SoccerManager.com (#4) The Boards.ie World

tonic wine

The unmanaged rule does more harm then good.

You protecting clubs, but your making money useless.
Money was useful before. Small clubs could use it to buy from unmanaged.
It is the only way small clubs can compete with the elite clubs for top players.
Small teams had a bigger chance of landing a marque signing as their chairman with let them bid more as more often would have a higher valuation on the player.
Small teams could build better teams to be competive.
It actually puts the fantasy into a football manager game
Makes it enjoyable for players at smaller teams
New managers will hang around longer if their enjoying the game and actually have a chance of improving their team.

I'm taking from my own experience at Kyiv. I could buy players for cash from other unmanaged teams. I improved the team, got them promoted to Div 1, and finished 5th the next season.

Would this be possible with the unmanaged rule in place? No
Would been able to sign 90+ rated players with the Kyiv team I took over? No
Would I have enjoyed the game? No
Would I have stuck around? No


Draw your own conclusions.

GLaDOS

That's a good argument in fairness. We'd need to enforce a low squad cap though, otherwise every decent player would just be hoovered up and hoarded. leaving teams no new player would want to take over.

Hercule Poirot

I think it's time we had a poll.....

Comic Book Guy

Good to see a lot of useful input in the previous posts this morning on the topic of squad caps and buying from unmanaged.

If we are talking about gentlemans agreement on the issue of squad caps, how about 1 for the buying from unmanaged if the rule was changed at end of the season.
Say something like an NFL draft where the lowest placed managed team in div 4 gets first pick of a player from an unmanaged team and so on.
I know lower rated teams will be able to outbid higher rated teams on an individual player but in terms of quantity they will never be able to compete with higher rated teams due to cash budgets and the ability to generate cash.

If the rule change was to be brought in how about contacting some of the long term players who have quit the game in the last couple of years and getting them back involved. I remember some of them like jimmy rabbitte and a previous twente manager citing the inability to buy players as the reason for leaving.

Maybe im being naive in my suggestions but good to see some debate in here.

JamboMac

What would be the fair squad cap though at PSG i have 112 and 71 of them in my youth squad?

GLaDOS

I was thinking about 80. That's enough for a first 11, a cup 11 and 60 youths.

Wouldn't mind going lower than that even tbh.

mackeire

A fair squad size is 33 player above the age of 21 and an unlimited number of players that can be placed in the youth team.

The reason for 33 players is that's 3 players for every position on the field. If you happen to have players in your starting 11 that are under 21 then you basically can have more than 33 players in your squad (33 players over 21 plus youth players who are good enough to play in your match squad).
If you want a first team and a cup squad the 33 players plus your youths is more than enough for this!

There is absolutely no reason for someone to have a giant squad of players that aren't youths! It's hogging players and will ultimately be the death of this game world!

A way to bring it in is to give all managers plus any new ones until the start of next season to trim their squad to size. It would instantly get the market moving again and more importantly bring a bit of fun back into the game!!
At the moment, I only log in just to change my team from match to match. It's not much fun to be honest.

Mourinho

Buying from unmanged could get a boost in favor by the lads like Kersplat who were wary with new proposed rules on concerns I think I've an idea what it entails but can't feckin find the changes log proposed to come in after Xmas.

The GOOD league is another great example for me with buying from unmanged. I took over Bayer Leverkusen in Divison 4 a few months back with only a 91 in Kiessling and went on to be able to buy loads of decent 89s for mostly minimum cash. I won Divison 4 and then Divison 3 back to back. I have somethibg like 20 players 89+ now

That would not have happened if I couldn't buy from unmanged.

In fact lots of the bigger clubs sold handy 89s to make cash to be able to bid in big players like the odd 91 that gets listed. It's a lifeline for small lads like me cause it helped immensely.

In fact lads seem to sell a lot more 89 & 90 rated players too cause they know they will be eventually able to use that cash to pick up someone equal in rating with it.

