups like ec1 and wc1 the setups are full, every team is entitled to have 255 players but the minority do, with regards squad cap there's no issue with a lack of "good " players available as a RESULT of there being a too high squad space for players.

In setups were there's maybe 20 managers again few use all 255 places available to them so to suggest somebody in 1 of these setups (maybe even 3 managers :eek: ) using 255 players is taking all "your" players loool maybe it's time you accept some teams are better than yours and instead of making the game easier for noobs why don't they try rise to the challange (Not difficult)

You dont even need good players to win titles in this game nor do you need a good sqaud, you can choose both of these and still win against good managers and teams in somewhat competitive divisions, however with knowledge of the game and real life football you can easily get a good team together quickly avg 90/91 in most setups on the game.

It's a myth that large squads (that are few and few between anyway..) stop even 2 or 3 managers in or joining any setup to building a nice team qucikly.

you stated that 255 was definitely too much but never actually made an argument with my point of 255 of 6 years of gameplay equats to around 3 players signed per month, now it's at the max it's at the max and any further years spent with these teams won't see me in the market as much for a few years anyway untill my prospects start getting better then maybe i'll start being active again, untill then I won't be. I'm fairly happy with my large* squad and tbh im happy with my first 25/30 or so players and am not interested in selling them, too often anyway.. maybe 1 a year or 2 years i dno..

& i still have to pay penalties at this time for having 25/30 good players in a team, having any more than this ammount of good players would take its toll.

The other 220+ i have are prospects, they would also only be prospects for most other teams, therefore ridiculos to chop them from me and spread them out "so to speak" to sit on the bench somewere else.[/quote']

I've been playing in English Championship 4091 for 6 seasons and have won 9 trophies (and once again I'm 1st this season). I'm sure you're happy with your large squad, but it seems a tad unrealistic and unnecessary for a team to have 200 players, whether they be prospects or not. A talented manager (which according to you, you are) has to make the correct decisions in the transfer market, taking risks instead of buying 200 kids where 5 will become world-class and the others will be sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad size limits

There is already a BIG thread about squad sizes, with a poll, here:

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?t=7737&page=77

As you can see, this discussion goes and goes on for years, both sides have STRONG arguments and also it seems that (as the poll shows) the community is divided about this matter. (That's why i don't think SM will introduce squad sizes).

Find the time and patience to read that thread, everything about this argument is there, discussed again and again and again and again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad size limits

There is already a BIG thread about squad sizes' date=' with a poll, here:

[url']http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?t=7737&page=77[/url]

As you can see, this discussion goes and goes on for years, both sides have STRONG arguments and also it seems that (as the poll shows) the community is divided about this matter. (That's why i don't think SM will introduce squad sizes).

Find the time and patience to read that thread, everything about this argument is there, discussed again and again and again and again...

We are happy here thanks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad size limits

But not everyone wants to buy the large risers from Albania or Bosnia that will make them money and have no chance of ever getting in your team what's the point in that?

Buying risers is part of the game' date=' i've only used this option a few times maybe on special setups were it was really required, it's not how i play the game but must accept that this is very much apart of SM & an important factor which makes SM what it is, growing your knowledge of players in unknown leagues and divisions.. if you took this method anyway player rating changes would not be as interesting, maybe some people like only looking out for the top players rating changes & only want these players, othhers are looking at youth prospects & others increases for profit.. some people all of the above thruout their different type of teams, it creates diversity; yourself and others want more for the game to be the same for everyone, that's not good for SM. IMO & shouldn't happen.

Yes teams with large squads deter other players from joining the game worlds. I can guarantee this.

Why they quit/don't join, if they dont want the challange presented then go off and take control of a new barce or madrid, that's all some people do.. good for them ;) but don't come on here and argue the game is too difficult, again you want to level the game up completly and take away the challange, & as i said previosly the game is not difficult in that respect or difficult to attain good players the the vast majority of setups, in the FEW setups were you can't really attain good players as quickly, there good setups and are enjoyable, you want a trickly down effect of good players to these weaker teams even tough in reality in the most competitive setups people with weak teams are happy with the challange & it enjoy it so, these managers are in the minority.. so it's the majority that dont control such teams that want this introduction because there thinking of o now i can get witsel or dzagoev or rodriquez for my team easy, when in reality whoever has these players may have worked hard for them, doing deals getting risers buying prospects, if people are limited then there will be less transfer market activity.

