Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SM Dev (John)

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 Sizes

Oh look... Another of the many reasons i stopped playing SM. The 255 squad cap is a complete joke. This game has just turned into a complete shambles this past year.

255 cap has been around just as long if not longer than me (i.e. 6yrs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I feel that that they need to make it more realistic. 50 is a good number. It is highly unlikely that in real life that you will come across a club with that many(more than 50) players signed onto the club. It discourages player hoarding and allows for a more realistic setup. Instead of just filling up on 10k risers that have a tiny chance of rising, people would have to pick their signings wisely, with a more even distribution of value and rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I will put together a study of a forum filled gameworld that is 80 clubs and 100% filled, with a full list of players per club including loans and we will see what the stats say, I do not know the numbers yet but will post them once I check club by club to add the additional loan players as they are not included in the GW data.

This should give some insight as a small sample study to how many players are clubs signing, the GW is in it's 11th season so should provide decent feedback, I will do an average players per club per division, an overall players per club for the GW and also add in percent of clubs that would fit into each of the brackets asked in this poll thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I feel that that they need to make it more realistic. 50 is a good number. It is highly unlikely that in real life that you will come across a club with that many(more than 50) players signed onto the club. It discourages player hoarding and allows for a more realistic setup. Instead of just filling up on 10k risers that have a tiny chance of rising' date=' people would have to pick their signings wisely, with a more even distribution of value and rating.[/quote']

But 50 squad cap does not allow for scouting at all.

If we are talking about real life big clubs, they have around a 25-30 man senior squad, about 10-20 players out on loan and then have a youth system that has around 50-70 players going down the age levels. But in SM the players don't appear until they appear for the first team in real life. So like in real life, we need to build an youth setup to wait for these players to be good enough for first team.

Your point works fine in a vacant game-worlds where there is an abundance of quality players available but in populated gameworlds one would never get out of the lowest division as all the good players are already taken. So we need to gamble on lower rated players that will rise and then keep the better ones to build a squad while selling of the players that are not that highly rated to earn funds to bid for higher rated players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Here are the numbers from gameworld EC7046 which is a forum filled gameworld with 100% of clubs managed, it has a competitive transfer market for all ranges of ratings of players.

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?t=171891

I know it is only a small study but interesting nonetheless that in a competitive gameworld, all 80 clubs are managed and yet only one squad is larger than 100 players with 102 players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Here are the numbers from gameworld EC7046 which is a forum filled gameworld with 100% of clubs managed' date=' it has a competitive transfer market for all ranges of ratings of players.

[url']http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?t=171891[/url]

I know it is only a small study but interesting nonetheless that in a competitive gameworld, all 80 clubs are managed and yet only one squad is larger than 100 players with 102 players.

For me... 7046 is one of the most successful game worlds on SM. Why? The exact reason above. No team has over 100 players (excluding one at 102). Having a squad cap of 100 is probably the ideal scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

It does seem strange that a problem that was spotted over seven years ago has still yet to be addressed, the statements made in the opening posts of this thread and the future discussions on said matter could probably all be summed up to no more than empty rhetoric, as we still stand here all these years on facing the same scenario, which to be honest is quite a shame as maybe if action was taken back at the stage when initially spotted, gameworlds such as the prestigious 'Gold Championships' could have maybe still have had some life in them compared to the dead sea of barren wastelands they are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

In fairness unless I'm missing something, squad sizes has little relevance to the success of EC7046. That is a forum set-up which started with a lot of interest, involving dedicated managers and snowballed via word of mouth/contacts to maintain that standard. It's not representative of most set-ups. It's probably the closest to 'SM Utopia' and sure set-ups should aspire to something like EC7046 but that's not entirely realistic. There's so many other variables involved.

The amount of active managers has also probably meant that the talent isn't there to fill the squads. Sounds an admirable set-up and I can only applaud those involved but I struggle to see a whole lot of relevance to this debate.

For example: If you told me Exeter City was competing at the top of Division 1 in EC7046 having never retained more than 40/50 players and are financially stable (as argued before impossible IMO with the current other limitations of SM which no cap papers over) Then you might have a point about the feasibility of managing smaller teams even with squad caps (255 isn't much of a 'cap' so ignoring that) NB: I appreciate the 'small team' argument is just one aspect and that seemed apt given recent comments as an example. Just saying I could see the relevance more if EC7046's inclusion in the debate disproved a key point of the 'anti-cap camp'.