Myself and Tonic Wine said the last couple of times things were only going to get worse cause of new lads especially getting bored not being able to even get a decent 89 for cash or without giving away their one star young fella, we had something like 14 teams free then, lads done their best to get new players and we're at feckin 27 free now.

Something drastic has to be done lads cause mark my words we'll be left with only maybe two divisions worth of managers in a year or two.

P.S You have the likes of Cruzeiro and myself who try to sign wonder kids if you will but that is frankly a thing only a few lads want to do, cause your going to have serious tough going for a fee RL years waiting on lads to rise and frankly most players want to play and have fun not wait on risers for a fee years.

GT_TDI_150

Fundamentally dont agree with a squad cap being brought in retrospectively

I did deals swapping first teamers for other first teamers + youths or for just youths, I swapped squad players for youths, ...

Are you going to make me sell all those now to comply with an unenforcable 'limit'? yes I did buy kids with cash (hope no other forum users are reading this ) but with the intention of selling them on to make a profit or trade ... those that I hang on to are those that I know or have read a report on, I have plenty ****e in my squad but I'll be damned if I'm selling them at a loss to get below a notional number.

If I had know that I would have held on to Rodriquez, Modric, De Bruyne, Benteke, Danilo, Jovetic, Higuain, Otamendi, Sandro, Matic, Thiago, Boateng, Howedes, Pjanic, Dzeko, mouthino, ... and not bother trying to have a set of players that could grow into my first team ( and potentially make me sell first teamer :eek:)

redzerdrog

Being very new the game world I found it very difficult to get a handle on the relative value of players as the market is so stagnant. I was very cautious to even do deals for the players I had as there very little activity it nearly felt like I was missing something as why else would someone be trying to do a deal on this player on a gameworld there is pretty much no transfer activity.

I nearly just quit it after a few weeks until and then decided to give it a bash with Sunderland. Although I still struggle to get a handle of the market I am sticking with it as have some good players.

The only other gameworld is the how can I win anything with this lot and have to say it is very enjoyable mostly because it isnt possible to hoard all the players due to finances. It is far more entertaining but again is struggling to hold onto managers I think.

Wilberto

First things first, a squad cap, regardless of how good an idea it may be, simply won't work at this stage in the game world due to the sheer unenforceability (did I just make up that word? ) of it.


On buying from unmanaged clubs, it really comes down to whether we still have ambitions of restoring this game world to what it once was in terms of numbers. If not, then yes, we should go down the root of the GOOD League, as that's what it's going to end up like sould we make the decision to allow buying from unmanaged.

However, if we're still harbouring hopes of repopulating this league, then it means doing everything possible to make that happen, including disallowing buying from unmanaged.

GT_TDI_150

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Fundamentally dont agree with a squad cap being brought in retrospectively

I did deals swapping first teamers for other first teamers + youths or for just youths, I swapped squad players for youths, ...

Are you going to make me sell all those now to comply with an unenforcable 'limit'? yes I did buy kids with cash (hope no other forum users are reading this ) but with the intention of selling them on to make a profit or trade ... those that I hang on to are those that I know or have read a report on, I have plenty ****e in my squad but I'll be damned if I'm selling them at a loss to get below a notional number.

If I had know that I would have held on to Rodriquez, Modric, De Bruyne, Benteke, Danilo, Jovetic, Higuain, Otamendi, Sandro, Matic, Thiago, Boateng, Howedes, Pjanic, Dzeko, mouthino, ... and not bother trying to have a set of players that could grow into my first team ( and potentially make me sell first teamer :eek:)

Wilberto wrote: »

First things first, a squad cap, regardless of how good an idea it may be, simply won't work at this stage in the game world due to the sheer unenforceability (did I just make up that word? ) of it.


On buying from unmanaged clubs, it really comes down to whether we still have ambitions of restoring this game world to what it once was in terms of numbers. If not, then yes, we should go down the root of the GOOD League, as that's what it's going to end up like sould we make the decision to allow buying from unmanaged.

However, if we're still harbouring hopes of repopulating this league, then it means doing everything possible to make that happen, including disallowing buying from unmanaged.