Even the bog-standard 87-88 rated players... these could benefit a lower rated team no-end' date=' improve the competitiveness of the game world and create a less hostile environment within the game world.[/quote']

What i said above with regards the trickle down effect of players, & go home with your hostile environment & anyway the biggest matches in world football usually have hostile environments.. dont you like.

What is the point in having 200+ "maybes" when you could sell them all' date=' give other players a chance to build a half-decent squad? [/quote']

A few managers in each setup having large squads, DOES NOT prevent people from easily getting good teams, work alittle harder & become more knowledgeable on SM and real life football, it's EASY, your argument that 255 playyers as a squad cap is stoping people from doing what your saying has no merit, it's not true & tbh im getting sick of people using this to argue their point, i think it's fair to say i know the game pretty well, maybe even 1 or 2 people in SM have as much knowledge as myself :eek::P

I manage all sorts of teams the big teams and the small teams & i have no issues on any of my teams really, i play what's infront of me, i dont cry when im on my team with 4500 seats and i lose to barcelona in the Champs league final, ball me eyes out waaaa they have 255 players, big deal.. just like real life in strong setups, there's good teams there's weaker teams, A gap like real life but on SM that gap can already be closed quickly.

All this games history people have argued for a reduction in squad cap, but still SM have not changed it, get the picture, the argument that large squads ruin the game is nonsical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad size limits

1. But not everyone wants to buy the large risers from Albania or Bosnia that will make them money and have no chance of ever getting in your team what's the point in that?

2. Even the bog-standard 87-88 rated players... these could benefit a lower rated team no-end' date=' improve the competitiveness of the game world and create a less hostile environment within the game world.

3. Having 255+ players in real life would cripple a club, and i don't understand why SM don't altercate this as if the wages of the players was 20k each turn, that would be a weekly loss of 5m pounds on wages per week. Ridiculous.[/quote']

For number one you have answered yourself ,it makes them money eventually and they do not have to play for their team ,which has a big bearing if building a pot to splash out for a player you require.

For numer two i think there are that many on the data base then some of this hogging does not actuall really hurt .

For number three you can not relate to real life because this is a fantasy game .

For my personal summerisation on the above and what i would like to see .:eek:

The biggest teams in the world Barcelona ,Real ,Juve,Man C,M.utd etc,etc.

all do not in a new untouched set up come in with every player rated 90 plus .

At the most i think the highest is about 18-21.

Yet you can be allowed treble and more of these which upsets most with them that player hog and why they do not like it because they mostly just sit on the bench ,wheras these are more benefit to other managers and keep a game world better if this side was sorted more .

You can not even for the biggest Squad size buy if in debt .

To me should not be allowed to have debt .

let members have the biggest Squad size they want but if because of wages they go into debt then one automatically gets sold to re finance the debt .:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I have merged this thread with the old one on the subject which goes through everything in huge detail, if anyone can be bothered to read it all it is quite interesting and definitely gives many reasons why a cap is a bad idea.

I can't see SM ever introducing a tighter squad cap to be honest. 255 is a technical limit, and there is no limit on the number of players you can own in reality. There is a limit on the players you can name in a squad and whilst I would like to see that it is obviously not the same thing.

It is player concerns that need to keep on being tweaked and improved in my opinion, not the squad limit, as there would be no basis for putting it to any particular amount (everyone thinks a different value is right) and doing so would create many problems.

There are financial restraints in reality and these exist in SM too. They could perhaps be tweaked but the problem is of course that in reality it is all about money whereas in SM, I reap no benefit from cash but get some enjoyment from maintaining a large squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I have merged this thread with the old one on the subject which goes through everything in huge detail' date=' if anyone can be bothered to read it all it is quite interesting and definitely gives many reasons why a cap is a bad idea.

I can't see SM ever introducing a tighter squad cap to be honest. 255 is a technical limit, and there is no limit on the number of players you can own in reality. There is a limit on the players you can name in a squad and whilst I would like to see that it is obviously not the same thing.

[b']It is player concerns that need to keep on being tweaked [/b]and improved in my opinion, not the squad limit, as there would be no basis for putting it to any particular amount (everyone thinks a different value is right) and doing so would create many problems.

