Press conference
4.4
Survey results and game improvement plans in news!
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+15
Keeping the managers involved by sending surveys is a very good model to implement. Thank you.
--
80 S
13 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+10
Hi, good! Like everything except the ready now players part. I suggest setting some minimum skills for each type for each league. Really, then the usefulness will be much better. Let say defensive center would have at least 4-5 passing rather than 2. Maybe even it can be done in simple way of having the same minimum level for all skills wl1-2 minimum 4-5 for each.
--
80 S
13 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
Is there a way to see a breakdown of "next big update" votes from 1-2WL teams? Usually those who complain about GE don't take their time to analyze their games and adjust tactics accordingly. It will never be perfect...
--
80 S
14 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
Gudrioji Lape:Actually we had minimum skill for passing in the first version of the draft. But few top level teams from the first league explained that it is not required - so it was removed in the second draft version.
Wilt100:I don`t have a prepared statistic, but I just checked WL1.1. Most of the votes went to:
Updating match engine (11 votes)
Updating coaches' system (11 votes) -- 80 S 14 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
What is your position regarding the fact that it is basically enough to have 8 players on the roster and win the league. Even with 5 strong players and 3 very weak you may be a contender. Then, a team with 10-12 more equally strong players is likely to lose. Also, the whole world ranking system is not correct because of that as the 8 player teams rank much lower than their real power appears to be. It is probably relevant to the higher leagues as well, but I speak from my position in W4 and W5 as examples.
--
80 S
15 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+6
Vitucii:A bit of history of the game:
Many seasons ago we used to have a bit more realistic injuries. And with injuries teams had to have more players. However the community was against this (as this makes the game more difficult) and eventually random injuries were removed.
And based on users’ satisfaction - it was a good decision.
With Drafts update in the game we have a new type of players - players who can get injuries. As with time amount of such players will increase - probably teams will use more players in the future. -- 80 S 15 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
1.1
Thanks for your reply.
I suppose there should be more accumulated fatigue or something that prevents the teams from only having 8 players. Now it is neither realistic (any team that plays a real life 8 plr rotation all season) nor fair against the 10-12 player teams... :)
And as I mentioned the rankings do not reflect the strength at all in such situation. -- 80 S 15 d.
I suppose there should be more accumulated fatigue or something that prevents the teams from only having 8 players. Now it is neither realistic (any team that plays a real life 8 plr rotation all season) nor fair against the 10-12 player teams... :)
And as I mentioned the rankings do not reflect the strength at all in such situation. -- 80 S 15 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
Some thoughts regarding above topic.
Since team VK calculated based on 9 highest VK players one the roster, as mentioned by Vitucii it doesn't reflect true strength of teams rankings with 7-8 players. For example team with +9 players has 5 rank in world and team with 7-8 has like 25 rank, but their actual strength can be easily on par. It looks confusing and it also has some effect, for example world grouping is based on team ranks, therefore one group can be much stronger than others, simply because "25 rank" team (7-8 players) has strength on par with "5 rank". It also affects fan club expectations for teams, but that probably not so important.
So the fact that team VK is calculated based on 9 players, it would logical that everyone has to have at least 9 players on roster. I think some implications could be made to push users towards that. For example if you play with only 7 or 8 players you have to pay some kind of fee for not having at least 9 players. It would involve more risk for users to go with this strategy, cause currently you can easily get away with it and feels bad for teams having full rosters. I am not sure if idea that having 7-8 players is more optimal way to play the game. Not sure how it affects top world leagues, but world 4 and lower there a lot of such cases.
You mentioned that with draft update, there will be more players prone to injuries, but you can just ignore those and pick healthy ones, not sure if it will have much impact for this particular problem.
Thanks. -- 80 S 16 d.
Since team VK calculated based on 9 highest VK players one the roster, as mentioned by Vitucii it doesn't reflect true strength of teams rankings with 7-8 players. For example team with +9 players has 5 rank in world and team with 7-8 has like 25 rank, but their actual strength can be easily on par. It looks confusing and it also has some effect, for example world grouping is based on team ranks, therefore one group can be much stronger than others, simply because "25 rank" team (7-8 players) has strength on par with "5 rank". It also affects fan club expectations for teams, but that probably not so important.
So the fact that team VK is calculated based on 9 players, it would logical that everyone has to have at least 9 players on roster. I think some implications could be made to push users towards that. For example if you play with only 7 or 8 players you have to pay some kind of fee for not having at least 9 players. It would involve more risk for users to go with this strategy, cause currently you can easily get away with it and feels bad for teams having full rosters. I am not sure if idea that having 7-8 players is more optimal way to play the game. Not sure how it affects top world leagues, but world 4 and lower there a lot of such cases.
You mentioned that with draft update, there will be more players prone to injuries, but you can just ignore those and pick healthy ones, not sure if it will have much impact for this particular problem.
Thanks. -- 80 S 16 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
Topic - live games.
I was thinking it would be cool if users could have impact during live games.
My suggestion, that after 2 quarter ends, during the break you could be able to change team tactics.
It would involve more strategy and reward players who follow live games. -- 80 S 16 d.
I was thinking it would be cool if users could have impact during live games.
My suggestion, that after 2 quarter ends, during the break you could be able to change team tactics.
It would involve more strategy and reward players who follow live games. -- 80 S 16 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
I have few answers For Fjord :
First of all, Live game tactic adjustments was hot topic back in a days, but I guess that is easy to understand that not gonna happened, because of part of daytime we can spend in this game. Most of us have jobs and other responsibilities and it will be such a big booster for those who have time and can adjust tactics on live games. It would be interesting as a game event or as we talked earlier about friendly tournaments. If it would be like that it would be very interesting and a lot of fun to play against friends compete with others with live adjustments, but on the other hand, this isn't possible to do on Main events such as WL and NL tournaments.