No, I think you just noun'd my adjective .... sounds dirty!

Mourinho

Wilberto wrote: »

On buying from unmanaged clubs, it really comes down to whether we still have ambitions of restoring this game world to what it once was in terms of numbers. If not, then yes, we should go down the root of the GOOD League, as that's what it's going to end up like sould we make the decision to allow buying from unmanaged.

However, if we're still harbouring hopes of repopulating this league, then it means doing everything possible to make that happen, including disallowing buying from unmanaged.

Right so what's the solution then? Same as last time? Advertise like mad and have the majority get bored and quit?

We had the same arguments last time, oh we need to protect the squads to attract managers, we got managers who then realized in mosy cases they had a crap and over the hill squad and they havent a chance of buying anyone decent and left cause of boredom. Yet here we are with double the amount of free teams since then.

I will say it again, we are at double the amount of free teams since all these arguments about repopulating the GW was had last time.

Seriously lads go through most of the free teams, Inter Milan an exception. Most of those teams have over the hill 89 and 90s which they will get feck all for and no good young players to trade for someone else. Dynamo Kiev are the only proper strong squad there of the long term free teams, ironically enough which Tonic Wine has often said he only managed to build when buying from unmanaged was allowed.

What's the solution? Do ye really think ye are gonna fill those 27 clubs and keep them filled long term as it stands?

Hercule Poirot

A squad cap could easily be brought in retrospectively, it's not that big a deal to bring it in now - we need to do something or this GW will die a slow, painful death; wilting in the darkness as the tiny beacon of light that gave it hope gently fades into the background of beautiful madness

Something has got to give; could we actually contact the last batch of newbies that left relatively quickly and ask them why they left? I mean, without us trying to guess their reasons? It may be something that we hadn't even thought of that caused them to leave (I doubt it but you get my drift....)?

Anyways, lets keep debating, putting our points/ideas across and then put a referendum to the public and see what happens - until then, love one another as I have loved your mother

tonic wine

redzerdrog wrote: »

Being very new the game world I found it very difficult. I nearly just quit it after a few weeks

I guess the really important point is to listen to new managers and get their opinions, as they are the one's managing these teams that are free. The above point says it all to me really.

Change is needed.

Colemania

I've no doubt the last batch left due to not being able to do transfers. Although some did join a club and very rarely came online so maybe they lost interest for other reasons.

The buying from unmanaged will just allow the big clubs to poach all the big players so that won't help at all.

tonic wine

Colemania wrote: »

I've no doubt the last batch left due to not being able to do transfers.

The buying from unmanaged will just allow the big clubs to poach all the big players so that won't help at all.

Not true, smaller clubs can outbid larger clubs. Chairmen have higher valuation. I bought Mandanda 91, Danny 90, Cerci 90, and Ganso all for cash at Kyiv from unmanaged. Big clubs would also have no interest in these players tbh.

Ordinary man

When i joined i thought i'd just buy better players and improve the team, but didn't realise how impossible that would be. So after a few weeks of frustration i decided to just try and get a semi competitive first squad and rebuild from youths up. That involves a lot of time but it's now an addiction.

I've had to sell some of my better players to finance this building but it's a long term plan. This is the part new players would struggle to get to grips with, even some of the existing teams in the game are filled with old high rated players and no youngsters lined up to replace them

Colemania

tonic wine wrote: »

Not true, smaller clubs can outbid larger clubs. Chairmen have higher valuation. I bought Mandanda 91, Danny 90, Cerci 90, and Ganso all for cash at Kyiv from unmanaged. Big clubs would also have no interest in these players tbh.

But what will their budgets be like? I imagine it'll be cleaned out by the computer buying all the crap from externals

Lord TSC

Sorry for the long post, just whats going through my mind.