There are financial restraints in reality and these exist in SM too. They could perhaps be tweaked but the problem is of course that in reality it is all about money whereas in SM, I reap no benefit from cash but get some enjoyment from maintaining a large squad.

Tweaked :eek::eek:

The whole thing is an utter sham, player concerns mean nothing at all anymore, you simply buy them off.

Long been an advocate of a squad cap it is the best way to keep competitive Game worlds alive.

There is 0% reason why anybody needs 255 players, it is quite frankly ludicrous...

I could go into more detail but I am feeling lazy :P

Personally would like to see a squad cap of 35 senior and 35-45 youth i think it would improve the game in so many respects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I can't see SM ever introducing a tighter squad cap to be honest. 255 is a technical limit' date=' and there is no limit on the number of players you can own in reality. There is a limit on the players you can name in a squad and whilst I would like to see that it is obviously not the same thing.[/quote']

Clubs have financial limits when it comes to 'owning' players. So, there is a cap but it's not the same for all clubs. Also, all clubs have registration caps for all major competitions. All other players are ineligible and are not allowed to participate.

In real life, clubs have caps. In other words, introduce R E G I S T R A T I O N S. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

More stupit comments since my last post, how many times does someone have to make an argument why a reduction in squad cap is not neccessary only for someone to come along and say almost instantly once more that 1 or 2 managers in each setup having a big squad completly ruins the setup..

That's not true, Don't be lazy when making an argument with regards game changes, state your point with some evidence why a squad cap would be better for the majority of setups, counter my argument against a sqaud cap,

preferably point for point, easiest way. I'm not reapeating myself anymore tough, il counter somebodys argument if it's genuine and not something which i have not argued about already.

I have and others have given numerous reasons why introducing a stricter squad cap would actually bring noting to the game & only stop managers who dont only seek out instantly buying all 90+ players from playing and enjoying the game

How many players on the SM database? How many managers in the avg Setup? Do the Math.

& ray competitive gameworlds as i pointed out like EC1 WC1 etc People are not crying because there current team is avg rated 87, those crying are those people in setups with only 20 managers or so and these managers just want to whip players like dzagoev and witsel and hulk etc of teams better than themself, without actually spending a few months/year or 2 in playing the game and eventually competing for these players honestly, you can't exspect to join an old setup that's years old and just be on paper like everyone else.. even tough it's possible on SM to take control of such a talented team if they become unmanaged anyway.

SM does not stop people who sign up to the game getting good teams instantly, either buy buying them or seeing them unmanaged or easily buliding up a team, to force hardship on those who have worked for their teams is not in anyones interest, and btw if somebody has a 5,000 stadium or attendence they may need room for 25/30 players, another 25/30 prospects for the near future, perhaps another 50 youth prospects + room to buy and sell risers etc to finance their squad of 90/93/95 rated players aswell as their future investments

A squad cap limit less than is now, let alone something ridiculos like 100 is not in the interest & would prevent/hinder people from enjoying the game/ keeping high rated players at their small clubs which they took years to build.

id love to know what % of teams on this whole game have more than 150 players on their squad anyway, i reckon it's about 1% if even that high. people with high suad size almost always do so becasue they invest in youths and risers etc, such players are not wanted by the mass majority and are of no use/wanted by other managers in the setup anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

IMO I don't see what's wrong with a 40 man first team cap and 200+ youth squad limit. This way managers could buy young talent to make money off when they rise and there would be a more open market for established player meaning more competitive game worlds.

I manage in a private game world and we have a 25 man first team squad and 15 youth team limit and it works very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

we need better squad stats and history, i.e id like to be able to see how season 1 squad compares to squad 9 and where i finished etc...

also need to have profit and loss stats on players and a history of this along with top profitable managers etc...

more regular real life stats updates, taking too long to update...

slowly getting bored and have the best squads ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

we need better squad stats and history' date=' i.e id like to be able to see how season 1 squad compares to squad 9 and where i finished etc...

also need to have profit and loss stats on players and a history of this along with top profitable managers etc...

more regular real life stats updates, taking too long to update...

slowly getting bored and have the best squads ever.[/quote']

Well said mate I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

What a load of tosh, complete rubbish the game has changed and not for the better, I have played this game for years numerus set-ups in the most competitive environments etc and done alright for myself but I aint so blinkered as to say that the game does not need tweeking.

