| Forum » Suggestions » restrict number of players in all positions | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
2184 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Last night i found out that my RF has been bought on hostile clause.. After looking at the squad of the guy who bought him, i realised that he is already with 5 RFs who are obviously going to be sold on higher price.. And then i went on checking a number of boards and teams where i found out that some users have around 5-6 GKs, a lot many IMs, 8-10 forwards, etc... Isnt this injustice to other people? Good GKs are rare and some people have 10s of them.. And many of these players are sold at 2-3 million profit.. So i suggest that developers restrict the slots for a particular position.. Say only 3 GKs, 2 LBs-2RBs, 2 RMs, etc.. |
09/11/2011 09:01 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
395 msgs.
First-team player
|
Buying and selling players to make a profit is one of the core features of this game, and setting a hard limit like this doesn't seem to make sense, at least to me. If a team is developing GK and wants to have more than your limit why shouldn't they be allowed to? Now an interesting thought might be that it should be more difficult to hostile a player at a position where you are already overloaded. The player demands an increased salary for each player over a certain number at any position. |
09/11/2011 13:15 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2184 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I am not expecting anyone to change my mind here.. Some people might not like it since the rule would prevent them from gaining success instantly.. The game expects you to struggle, be like a real manager.. Changing tactics and buying right players in.. And if this is not done, i expect no real competition in lower leagues.. Many people come new to the game and then have to leave just because they struggle against powers of higher league people.. | 09/11/2011 17:03 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
The problem you'd immediately have is that the top team would still have 7 very high level GK's and you'd never be able to replicate what they've done. i.e. you'd never catch them. The change would be so drastic for anyone without an average of 75+, it'd make the game unplayable. It'd make the catch up time 10 seasons rather than 3-4 which it is now. You'd be training your whole team and even if they were forced to sell those extra players, they'd still have the money from them. |
09/11/2011 22:42 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2108 msgs.
Best scorer
|
yoyoyoyoyo said: Last night i found out that my RF has been bought on hostile clause.. After looking at the squad of the guy who bought him, i realised that he is already with 5 RFs who are obviously going to be sold on higher price.. And then i went on checking a number of boards and teams where i found out that some users have around 5-6 GKs, a lot many IMs, 8-10 forwards, etc... Isnt this injustice to other people? Good GKs are rare and some people have 10s of them.. And many of these players are sold at 2-3 million profit.. So i suggest that developers restrict the slots for a particular position.. Say only 3 GKs, 2 LBs-2RBs, 2 RMs, etc.. Absolutely not. |
09/11/2011 22:43 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2737 msgs.
Best scorer
|
i wouldnt mind if you increase the limit a bit...maybe a max of 4-5 players per position. That should be enough to continue specialized training while making it harder to store a large number of high average players in the same position. | 10/11/2011 06:29 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
412 msgs.
First-team player
|
Personally, I think this is a symptom of a poorly implemented training system. The current system rewards people that train by position. No real team would only train CF or GK or IM and not train any other position, but in this game that is rewarded. Smart players then stock up on a certain position that they are training for and then sell the surplus. You can't really fault them. I don't like the idea of restricting by position. I do like the idea that if you have more than a starter and 2nd for a particular position that a player that you are trying to hostile may request more more years of contract or a higher salary. Simply because no way in real life someone that is getting playing time as a starter would leave a team to be 4th or 5th string for a slight bump in pay. Fixing training to prevent stock piling positions would be even better. |
11/11/2011 01:39 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
52 msgs.
Rookie
|
mudetroit said: Buying and selling players to make a profit is one of the core features of this game, and setting a hard limit like this doesn't seem to make sense, at least to me. If a team is developing GK and wants to have more than your limit why shouldn't they be allowed to? Now an interesting thought might be that it should be more difficult to hostile a player at a position where you are already overloaded. The player demands an increased salary for each player over a certain number at any position. I agree that teams should be allowed to stock up on players of a certain position but this would make it hard for managers of lower division sot improve their teams. I think that this would be a good idea where players would progressively ask for higher and higher salaries based on how many players they have in a certain position. |
12/11/2011 18:48 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
I think that you should have a minimum number to field any 1 formation on the junior team. Or no training for that day. That would mean a minimum of 1 gk 1 forward 3 midfielders and 3 defenders. And 11 total players. |
13/11/2011 05:21 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2737 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@rebsiot said: I think that you should have a minimum number to field any 1 formation on the junior team. Or no training for that day. That would mean a minimum of 1 gk 1 forward 3 midfielders and 3 defenders. And 11 total players. i like this idea, although its not as harsh as limiting the number of players per position. |
13/11/2011 05:33 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
1