I'd put forward the same argument I always have for buying from unmanaged; it might cause an initial flurry of buying, but it will be the bigger (richer) clubs that buy up all the best players, and within two weeks, the unmanaged clubs will be stripped bare. If you want to use the Good League as an example, lets; the majority of the unmanaged teams are now at their minimum levels meaning no one can buy off them at all, so they'll never actually get sustained numbers into those teams again. There's 37 free teams in that league and there's most of Div 3 and 4 that will never be touched. Turning on buying from unmanaged would pretty much be akin to turning off the recruitment process for new managers, and would change nothing long term. It's one of those theories that doesn't work out in reality.

Now there's a point I'd make here; if the argument is that buying from unmanaged will encourage new people to join or to stick round, I disagree completely. If someone wants to put forward the argument that it might solidify the group already here, thats a different kettle of fish.

I'd also be strongly against retroactive squad caps, since it punishes people who took the long term view of the game. More often than not, the players in the fringes of my team were got unopposed. Its not that I was fighting off stiff competition for these players, that I was stealing them from other players, and I'd say 95% of them have never even generated an enquiry from another user wanting to buy them from me. I believe that alot of the time, most people don't bother actually looking for the players at externals or scouting out new youths. There is no way I would want to see what would be a punishment for those who spent time scouting and investing in the future, and would fear such a squad cap would be unenforceable. People say "Don't do transfers with people who break it", but miss the people who've broken it would probably already have the better players they want anyway, and would likely be in such a great number, they could probably still deal with each other with zero real complications either.

The stat was raised that there's 27 empty teams. The other side of that is there is 53 people who are playing with teams at the moment, and thats (imo) pretty good. To still have that many people involved in a browser game after years is actually pretty good.

There's chatter about why people join and leave, and I'd imagine its because there's a lot of people who want to manage United or Real or have Ronaldo and Messi on their teams. No matter what you do, in a gameworld this old, you're going to struggle to maintain new people who won't have an interest in building up a team from scratch. If you're joining a gameworld this far along, it's got to be because you're willing to play as if you're taking over a lower league team in real life; its going to be about building youth, scouring externals in hopes of snagging bargains, and building relationships from scratch by talking to people. You can't sign up, never talk to anyone, do zero scouting, and then wonder why nothing is happening in the game. And as long term players, unless you're willing to start selling good players for nothing to new players (at the risk they could still leave tomorrow anyway), there's not much you can do but be friendly and hope for the best.

I wouldn't worry too much about getting people into this specific league. I do think that a better way to get people to stick round this specific subsection of boards.ie would be if we had more gameworlds, more chances for people to jump on at an earlier stage in the lifecycle of a world, so there's more chances for people to get bigger teams and players. At the same time, the nature of the internet is that retention of interest is very, very hard to maintain; I would say the majority here sign up for stuff online constantly, do it for a day or two and then completely forget about it. Even in terms of video games, how many would you play for weeks, let alone years, like some of us have been doing here?

The reality is a browser game like this will always have a limited time, and I'd say the things that would keep the gameworld going is not going to be worrying about the 27 unmanaged teams. Hell, even if there was still a core group of 30 players who talked on here, did deals, etc, that still might be a more fun world than 80 players who never communicate. There's not really a prize for having 80/80. So I wouldn't get hung up on why there's 27 free teams; I think it's better to say its great we have so many people playing and let's make sure there's still a positive atmosphere, that we enjoy playing with what we have.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Lord TSC wrote: »

Sorry for the long post, just whats going through my mind.

I'd put forward the same argument I always have for buying from unmanaged; it might cause an initial flurry of buying, but it will be the bigger (richer) clubs that buy up all the best players, and within two weeks, the unmanaged clubs will be stripped bare. If you want to use the Good League as an example, lets; the majority of the unmanaged teams are now at their minimum levels meaning no one can buy off them at all, so they'll never actually get sustained numbers into those teams again. There's 37 free teams in that league and there's most of Div 3 and 4 that will never be touched. Turning on buying from unmanaged would pretty much be akin to turning off the recruitment process for new managers, and would change nothing long term. It's one of those theories that doesn't work out in reality.