A squad cap is imperitive for numerous reasons:

1- people want competitive set-ups.

People do not want to join gameworlds where certain clubs have a monopoly on all the best talent. Why on Earth should any side have 255 players it beggars belief. A reason why loads of set-ups die a death is because there is no real chance to progress and be active without having to wait 3+ years if they buy any youth players. All the best players being spread across a small percentage of the gameworld capacity (which nowdays is 15-20% max in most Gold Championships ask yourself realisticaly why that is)

2- Re-invigorates the transfer market.

Use GC 1 as an example Teb's Spartak. I have nothing against Teb he is a nice guy but does he really need 40-45 90+ players over 100 88+ players. Fair play he has built up a great squad but is it realistic, is it needed no?? Now imagine if 40 or those came on the market it completely re-invigorates the market, teams who are stockpiled with cash and cant do anything with it especially with the syupid Player Concerns scenario all get a chance to get involved. This provides a domino effect players will then be transferred later on for P/E if smaller clubs pick them up as they look to improve etc.

3- The idiocy of player concerns

There is absolutely no deterrent to building up a large squad now as it is so easy to get around player concerns. They used to mean something but now ll you have to do is "buy-off" the concern meaning that a manager knows it is almost impossible to lose a player. Absolutely ludicrous introduction. A squad cap is even more needed with idiotic introductions such as this.

There are other ways of doing it as well send them on loan until they reach level four then call them back, keep repeating the process over and over, teams can just stockpile players now with absolutely no worries over losing any of these players if they dont play etc.

4- the idiocy of unmanaged clubs loaning players.

Again completely farcical. Again another stupid introduction to pander to people who think a 255 squad is reasonable Why on Earth would CSKA Moscow want to loan my 67 Rtd striker. The loan offers are farcical nearly all of them dont improve the unmanaged side in any way and simply again makes it easy for the "player-hogger". They can stockpile players and dont even have to pay there wages it is so ludicrous it is beyond belief

You talk about making the game easier for "noobs" please tell me how these changes dont make it the easiest it has ever been for managers, if you think otherwise you are living in a parallel universe.

5- Leads to a more "skilled" management game.

if you have a squad cap of 35 senior and 45 youth players for example (still a big squad and more than enough) it will as stated earlier re-invigorate markets and make managers think more carefully about the make-up of there squad.

Is it a skill to buy every single youth player then loan them out, not pay wages, not have to worry about concerns is it heck

Managers will have to decide more carefully what players to buy, do I want to keep some talents, what talents are more important to keep, how much space do I keep for risers, the financial compisition of the squad etc etc.

In turn this leads to more players on the market as managers have to make these decisions be more selective just as any normal manager in any wake of life would have to do. There is also still more than enough room within the squad with the limits impossed to buy risers, build clubs, etc etc. Anybody who says otherwise is deluded.

6- Your point about small clubs is complete tosh.

I manage loads of small clubs through different gameworlds and make ends meet it is not a deterrent in fact it would make it easier in my eyes to build clubs. I have built small clubs such as Darlington, Rotherham, Barnsley etc the biggest deterrent of all is not being able to pick up any players and I completely understand why some managers would get frustrated with the current "system" employed by SM. Big clubs and I see it everywhere stockpile players with no real intention of playing them, but keep them ask yourself why??

I built up these sides in the most competitive of environments and have NEVER had more than 70 players in a squad, needing 255 or 100+ or whatever to build it is a false notion, completely unfounded.

because although they never play them, there is no deterrent or threat of losing them, they can rake in 3M+ in gate recipts per game(bigger clubs) if you loan players out etc how is that fair or realistic.

7- Makes for more exciting Leagues

As better players trickle down the system, it gives more teams within the Leagues a better chance of success as more teams become able to compete on a better level as a better quality of player is avaliable. This in turn makes it more competitive which again makes it more enjoyable, more people are likely to compete.

8- SM- "realistic and sophisticated transfer market"

Do me a favour, coupled with player concerns it is the least realistic system I have ever seen

A squad cap would be a mass improvement. I have seen and played everything on this game so am not a newbie with a gripe, I have encountered every scenario possible and I truely believe it is the best way forward. Player concerns are nigh on redundent and mean nothing, the system we have is so flawed it is beyond belief.

