SoccerProject

Hi,

I'm totally addicted to this game. The problem is that it's too slow for me I'm refreshing every 10 minutes and no new events / messages

What do you think about possibility to allow one manager to have multiple teams with the following limitations (implemented right in SP engine)?

Teams having the same manager:

1. can NOT sell or buy players from other teams having the same manager
2. can NOT compete in the same tournament
3. can NOT play friendly matches agains other teams having the same manager

The only situation I'm a little worried about is when two or more teams having the same manager appear in the same division...

Astaroth wrote:The only situation I'm a little worried about is when two or more teams having the same manager appear in the same division...

And ultimately your goal is to get them both into A.

Actualy it is alowed


Many of the players with "brothers" playing on the same PC are actualy 1 person

And by fololing a few simple rules:
1. not playing together in the same FrCs
2. not transfering players between each other
are not get banned

Nasko wrote:Actualy it is alowed

Actually, that's true! but would you risk it???

Astaroth wrote:

Nasko wrote:Actualy it is alowed

Actually, that's true! but would you risk it???

No I have not enough time for 2 teams..
But if had enogh time and want to spend it on SP i would

I guess, with these limitations, i wouldn't have a problem with it. I would even consider getting a second team myself

There's an "easy" way to prevent teams from coming in the same division:
If team#1 is in the "B1-Branch" (A->B1->C1/C2/C3-> etc), then make sure you get a second team in the "B2-branch" (A->B2->C4/C4/C6 etc).
This way the teams can't get together until they are in the A-division....
which I think is mission impossible, and if you can make it there without cheating with 2 teams, you darn well deserve it

Coordinators/sheriffs could make sure the second team/third team isn't in the same branch

Nasko wrote:Actualy it is alowed


Many of the players with "brothers" playing on the same PC are actualy 1 person

And by fololing a few simple rules:
1. not playing together in the same FrCs
2. not transfering players between each other
are not get banned

But if we get a cheatreport about this and we notice that it's 1 manager, he will get banned. So I don't think it's a good idea.

krcgenk wrote:

Nasko wrote:Actualy it is alowed


Many of the players with "brothers" playing on the same PC are actualy 1 person

And by fololing a few simple rules:
1. not playing together in the same FrCs
2. not transfering players between each other
are not get banned

But if we get a cheatreport about this and we notice that it's 1 manager, he will get banned. So I don't think it's a good idea.

Yes but unfortunately it is imposible to find out who is on the other side

Nasko wrote:

krcgenk wrote:

Nasko wrote:Actualy it is alowed


Many of the players with "brothers" playing on the same PC are actualy 1 person

And by fololing a few simple rules:
1. not playing together in the same FrCs
2. not transfering players between each other
are not get banned

But if we get a cheatreport about this and we notice that it's 1 manager, he will get banned. So I don't think it's a good idea.

Yes but unfortunately it is imposible to find out who is on the other side

Says who?

OscarCookie wrote:

Nasko wrote:

krcgenk wrote: But if we get a cheatreport about this and we notice that it's 1 manager, he will get banned. So I don't think it's a good idea.

Yes but unfortunately it is imposible to find out who is on the other side

Says who?

Ive been a bulfleet.com (the first BG online game) sherif... And i know that cathcing a cheater is very easy..
But when using your PC from a brother is alowed.. it is very complicated.. There is no way to understand who is loging in.. The user or his brother(or "brother" ) So if the user follow the rules for using the PC from a brothers there is no way to prove that this is actualy one person

Instead, maybe expand the rosters to 50 players then, for people who opt for it.

It would be like controlling an extra team because you have more players to manage and more games to prepare for, but all of your efforts are going towards the same direction and there is no change of cheating through this method.

Paul_G wrote:Instead, maybe expand the rosters to 50 players then, for people who opt for it.

It would be like controlling an extra team because you have more players to manage and more games to prepare for, but all of your efforts are going towards the same direction and there is no change of cheating through this method.

No I'm totally against it. There would be no end, why not expand to 70 players