Now there's a point I'd make here; if the argument is that buying from unmanaged will encourage new people to join or to stick round, I disagree completely. If someone wants to put forward the argument that it might solidify the group already here, thats a different kettle of fish.

I'd also be strongly against retroactive squad caps, since it punishes people who took the long term view of the game. More often than not, the players in the fringes of my team were got unopposed. Its not that I was fighting off stiff competition for these players, that I was stealing them from other players, and I'd say 95% of them have never even generated an enquiry from another user wanting to buy them from me. I believe that alot of the time, most people don't bother actually looking for the players at externals or scouting out new youths. There is no way I would want to see what would be a punishment for those who spent time scouting and investing in the future, and would fear such a squad cap would be unenforceable. People say "Don't do transfers with people who break it", but miss the people who've broken it would probably already have the better players they want anyway, and would likely be in such a great number, they could probably still deal with each other with zero real complications either.

The stat was raised that there's 27 empty teams. The other side of that is there is 53 people who are playing with teams at the moment, and thats (imo) pretty good. To still have that many people involved in a browser game after years is actually pretty good.

There's chatter about why people join and leave, and I'd imagine its because there's a lot of people who want to manage United or Real or have Ronaldo and Messi on their teams. No matter what you do, in a gameworld this old, you're going to struggle to maintain new people who won't have an interest in building up a team from scratch. If you're joining a gameworld this far along, it's got to be because you're willing to play as if you're taking over a lower league team in real life; its going to be about building youth, scouring externals in hopes of snagging bargains, and building relationships from scratch by talking to people. You can't sign up, never talk to anyone, do zero scouting, and then wonder why nothing is happening in the game. And as long term players, unless you're willing to start selling good players for nothing to new players (at the risk they could still leave tomorrow anyway), there's not much you can do but be friendly and hope for the best.

I wouldn't worry too much about getting people into this specific league. I do think that a better way to get people to stick round this specific subsection of boards.ie would be if we had more gameworlds, more chances for people to jump on at an earlier stage in the lifecycle of a world, so there's more chances for people to get bigger teams and players. At the same time, the nature of the internet is that retention of interest is very, very hard to maintain; I would say the majority here sign up for stuff online constantly, do it for a day or two and then completely forget about it. Even in terms of video games, how many would you play for weeks, let alone years, like some of us have been doing here?

The reality is a browser game like this will always have a limited time, and I'd say the things that would keep the gameworld going is not going to be worrying about the 27 unmanaged teams. Hell, even if there was still a core group of 30 players who talked on here, did deals, etc, that still might be a more fun world than 80 players who never communicate. There's not really a prize for having 80/80. So I wouldn't get hung up on why there's 27 free teams; I think it's better to say its great we have so many people playing and let's make sure there's still a positive atmosphere, that we enjoy playing with what we have.

Your point on the buying from unmanaged I agree with 10000000%!!

Also lads every time we have an influx of 10 new managers (as an example) if 1 person "gets" the game like science nerd has then that's a positive. As said above if lads think they'll join and sign Ronaldo Muller and Suarez tomorow too the Colardo Rapids or some smaller club with no ground work done then they don't "get it"

As said above also whilst I was at Dortmund people would only bid players in my youth team normally after they had made their debut in real life and then get pissy when I wouldn't sell! They couldn't understand is bought him 2 years previously and I'm not going too sell till he at least rises!!

tonic wine

Lord TSC wrote: »

Now there's a point I'd make here; if the argument is that buying from unmanaged will encourage new people to join or to stick round, I disagree completely.

Where is your argument that backs up your disagreement?

Mine is at Kyiv. If the rule was as it is now, I would not stick around when I took them over. I would not be able to improve the team. I would not be able to sign 5 90+ players for cash. I would not enjoy the gameworld. It would not be fun.

Colemania wrote: »

But what will their budgets be like? I imagine it'll be cleaned out by the computer buying all the crap from externals

Sell all the players when their transfer bans are up = cash.
I made a long term plan at Kyiv. I put all my cash into risers, sold them on and made a truck load if cash. Then had enough to outbid big clubs when top players came available at unmanaged clubs.

tonic wine

Lord TSC wrote: »

Sorry for the long post, just whats going through my mind.