It does not stifle club development in the slightest in a squad of 80 there is more than enough room to build a side I have seen it, I have done it saying otherwise is a completely false statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

What a load of tosh' date=' complete rubbish the game has changed and not for the better, I have played this game for years numerus set-ups in the most competitive environments etc and done alright for myself but I aint so blinkered as to say that the game does not need tweeking.

A squad cap is imperitive for numerous reasons:

[b']1- people want competitive set-ups.[/b]

People do not want to join gameworlds where certain clubs have a monopoly on all the best talent. Why on Earth should any side have 255 players it beggars belief. A reason why loads of set-ups die a death is because there is no real chance to progress and be active without having to wait 3+ years if they buy any youth players. All the best players being spread across a small percentage of the gameworld capacity (which nowdays is 15-20% max in most Gold Championships ask yourself realisticaly why that is)

Most setups you join on SM you can easily attain an 89/91 rated squad in a short period of time, not 2 or 3 years, aswell as this you have as much chance of landing any youth prospects added to the database, if there's a setup that's running for years then the managers in those setups have spent years in that setup & years on their teams, your issue is really these teams having alot of "perceived" talent on them, but the reality is that playing the game well should bring its rewards, seperating the good from the not so.. and all it is is talent, worthless right now, it's still his first 11 vs yours and i think most people will agree that right now an avg rated 89 or 90 or even 87/88 can challange and win honors. you make it out the game is unplayable due to these factors, it's more than playable.

2- Re-invigorates the transfer market.

Use GC 1 as an example Teb's Spartak. I have nothing against Teb he is a nice guy but does he really need 40-45 90+ players over 100 88+ players. Fair play he has built up a great squad but is it realistic' date=' is it needed no?? Now imagine if 40 or those came on the market it completely re-invigorates the market, teams who are stockpiled with cash and cant do anything with it especially with the syupid Player Concerns scenario all get a chance to get involved. This provides a domino effect players will then be transferred later on for P/E if smaller clubs pick them up as they look to improve etc.[/quote']

1 team from over a million, and anyway how come all the others managers in gc-1, all of them put together couldn't get the players teb has? teb has those players because he was a good manager, thats how i see it.. that does not say that this is alittle excessive but under the the current structure of concerns i reckon (teb would know better) will be forced to sell or lose players due to mounting debt- should he decide to use the address concerns option open to him, people were angry with the previous concerns ongoings, so SM found a way to slow it down somewhat, there not going to suddenly increase it again when they know too many people dislike it that way & espcially when the current structure hasn't really taken effect yet, so far it's not effected teams too much so people keep their players (nobody likes losing players) but this is a long term strategy as opposed to the last strategy they deployed, & anyway in a world champ last week i got hamsik off another team becasue for whatever reason he became unhappy (not playing) , so it does happen even now.

5- Leads to a more "skilled" management game.

narrowing the divide/dishing out players across the board only leads to more teams having slighly better avg maybe +1 (Then they'll want di maria and ozil etc) making the game less about skill' date=' on any given saturday its me vs you our first 11's, the rest or how many makes no differnce

6- Your point about small clubs is complete tosh.

No it's not. it's very realistic and i specfically raised this issue numerous times on this forum in the past, i'm in such a situation were my avg 88 now 89 side with i think only two 90's in it (1 untill recently) is struggling to pay for itself due to low income, having invested in my teams years ago in the future i might have 10 90+ players, untill now i have sold many players that were regular enough on my teamsheet to keep afloat. but it doesn't bother me in the slightest i dont have any chance of getting iniesta or messi becasue i know my weaker team has a fair chance of beating the best sides in the gameworld, i'm competing fine with the bigger clubs, some people with bigger squads really i couldn't care, i'm not going to beg for crumbs (ie. one or 2 90 rated players) for my team because then i can compete for real lol

finally your big issue is believing managers can't compete with the better teams on each setup , that's a load of tosh tbh, it's just not true.. we both know that in most setups, there might be a few or 1 or 2 strong teams, speading these out will make little differnce to the avg {+1 if lucky} of any particular team, hardly no advantage, only names on the team sheet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

2013 and this issue rumbles on....my current views are:

In a competitive set-up the more risers the small clubs can pick up without a bidding war the better.