Another point, about 7-8-9 players difference in ranking system and so on. Your suggested way isn't bad, but even I know how to counter that very easily( and I am not the smartest one here). as Example, You are offering a tax for lack of players in your team. Imagine, it will be around 10k per week at least for one missing player( it depends on WL, and i am talking about 3wl right now). So after 9 weeks you have to pay 90k, yeah it looks impactful, but it isn't, all you need is to buy a player from market for 500 and after 9 weeks you saved about 85k money. I am thinking that this situation have to change at some point, but as we see in 1-2 WL there everyone(Maybe not everyone but bigger part) have more than 8 players for sure. It is the only way if you want to be contender for something.
All in all, we as a community have to suggest new updates, new ways how to make this game more realistic and fun for everyone and bring here more people. Have a Great Day all of you <3 Stay safe.. -- 80 S 16 d.
First of all, Live game tactic adjustments was hot topic back in a days, but I guess that is easy to understand that not gonna happened, because of part of daytime we can spend in this game. Most of us have jobs and other responsibilities and it will be such a big booster for those who have time and can adjust tactics on live games. It would be interesting as a game event or as we talked earlier about friendly tournaments. If it would be like that it would be very interesting and a lot of fun to play against friends compete with others with live adjustments, but on the other hand, this isn't possible to do on Main events such as WL and NL tournaments.
Another point, about 7-8-9 players difference in ranking system and so on. Your suggested way isn't bad, but even I know how to counter that very easily( and I am not the smartest one here). as Example, You are offering a tax for lack of players in your team. Imagine, it will be around 10k per week at least for one missing player( it depends on WL, and i am talking about 3wl right now). So after 9 weeks you have to pay 90k, yeah it looks impactful, but it isn't, all you need is to buy a player from market for 500 and after 9 weeks you saved about 85k money. I am thinking that this situation have to change at some point, but as we see in 1-2 WL there everyone(Maybe not everyone but bigger part) have more than 8 players for sure. It is the only way if you want to be contender for something.
All in all, we as a community have to suggest new updates, new ways how to make this game more realistic and fun for everyone and bring here more people. Have a Great Day all of you <3 Stay safe.. -- 80 S 16 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+5
Great points, thanks for reply. Will think about other ideas.
--
80 S
16 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
Topic - National leagues / National teams
I have a suggestion to reward users, which win their national leagues 1.1. (basically best team of each country). They would get an offer to run for a position of national team leader.
You will get like few days to decide and accept an offer, if you don't then it follows as usual and everyone else can go for national teams.
I think it's a great reward for being best in your country, it would make a competition more meaningful in national leagues and there are U21, U18, U16 that would still be open for everyone to apply, if let's say all national teams are occupied.
Thanks. -- 80 S 16 d.
I have a suggestion to reward users, which win their national leagues 1.1. (basically best team of each country). They would get an offer to run for a position of national team leader.
You will get like few days to decide and accept an offer, if you don't then it follows as usual and everyone else can go for national teams.
I think it's a great reward for being best in your country, it would make a competition more meaningful in national leagues and there are U21, U18, U16 that would still be open for everyone to apply, if let's say all national teams are occupied.
Thanks. -- 80 S 16 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
Only 2 of us are discussing right now :DD Few Things as a previous time:
First of all, it would be interesting to see how it looks and how it works in real life, because IF there is " Ceteris paribus" ( everything will be the same like it is now) it won't work, because National leagues aren't that important and interesting to be there. First we have to make so changes to national teams, give more rewards to players or more credit to country as it was before( I understood why those changes were made, but can bring it back with some changes). Pretty simple question, how often best managers of each nationality wants to compete as a national team coach ? It is kind a rare, and when they want, community 99/100 times will choose the best manager for their country. If there will be some adjustments to rewards as example, if country did better than expected, they can get some bonuses for scouting, drafting, and for something else( we have to discuss about it ) then changes to national leagues will be very good.
All in all, I am very happy that we as a community have some active players who want to find a new things, or make old things better for all of us. This change might be good, but it there are some things to do before it.. -- 80 S 16 d.
First of all, it would be interesting to see how it looks and how it works in real life, because IF there is " Ceteris paribus" ( everything will be the same like it is now) it won't work, because National leagues aren't that important and interesting to be there. First we have to make so changes to national teams, give more rewards to players or more credit to country as it was before( I understood why those changes were made, but can bring it back with some changes). Pretty simple question, how often best managers of each nationality wants to compete as a national team coach ? It is kind a rare, and when they want, community 99/100 times will choose the best manager for their country. If there will be some adjustments to rewards as example, if country did better than expected, they can get some bonuses for scouting, drafting, and for something else( we have to discuss about it ) then changes to national leagues will be very good.
All in all, I am very happy that we as a community have some active players who want to find a new things, or make old things better for all of us. This change might be good, but it there are some things to do before it.. -- 80 S 16 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+1
The team average being based on 9 players really does need an adjustment. I have complained about it many times. It is not right to say we lost to a team that was weaker than us when the actual players have a higher team average than we do. I have given up on trying to change it. National Teams ( U16, U18, U21, Mens ) has always been a terrible idea IMHO. It gives away your players skills for one thing, something that gets shared, and costs the Administration credits as no one needs to analyze these players. Also the player that will be 21 during U21 will be 1 year too young/old for U16 or U18. So if we are going to be serious, they should all play every year.
--
80 S
22 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2