Bringing EC7046 into this is a little bit of a tangent it seems unless I am genuinely missing something. I don't really agree lack of caps are the reason for game-world failures though. The sheer volume created is a much stronger argument.

Genuine question: are there that many more teams with large squads in the unsuccessful GCs as opposed to the those deemed 'successful'? I'm not convinced they are and in turn whether lacks of caps are the reason.

I see plenty of dead set-ups regardless of any of the squad sizes, big, small or medium. Simply supply is greater than the demand.

Disclaimer:

Sorry it feels like I just ending up debating with you all the time recently. Nothing personal. I understand in a previous post you mentioned a limit of 150 however which isn't the most unreasonable suggestion I've ever seen so fundamentally I can't argue with that it's just this talk about EC7046 which leaves me uncomfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

In fairness unless I'm missing something' date=' squad sizes has little relevance to the success of EC7046. That is a forum set-up which started with a lot of interest, involving dedicated managers and snowballed via word of mouth/contacts to maintain that standard. It's not representative of most set-ups. It's probably the closest to 'SM Utopia' and sure set-ups should aspire to something like EC7046 but that's not entirely realistic. There's so many other variables involved.

The amount of active managers has also probably meant that the talent isn't there to fill the squads. Sounds an admirable set-up and I can only applaud those involved but I struggle to see a whole lot of relevance to this debate.

For example: If you told me Exeter City was competing at the top of Division 1 in EC7046 having never retained more than 40/50 players and are financially stable (as argued before impossible IMO with the current other limitations of SM which no cap papers over) Then you might have a point about the feasibility of managing smaller teams even with squad caps (255 isn't much of a 'cap' so ignoring that) NB: I appreciate the 'small team' argument is just one aspect and that seemed apt given recent comments as an example. Just saying I could see the relevance more if EC7046's inclusion in the debate disproved a key point of the 'anti-cap camp'.

Bringing EC7046 into this is a little bit of a tangent it seems unless I am genuinely missing something. I don't really agree lack of caps are the reason for game-world failures though. The sheer volume created is a much stronger argument.

Genuine question: are there that many more teams with large squads in the unsuccessful GCs as opposed to the those deemed 'successful'? I'm not convinced they are and in turn whether lacks of caps are the reason.

I see plenty of dead set-ups regardless of any of the squad sizes, big, small or medium. Simply supply is greater than the demand.

Disclaimer:

Sorry it feels like I just ending up debating with you all the time recently. Nothing personal. I understand in a previous post you mentioned a limit of 150 however which isn't the most unreasonable suggestion I've ever seen so fundamentally I can't argue with that it's just this talk about EC7046 which leaves me uncomfortable.[/quote']

The sizes of the squads and the success of the gameworld are not words of mine, Forget 7046 it was only picked out by me as a sample of a full gameworld because I am in it and could easily collect the data, this data is just one example of the squad sizes of a functioning gameworld, nothing more nothing less.

You say and I quote

The amount of active managers has also probably meant that the talent isn't there to fill the squads. Sounds an admirable set-up and I can only applaud those involved but I struggle to see a whole lot of relevance to this debate.

Haha so there is not enough talent on the database to cover 80 managed clubs that bar 1 club fits the <100 squad cap?Firstly I strongly disagree with that but if there is not enough talent on the database to cover around managed 80 clubs at <100 players per club then what about the Gold Gameworlds which can have over 300+ clubs and have a the capacity to have 255 players per club?

Anyway I am out of here, I added in some data to go along with my statement:

Time for a squad cap again and down to 150 as I am sure the concerns which were implemented to stop player hogging should be working by now and it would take a brave man to argue that they can't have a first team squad' date=' a reserve squad and a youth academy built to fit the settings of 150 player maximum.[/quote']

I done this small study to try to show that a gameworld can still function with each club capped at less than 150 squad players but you somehow misconstrued the reasoning for me to add the data I provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Squad size has absolutely nothing to do with the success of a gameworld or otherwise. Those who want a squad cap do themselves no justice by linking the issues. As has been said EC7046 succeeds with sides with relatively small sides in general. EC1 succeeds with absolutely huge squads in Division 1 with smaller squads in lower divisions.

In EC1 I would never had got to where I am without a big squad , as I could never have generated the income to succeed.