With no restriction big clubs can continuously outbid small clubs for risers - with a limit then consequently there will be more risers available without competition.

More risers available for a fair price would benefit small teams and in turn the gameworld as a whole as it would help keep the lower divisions managed.

The usual response to this is "there are 10,000 players - the small teams can go and spend hours researching the obscure leagues and buy someone else" or "there are thousands of gameworlds, people who want to manage small clubs should just leave and go elsewhere"

Small wonder then that across the thousands of gameworlds there are perhaps 1% or less that are fully managed, SM's "flagship" Gold Championships do well to be even 25% managed once they are a few months old, and even the traditional 4-division English Championships are now mainly slashed to just 2 divisions rather than have scores of unmanaged teams.

Clearly a wider spread of risers won't solve all of the above but it would play a part - with little cash and little chance of success the main buzz from managing a small club is derived from seeing players grow: risers = hope = sustained interest, as opposed to: no risers = no hope = quit club.....

And:

In an attempt to progress the debate, how would people feel if they attempted to place an offer on a CM (for example) and received the following message:

"Your chairman will not release funds for this player as the club already has X CM's and so is adequately covered in this position"

"X" could be as high as 10 for CB's, CM's and maybe 5 for GK's, RB's etc.

Not the unrealistic cap that everyone hates but a realistic, logical reason that's simple and potentially transparent so that everyone knows where they stand? :)

This would work in conjunction with concerns although like many others I agree they need to get rid of the ridiculous 'address concerns' pay-off option and the loaning to unmanaged (and I say this as someone who currently saves £1m per turn in a GC by loaning out 100 players).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

i agree with this as i see player hogging as a major problem in the game because the smaller clubs cant buy the potential youth players for cheap to improve their club for the future. I dont see how a 100 cap is problem for you because ive never even had a squad above 50. I like to have between 10-20 youths at the most then about 20 full team players so i like the idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Most setups you join on SM you can easily attain an 89/91 rated squad in a short period of time' date=' not 2 or 3 years, aswell as this you have as much chance of landing any youth prospects added to the database, if there's a setup that's running for years then the managers in those setups have spent years in that setup & years on their teams, your issue is really these teams having alot of "perceived" talent on them, but the reality is that playing the game well should bring its rewards, seperating the good from the not so.. and all it is is talent, worthless right now, it's still his first 11 vs yours and i think most people will agree that right now an avg rated 89 or 90 or even 87/88 can challange and win honors. you make it out the game is unplayable due to these factors, it's more than playable.

[b']Firstly if you can pick up 89-91 players with ease then me and you must clearly have a different idea of the word "competitive".[/b]

I AM one of those managers who has been with there teams for years and there is no justification for having massive squads it is not needed and your little rant about 11 v 11 is null and void eleven players may take the pitch but that has got nothing to do with the issue discussed. I know talent I buy talent but as I do I get rid of the players I dont want/need anymore dont just hog them as most people tend to do.

1 team from over a million, and anyway how come all the others managers in gc-1, all of them put together couldn't get the players teb has? teb has those players because he was a good manager, thats how i see it.. that does not say that this is alittle excessive but under the the current structure of concerns i reckon (teb would know better) will be forced to sell or lose players due to mounting debt- should he decide to use the address concerns option open to him, people were angry with the previous concerns ongoings, so SM found a way to slow it down somewhat, there not going to suddenly increase it again when they know too many people dislike it that way & espcially when the current structure hasn't really taken effect yet, so far it's not effected teams too much so people keep their players (nobody likes losing players) but this is a long term strategy as opposed to the last strategy they deployed, & anyway in a world champ last week i got hamsik off another team becasue for whatever reason he became unhappy (not playing) , so it does happen even now.

No it is not one team from a million at all numerous examples of teams having these massive squads (how many players does your Arsenal have in GC 16, I think that's you :rolleyes:) 254!!!

Give me one VALID reason why you NEED 254 players???

Teb started his squad building with that Spartak when the game was barely known and had a significant "headstart" well before this forum was invented, player scouting was well known etc. He has built on that greatly and that is to his credit but nobody can tell me that him having 100 88+ players in the most competitive set-up in GC'S is good for the game. It is not he does not need those players but he keeps them.....why???