I'd put forward the same argument I always have for buying from unmanaged; it might cause an initial flurry of buying, but it will be the bigger (richer) clubs that buy up all the best players, and within two weeks, the unmanaged clubs will be stripped bare.

Look at the full picture. You have a big bank of cash. Wait until the next unmanaged club comes available and you have enough funds to sign their best players. This club gets stripped of their best players but get a huge bank balance and the circle continues when a new manager takes over

Everyone will be bidding their max bid for these players ensuring their is a huge pot. Then the next manager has enough funds to build his team the way he wants.

tonic wine

it's always the same. I've made my points enough times to fall on deaf ears. I give up now and won't make them again.

The same old people vote against, nothing gets changed except the amount of unmanaged teams. We tried, it failed, but we won't change anything. It will just end up the same old faces playing the GW and posting here.


Edit: changing the rule has no advantage to me at Atletico. I'm putting my point across for the good of the gameworld. I want to put this out there incase people are thinking this.
Anyways, I've enough of my time wasted.

Lord TSC

tonic wine wrote: »

Look at the full picture. You have a big bank of cash. Wait until the next unmanaged club comes available and you have enough funds to sign their best players. This club gets stripped of their best players but get a huge bank balance and the circle continues when a new manager takes over

Everyone will be bidding their max bid for these players ensuring their is a huge pot. Then the next manager has enough funds to build his team the way he wants.

You're presupposing quite a bit there.

You're presupposing that players will have uncapped bidding wars, when chances are that might happen for one or two players per unmanaged team (and thats being optimistic). Because people can only bid on one player per team at a time, the more likely scenario is that several players will get bought for midrange prices.

You're presupposing new managers coming into a gameworld will rather have the "large cash reserves" already in place rather than assessing the squad themselves and then deciding if they want the player or the cash; the cash offers would still be there on the table for them if they wanted them when they joined, but having the player over the cash gives them far more options when they join.

And you're presupposing that the unmannaged don't just go and blow those "huge bank balance" on dross from other unmanaged and externals, as has happened before. There is zero guarantees of what money would be available to a new manager when he joins; its more likely they'd have a team of 84s-86s, minimal cash and no interest in what players they have left.

ctrl-alt-delete

For me it comes down to either protecting the unmanaged teams for possible new managers and hope some come along, or deciding to accept the current number of managers and try and protect that from getting lower.

If you open up buying from unmanaged I don't believe it will benefit future players, but could benefit some current players.

An unmanaged club is programmed to return to it's starting line up - I think it must be if you started in a GW today with them and not day 1 of this GW. There will be no big budget waiting for a new manager unless the club is taken over quite quickly.

gerp99

Have no problem opening up the unmanaged clubs to transfers. Im constantly piss broke so can't afford those players anyway.

I'd def be against a squad cap. I have 120 youths. When buying newly added players Id say only 5 or 6 managers bid. Not our fault no one else goes for them. Cruzeiro, panathinaikos etc.. have similar squad levels. 90 percent of teams can outbid me anyway.

Also in terms of transfers of 89 + rated players, I cant remember the last time some one mailed me enquiring about a player. Very few new managers make an effort to try sign a big player.

gerp99

Also will listen to offers on Benzema. Have on good authority that he is innocent

mackeire

Again I reckon squad cap of 33 players with an unlimited amount of youths.
Basically you can have 33 players who are older than 21 and as many youths as you want.

KERSPLAT!

Squad cap idea is ridiculous IMO. Some people, not me, have worked hard and put time into buying up youth and now you want them to sell them for probably a lot less than they had to fork out on them.

Whatever about the unmanaged rule being changed but an unenforceable rule that makes people sell players they've put the effort of buying into is an absolute no go IMO.

And just to reiterate, the rule cannot be enforced.

I'll not say anymore because I'm losing interest in the GW, due to my sh!te form I'd imagine, so whatever happens makes no odds to me really.