I do scout players , on my own and have some idea of their prospects. I don't hog players for the sake of it to stop others buying.

A restrospective squad cap in unworkable. It will kill most gameworlds dead. The smaller sides will not be able to compete, it will drive down transfer prices as presumably after a set time players will leave on concerns or as a free agent so no point scouting , just wait for teams to fall apart.

A squad cap under 100 will simply create 20 /40/80 indentikit teams soon after the start of any league as you are able to buy any player you like from externals so long as the price is right.

Then as there will be few / no transfers , most of the small clubs will effectively be bankrupted as they will have high rated players , no chance of selling them or risking a few risers.

I would only support any squad cap if it were linked to an introduction of sponsorship , building grounds, a better AI in the external teams so that they won't simply sell you all their best players and manager sackings for incompetent or unlucky managers in higher divisions. If you want realistic ,then fine, go all the way.

The major reasons for gameworlds failing are.

1) Over supply of gameworlds.

2) Heinous cheating and little being done about it.

3) Ratings not being regularly reviewed as they use to be.

4) Bugs not being properly address for example a side being robbed of 3.5M in prize money , 5 players leaving a side as free agents and no compo being paid.

5) Questionable A.I. of unmanaged & external teams

6) Part of (1) no sensible way of merging almost empty gameworlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Haha so there is not enough talent on the database to cover 80 managed clubs that bar 1 club fits the <100 squad cap?Firstly I strongly disagree with that but if there is not enough talent on the database to cover around managed 80 clubs at <100 players per club then what about the Gold Gameworlds which can have over 300+ clubs and have a the capacity to have 255 players per club?

I done this small study to try to show that a gameworld can still function with each club capped at less than 150 squad players but you somehow misconstrued the reasoning for me to add the data I provided.

The point about a full game-world is that if it's 100% full of course the likelihood of big squads is drastically reduced' date=' simple point. It's far more of a challenge. Cash isn't so easy to come by and the competition for talent is stiffer, driving up prices. You've totally missed the point. Even my approach would struggle to get a squad of up to 100 amongst such opposing factors to squad building.

There's also different 'levels' of talent to the general SM user. I would imagine the vast majority operate within the top levels. The obvious, those in the media limelight. I trust you know your stuff but I wouldn't attribute such a comprehensive knowledge of talent to everyone or even a high percentage of people in EC7046, maybe an unfair comment but I stand by it. I've been in forum set-ups, old ECs, and I don't face too much competition for the more obscure talents out of the higher 'levels'. This is my experience. So again the odds are stacked against big squads in EC7046, fairly obviously surely - ([i']This is irrelevant to any debate on squad caps so now I've explained why squad sizes may be limited in EC7046, addressing your above comment lets move on from here because it is totally irrelevant[/i])

I've not misconstrued anything I'm just searching for the relevance of it all. Fair enough EC7046 is some sample study but anyone can look at some general figures and use it to support any point, this one is at best fragile. A full game-world functioning with 'normal' sized squads, err great.

But what's the definition of functioning? Do the division 4 teams have any chance of competing with the big boys in EC7046 without stock-piling? Or are they just making up the numbers, going through the motions? VERY broad interpretations of 'functioning' are available. I bet there's a few managers who just log-in and enjoy being a part of it with no real motivation to achieve anything as they cannot or will not build the big squad necessary to compete to their potential. Or should they languish in the bottom divisions forever? Realistic yes but is that how SM should be? I don't know.

So EC7046 would collapse if there were bigger squads? or would it 'function' similarly? If you answered 'yes' and then 'no' you are making a massive leap. If you didn't answer that way then you agree with what I'm saying so there is no debate.

Be it EC7046 or another, a 'functioning' game-world with smaller squads, on the face of it, doesn't prove big squads are a bad thing or unnecessary at all. Far, far too simplistic a comment to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

I included the statistics of the squad size numbers from 7046 as I was trying to add some clout to my point that it would take a brave man to say he cannot build a first team squad, reserve squad and a youth team squad cap of 150 players per team.I added in 7046 for the reason that I am in that and to collate the data needed you have to be part of the gameworld as the numbers you get when you are not part of the gameworld on the overview are not inclusive of loaned out players per team which I thought would defeat the point if I just used these numbers, so I manually clicked each and every one of the eighty clubs and added in the number of players they had out on loan to complete the numbers.