Simply to surpress the competition is the underlying reason, he dont need them all but he wont sell them. he just loans them all out which is nice but it dont solve the underlying problem. Transfer markets in loads of set-ups go stagnant exactly because of this practice. he odnt need to sell either because he knows how to work the system to surpress concerns he operates within the rules of the game but the rules need changing.

The player concern feature is an absolutely pittiful!! It has no teeth and is easily got around for the reasons I state earlier. You talk about wanting the game to be more competitive yet you talk against every single thing which might encourage it to be competitive.

Managers can now player hoard, buy off concerns so never having to worry about them and to boot they can keep a 255 man squad and never pay wages for them by sending them all out on loan to unmanaged clubs who dont need them meaning they dont have to pay any wages and making the game even EASIER. There is no level of MANAGEMENT SKILL NEEDED NOWDAYS IT HAS BEEN MADE SO SO EASY.

narrowing the divide/dishing out players across the board only leads to more teams having slighly better avg maybe +1 (Then they'll want di maria and ozil etc) making the game less about skill, on any given saturday its me vs you our first 11's, the rest or how many makes no differnce

There are many games in a season you play nearly every two days it is a SQUAD game. Eleven players will not get you through a season, why do people like you consistantly want to surpress competition??

You say you embrace the challenge etc it is all rubbish, you simply want to hoard all the players in case some of them turn out to be gems, instead of wanting to compete in an environment where real skill is involved in terms of managing the squad, keeping a balance between talents and risers in your squad, keeping players happy by actually using them etc.

No it's not. it's very realistic and i specfically raised this issue numerous times on this forum in the past, i'm in such a situation were my avg 88 now 89 side with i think only two 90's in it (1 untill recently) is struggling to pay for itself due to low income, having invested in my teams years ago in the future i might have 10 90+ players, untill now i have sold many players that were regular enough on my teamsheet to keep afloat. but it doesn't bother me in the slightest i dont have any chance of getting iniesta or messi becasue i know my weaker team has a fair chance of beating the best sides in the gameworld, i'm competing fine with the bigger clubs, some people with bigger squads really i couldn't care, i'm not going to beg for crumbs (ie. one or 2 90 rated players) for my team because then i can compete for real lol

Easy to get around all those problems now is it not just loan out all the players you aint using wont have to pay any wages :rolleyes:

I can run and sustain small clubs in big leagues like Gold Championships because I manage my squad well buy/sell well etc and I dont need a squad of over 100+ to do it, it is sustainable with a much much smaller squad.

Why dont people want a transfer market that is actually active?? Having a squad cap and having a player concern feature with teeth would actually enhance the game experience no end, people have to be more selective over buying/selling what players I keep etc....leads to a better game, an actual piece of management so to speak there in lies a challenge.

finally your big issue is believing managers can't compete with the better teams on each setup , that's a load of tosh tbh, it's just not true.. we both know that in most setups, there might be a few or 1 or 2 strong teams, speading these out will make little differnce to the avg {+1 if lucky} of any particular team, hardly no advantage, only names on the team sheet

Complete rubbish.

Of course it makes a difference if you get a better quality of player and the players being distributed more equally it makes for a better gameworld. Who wants to play in gameworlds like I see in environments where you have all the best players and you have no competition.

INTRODUCE THE SQUAD CAP AND MAKE PLAYER CONCERNS WORTHWHILE, STOP UNMANAGED CLUBS FROM LOANING PLAYERS and it would make a great difference in loads of set-ups.

Sick and tired of ridiculous decisions from SM pandering to people like yourself who wants it easy to sustain massive squads which are not needed, warranted or good for the gameworld. You claim you want competitiveness no you dont you want it as easy as it can be for you to sustain your player-hoarding and surpress competition whilst not having to worry about what the proper consequences of having a big squad should be (financial downturn, players requesting transfers etc) except we all know that wont happen because the player concern feature is so bad it is laughable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Complete rubbish.

Of course it makes a difference if you get a better quality of player and the players being distributed more equally it makes for a better gameworld. Who wants to play in gameworlds like I see in environments where you have all the best players and you have no competition.

