200 Transfers/Season

yockr · Post by **yockr** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:35 pm

I'm not for changes just because it is more realistic. This is a game, so fun is more important than realism. Let managers do transfers as much as they want, what's wrong with that?

If you want full realism: players sometimes have to be injured for half a season or even more, 1 time a season a player dies, when a players is too good for your division he leaves your team,...

warchilde · Post by **warchilde** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:47 pm

@sliv
i never said it was a personal attack on oprescu..and even if it was, im not his lawyer...he's a pretty good one himself

well, in A-teams, not many youngsters make the step up...but in lower league ones??? ever considered those? i played football and in one season when our first team relegated, they were all fired and the entire second (youth or whatever you want to call it) team made the step up in the first team. All of us.

plus, it takes all the damn fun away

Wikke · Post by **Wikke** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:54 pm

Maybe it's enough to restrict only the incoming transfers (as a gesture). You'll limit both in that way, but you can get rid of rubbish players at any time to cut expenses. (plus 3 youths)
In this way you can renew your team quite easily, sell the lot, pay no wages and save money in this way, and buy 20.

You're required to keep a minimum of 15 players anyway, so I think this would be a consistent rule.

Ofcourse, I wouldn't suffer from this rule, and I must admit that I get frustrated when a topteam in renewal uses his 200M to overbid me, and then sends messages with smilies to rub it in.

And to those that complain that restricting trading is blocking their only way to the top: by restricting trade, maybe it won't be the only way anymore...

warchilde · Post by **warchilde** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:06 am

i don't see anyone complaining that this would block their only way to the top.

sljivovica · Post by **sljivovica** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:17 am

warchilde wrote:i don't see anyone complaining that this would block their only way to the top.

Read again, it's mentioned several times. Maybe in other words, but it's there.

edit: extra info: I just saw the Spanish transfer-madness on Wiki, and the worst teams bought or sold up to 18 players.
Crazy! But still within the new SP-limits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... 008_season

visje69 · Post by **visje69** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:15 am

No offence to the writer of that article, but he only checked season 20, there are probabaly many seasons before that where other managers than 'the 100' last season that did over 20 transfers a season. What he should check is where they ended up. I'm pretty confident that 75% of those teams have a good strong team now, or becoming one. So limiting the amount of transfers would only limit the amount of strong teams. It would take you twice the time to rebuild your squad entirely (since 40 should be enough to rebuild your squad entirely)

And if you see that your squad only lasts for about 10 seasons(looking at the age per player), i don't think thats quite enough, because you need 20% of you're squad's life-duration to build it, and you still have to train them and adjust it afterwards.

so lets just vote against this please
(he even may look at my team, twice in my history since august 2004 I have done more than 20 transfers per season)

visje69 · Post by **visje69** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:20 am

i don't think there is a limit in real life either, but i should have to check on that..
And realism is one of the standards in a Soccermanager isnt it?
if at the start of this topic, the amount for this request had been taken up from 20 to lets say 30-40, there wouldnt be so much discussion about it, since 30-40 (probably 40) is a lot more realistic(in SoccerProject) but still a limit

warchilde · Post by **warchilde** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:45 am

i'm curious what bugs you most....the fact that others can develop strong teams??? is it fear???? or just that others shouldn't be able to do what most if not all the strong teams did. or that you did it and failed at building a very good team even with alot of money?? cause you can fail. so this is just no no no no

X-Tenzo · Post by **X-Tenzo** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:24 am

Another thing: What to do about when someone is rebuilding his team. If you can buy only 20 players, it will take up to 2 seasons to get 35 new players. How do you make money than to buy that players if you can't trade because you're rebuilding? So you can only buy those players, without trading. That's really rediculous, the most important thing is making money in this game, and that makes it attractive. 20 players a season is not enough to rebuild, and make money at once. And what is the advantage of all this? I don't get it. So think about this really good before you implement such a big change. If you set the maximum number arround 40, I can understand that, but 20 is far not enough.

Imp4 · Post by **Imp4** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:44 am

i would offer to decrease from 100 to 40 or 50 transfers.

20 is a joke , if u are rebuilding your team, its just not enough, think good before u gonna do it.

cercel_jr · Post by **cercel_jr** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:47 am

Imp4 wrote:i would offer to decrease from 100 to 40 or 50 transfers.

20 is a joke , if u are rebuilding your team, its just not enough, think good before u gonna do it.

Indeed I agree, if you want to decrease it, 20 is not the right number.
I think 40 or more is a good choice, if this change is really needed.

warchilde · Post by **warchilde** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:01 am

well, maybe 50 is enough to rebuild your team...but where are you going to get the money to do it with that limit?

Tonyw · Post by **Tonyw** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:04 am

Maybe I am wrong, but is it not the case that by limiting the amount of transfers the very best players will still go to the top teams, just that they will have to pay more for these players as the competition to sign them will be greater, due to the limitations.

This will lead to more above average players being availiable for those teams with a smaller budget, increasing the over all competition in the game.

Is that why some people are against the idea ?

Surely 20 transfers in and 20 out PLUS youth players is plenty, team rebuilds SHOULD take time, possibly it would be better to decrease the time to generate youth players a little, but i see no reason why you have to completley dismantle a team to create a new one purely by using finance, if you are a good enough manager, you would be able to plan for future seasons better than that.

I am sure many players are against change, and I can understand that, if you are succeeding now with the current system, but I also think it would add more competition, give more managers the chance to promote and compete and generate a better feeling amongst the lower divisions that if you are a good enough manager, you do not need a stack of cash to win.

warchilde · Post by **warchilde** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:16 am

you have no idea about this game, do you?

i think that x-tenzo made it pretty damn obvious what the problem is.... and if there is a man who knows what's this game about..it's him. Offcourse, people in low divisions who have no clue how hard it is to get in A or try to win it, think that it's a good ideea.

you do not need a stack of cash to win??? hahahaha, yes you do. But if you have them, you need more than that. It is there where you can see how good a manager is. You can be the best managet in the game, without money you CAN'T succeed.

Tonyw · Post by **Tonyw** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:44 am

I do not understand why you would want to play the game purely where the object of the game is to play the transfer market better than the next person, is it not better to have more elements to the game than that. would it not be more interesting if you had other means of success.

I have no quarels with the current system, maybe I could do better if I traded more, but I chose not to, I would rather see if I can be prudent with my spending and succeed using other tactics, that is my choice.

I hope you understood that I mean you 'should' not need a stack of cash to win, and by win I mean progress through the divisions , not all the way to A. as obviously you need good a good financial position to get to the very top and stay in A. But you should be able to do that with money generated by the stadium and supporters, not by buying cheap and selling high.

I am happy for x-tenzo that he has hit on a formula that works, but if you, I or x-tenzo are good enough managers, we should be able succeed/adapt whatever the cercumstances, after all any new changes will be aplied to all players, not just those that have plenty of money now.