I might have used other successful forum filled gameworlds like EC1, 106, 7777 etc but the fact is I only have a four clubs left and only two are forum filled gamewolds and tbh I chose 7046 over 7777 to do the statistics on because it would have been much more time consuming to do 7777 with it being a 116 team -5 division league compared to the 80 team- 4 division league.

Smaller squads do help though as that means there are more players at externals clubs that could interest new managers coming in the gameworlds but nowhere have I ever stated that 7046's success was down to the fact of the sizes of the squad all I tried to show is that a gameworld can still function competitively with each club capped at less than 150 squad players, which is true as teams have had came from d4 to d1, no division is usually won by more that a few points except division 4 as for some reason someone usually runs away with it.

EC1

Div 1 Squad size 101

Div 2 Squad size 45

Div 3 Squad size 35

Div 4 Squad size 30

So to succeed in EC1 a large squad is definitely an advantage.

Nice to see some numbers from EC1 which is one of the most successful gameworlds on SM, and my point still looks good across these numbers as well as the average for the gameworld would be 52.75 players per club and the average of any of the divisions does not exceed the 150 squad cap that I am in favour of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

EC1

Div 1 Squad size 101

Div 2 Squad size 45

Div 3 Squad size 35

Div 4 Squad size 30

So to succeed in EC1 a large squad is definitely an advantage.

This only shows that 1 league of managers give or take are actually active' date=' success is irrelevant to squad size, div 3 and 4 managers rarely log in even once in 14 days, and only do so in the next 14 days so they don't lose the club they care little about anyway. (It shows that even in full setups a cap of 150 or even 100 for that matter would have no change in the amount of players the div 2-4 clubs would have) in order to make the argument that the "top clubs" are hogging players you would have to reduce the squad cap to 60 or 70 & in any case all that would happen is the div 2 clubs would possibly have on average slightly bigger squads & you bring into force my opinion on scouting being ruined as a result

in my 8 years (to date) I would have been allowed to sign 1 youth prospect every 4 months

which would result in absolutely no scouting whatsoever (& definitely no fun) as I & others would never ever ever buy anyone until meyer/mastour/avdijaj/januzaj was added to the database and every setup would be like gc-1 were trying to get the best youth prospects is concerned

Every single youth prospect that was added to the database would not be bought with exception to the elite prospects, nobody could afford to buy a coleman from sligo or a player from west brom or some small south american or asian or african team, the only players being bought would be barce real united chelsea players etc

well done you killed scouting

The fact that people here claim game-worlds are less competitive because some teams "hog" players resulting in people not wanting to be active etc etc (all that nonsense) is done away with here as I pointed out many many many many many moons ago :eek: many :rolleyes: it is only ever 2 or 3 teams or so at most in any given setup that a club will have more than 150 players per squad, this is shown in the averages that of 20 teams in div 1 the average is just 100 or so which is 2,000 players with another 2200 combined for the other 3 divisions in total which is only just over 4,000 players from the database in even a full standard game-world.. on average across SM this total is prob just 2,000 players from the whole database being actively managed by human managers

IMO there is no argument that suggests that the current squad cap has to be reduced for game-play purposes. It's such a non issue as far as I'm concerned & would only be another cosmetic change, I did say in the past if SM did decide to introduce a squad cap into newly created game-words say 150 then I wouldn't take issue with it but i just don't see the point of it as it changes very little and only stops the tiny tiny minority of active buyers of players from being inactive in this regard much sooner

the average for the gameworld would be 52.75 players per club and the average of any of the divisions does not exceed the 150 squad cap that I am in favour of.

So no need to actually enforce a cap? such a cap only results in the very odd individual/club being less active in the market and less players on the database being controlled by a human manager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Why not just have squad cap at (selectable number) as an option in the GW paramaters....

Those owners that want it can use it, those who don't, don't....

Everyone wins..

It's such an easy fix, I can't understand why it's not an existing option already, there are obviously calls for it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Squad Sizes

Squad capping has absolutely nothing to do with GW success. It is such a week excuse for people that get frustrated with not being able to land the players they want.

The only time player hogging comes into effect in a GW is when it has few users that actively scout players. If you are part of an active setup with lots of managers then you should be able to get a good number of talented youngsters signed to your team, if that's what you are aiming for.

There are so many young up and coming players entered onto the game every month if not week that player hogging just isn't a major issue any longer.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...