INTRODUCE THE SQUAD CAP AND MAKE PLAYER CONCERNS WORTHWHILE' date=' STOP UNMANAGED CLUBS FROM LOANING PLAYERS and it would make a great difference in loads of set-ups.[/b']

Sick and tired of ridiculous decisions from SM pandering to people like yourself who wants it easy to sustain massive squads which are not needed, warranted or good for the gameworld. You claim you want competitiveness no you dont you want it as easy as it can be for you to sustain your player-hoarding and surpress competition whilst not having to worry about what the proper consequences of having a big squad should be (financial downturn, players requesting transfers etc) except we all know that wont happen because the player concern feature is so bad it is laughable

Your argument is that, having the odd team in any given setup being allowd have 255 players is ruining the setup is out of this world a ridiculos notion, if you looked at all the setups on SM, perhaps some of the well known one's have a good few teams with larger squads but generally in any given setup you might have 1 or 2 clubs with larger sqauds, possibly as a result of buying youths, even if if they did have lots of 89+ players as i already stated SM already have something in place for this, The player concerns which are still working, but now clubs lose their players slower therefore the feature is work in progress, so arguing that allowing 255 player per squad means people can just hog all or as many 89+ as they wan't isent possible and even as soon as people start adressing concerns of those 89/90s that are not playing they will soon either sell knowing they don't need them or have their financis tumble downwards (espcially if they have more concerns to address than others due to their bigger squad size)

At this point he will likly try to do exchange deals, not as before when he was losing the players for perceived useless cash, this in itself keeps the market active and keeps the selling manager happier instead of being furious to faster paced concerns, not allowing him sufficient time to work out what he wants for his team.

With regards the trickle down effect of players, we will see this eventually anyway but for now as i said having a couple teams losing some 89/90 rated players (and possibly not prospects as for now managers might sell a player like baines if he has alba & marcelo in his team but he won't sell the players other managers want for good to noting like rodriquez or ayew) & the difference to any teams starting 11 as a result of players leaving clubs wont be effected that much.. & THEREFORE little difference in terms of competitivness which you cry out for,.

so i make the argument that having 255 players (with a concerns system in place) in your team has little effect on any setups & even in the setups like golds were lots of managers are going for the same ammount of players added to the database, (more managers than the vast majority of setups on SM) if teb had to give away 100 players rated 87/92, on average we would all get one player, some wouldn't get any.. the differnce even in an perceived extreme case of hogging, the difference to other teams is nominal. And anyway i have a weak team in gc-1, but then my youth prospects start playing soon when their rated 83+ .. i love that being able to play young players like this when most other teams this player sits around doing noting (untill unmanaged loans ;) ) & when destro got up to 88 i feel good about him being my star player.

Most people who register on SM want to manage the best players they want messi or neymar etc, if they join an oldworld picking up players like baines or whoever isn't gona keep them happy for long, the reality is that to get these players they need to take time and work on their team or stay in the setup and hopefully get a job offer from a team with better players, but in reality new teams become unmanaged all the time in other setups and this is why people leave, to find a team with much better players.. a team with a neymar or a ozil or something, not because im hogging baines.

Currently i think new members get 1 free club spot maybe 2, then they must buy the rest.. given these managers more initiallspace might fill up more gameworlds with managed teams.

having a well supported clubs like liverpool being unmanaged in SM for weeks and weeks etc etc means something is wrong, but the odd team having slightly bigger squads or more 89+ players is not the issue in this regard.

& i already said i have small teams aswell, i don't have an issue with the bigger clubs having certain advantages, it's what makes the game somewhat realistic (not a level playing field) even tough that level playing field is hardly a slope & definitely not a slope that can't be walked up easily..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Why don't you simply increase the wages in 10%?

That would probably make people think twice before buying >100/200 players.

Would also screw over managers of smaller clubs.

There isnt enough people willing to manage and stick with smaller clubs ( hence the low % of managers in each league ).

By adding more financial restraints you are restricting those more than the bigger clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

There is no doubt we need a cap' date=' that goes with out saying.

Its very very simple we need a cap of some sort.[/i']

ya we already have, 255 players.. like i pointed out over a long period of time this equats to signing 3 players a month for 6 years then forever after no more, this is not excssive

Why do we neeed a smaller cap? there's more than enough players on the database, more than enough setups for people to continiously find, and few mangers in most of those setups aswell as player concerns which are working, albeit at a slower pace but we all know why that is ;)

anyway this will be the last post from me, even after my last two posts i still must quote this ****, i've made a valid argument why a squad cap really isient a big deal at all, all in all.

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...