Objectives Chart

[Michal Kejchal]

I disagree with the board settings. Objectives set by AI would almost certainly not match with the abilities of the team in many cases. It would get stupid and unfair.

I think you should set them yourself. Just make it so that harder objectives give you more reward if you meet them.

So if you're in E, and you set your objective to 'Don't get relegated', then you'd get 25k. But if you set it to win the division, then you might get 500k. The price values change according to what division you're in.

I would also add that teams that have just gotten relegated should NOT have the opportunity to set objectives during their first season in the lower league, to prevent people from exploiting this rule.

In general I think it's a great idea!

No useing AI for setting objectives isnt stupid and unfair. Its about life and random. There arent such a great differences among teams from same divisions.
Its not funny to set objectives by yourself. At first you do it anyway during whole your manager career (and SPFA members can write that into their press anoncements). But mainly its really boring after. You want to minimize a chance to failed, to have everything under control with possibility to choose...but (at least in my opinion) the point is that not everybody can succeed - like in a real life.
And money for this? = higher inflation, nothing more.

[Paul_G]

Its not funny to set objectives by yourself. At first you do it anyway during whole your manager career (and SPFA members can write that into their press anoncements). But mainly its really boring after. You want to minimize a chance to failed, to have everything under control with possibility to choose....

Yes... that's precisely what I want. What's wrong with wanting as much control as possible over how I run my team? Isn't that the point of this game? "Can you manage it", and all that?

Anyway, the original post was more that we should have an option... if someone opts not to set objectives then that's fine.

Regardless, it's not the same as press announcements because press announcements are purely cosmetic.

No useing AI for setting objectives isnt stupid and unfair. Its about life and random....

.... but (at least in my opinion) the point is that not everybody can succeed - like in a real life.
And money for this? = higher inflation, nothing more.

Maybe the randomness factor is a realistic way to approach life, but it's not how I would build a game. Why invest a whole bunch of time in an online strategy game if in the end, it's merely luck if you make it to a point where you're an elite team?

Life isn't a meritocracy. But a game should be IMO. The best players should get the best results. Sure, there should be upsets on the field once in a while but the best owners should prevail over time and not be dependent on luck.

That's why Chess is the best board game of all time and Risk is not.

Inflation is going to run rampant anyway until something is put in place to keep it in check. But at least rewards for objectives will have a side benefit, where we won't be nearly entirely dependent on the transfer market for income like we are now.

Anyway, the worry about money would be easy to fix. Set things up so that if you don't make your goal, you pay a penalty. And if the rewards get scaled properly, people would be willing to take risks to get the extra payoff.

I'm behind any idea which gives me more choices about the direction of my team, and this is a really good example of that. I hope it's put in place.

[Michal Kejchal]

Its not funny to set objectives by yourself. At first you do it anyway during whole your manager career (and SPFA members can write that into their press anoncements). But mainly its really boring after. You want to minimize a chance to failed, to have everything under control with possibility to choose....

Yes... that's precisely what I want. What's wrong with wanting as much control as possible over how I run my team? Isn't that the point of this game? "Can you manage it", and all that?

Anyway, the original post was more that we should have an option... if someone opts not to set objectives then that's fine.

Regardless, it's not the same as press announcements because press announcements are purely cosmetic.

Yes, exactly. Game motto is - "Can you manage it" - not "Can you set everything according to your needs".

No useing AI for setting objectives isnt stupid and unfair. Its about life and random....

.... but (at least in my opinion) the point is that not everybody can succeed - like in a real life.
And money for this? = higher inflation, nothing more.

Maybe the randomness factor is a realistic way to approach life, but it's not how I would build a game. Why invest a whole bunch of time in an online strategy game if in the end, it's merely luck if you make it to a point where you're an elite team?

Life isn't a meritocracy. But a game should be IMO. The best players should get the best results. Sure, there should be upsets on the field once in a while but the best owners should prevail over time and not be dependent on luck.

That's why Chess is the best board game of all time and Risk is not.

Inflation is going to run rampant anyway until something is put in place to keep it in check. But at least rewards for objectives will have a side benefit, where we won't be nearly entirely dependent on the transfer market for income like we are now.

Anyway, the worry about money would be easy to fix. Set things up so that if you don't make your goal, you pay a penalty. And if the rewards get scaled properly, people would be willing to take risks to get the extra payoff.

I'm behind any idea which gives me more choices about the direction of my team, and this is a really good example of that. I hope it's put in place.

Well I play chess a lot so I know the difference between these games. The most important is that SP is not a board game
Your succes in this game depends mainly on ability to buy good players and less on strategical thinking. Result is that everything is easily predictible.
In your post you overestimate "random factor". Its not so difficult to find reasonible formula for setting adequate objectives.

[Lucas1]

I think a formula could be generated so that seasonal objectives are challenging enough for each club.

For managers who are against this, how about this:

We allow managers to choose before the new season simulation if they want to be set objectives by the club's board for the upcoming season and how many objectives they want set. If they don't then fine, they can't earn or lose money/manager points as normal but if they do then they can. There could be a certain randomness about the objective setting to make it more fun and a little less unpredictable.

If the manager reaches an objective set at the end of a season (next season simulation) then they are awarded money and manager points (the amount of which an objetive is worth would be clarified in the objective chart).
There is also the risk of losing that money and manager points however, if you don't complete the objective.

I really am beginning to like this idea (even though it is mine!) and honestly think it would make SoccerProject even more unique and fun to play.

There could be a limit for the toughness of an objective depending on the team rating or whatever (or division) but the random factor could determine how tough the objetive would be under the limit.

THIS IS NOW NOT A SPFA FEATURE BUT A NEW GAME FEATURE IDEA. This would make it fair for everyone.

"Can you manage it?" - Can you reach your objectives?

[sljivovica]

Objectives are a possibility in my opinion, but it comes with great dilemma and difficulty.

First of all, If yo want to link objectives to money and managerpoints (which it should of course, because getting fired for not reaching them is no option), just setting your own objectives is not an option.

I could imagine a system where SP calculates your chances and reasonable objectives (for x money/points), and you can set the objectives higher depending on what you think/want (more ambitious managers can win more money but also risk not getting any at all). Managers that aim lower will get no money/points. This will add to the "i want to win factor", that's missing with managers who are only in for the trade and willingly start the season aiming for relegation.
This could work in my eyes, but is very complicated, since the game will have to decide what teams are best per league, etcetera.

So yeah, if the system is great, I'm all for it, but I think it's really really hard to get it right.

[Lucas1]

Yes setting your own objectives is now not an option.

I think if we can develop a system and test it it could be a real new twist to SoccerProject...

[zandyy]

Great idea, apart from the gaining points part - Ze explained why.

[Zé da Silva]

Great idea, apart from the gaining points part - Ze explained why.

What I explained was why you shouldn't earn anything from fulfilling objectives you define yourself.

If they were randomly chosen, it could work.

[barosanu]

very good idea and comments

but i also have to add, for us is as it is, but for beginers is somewhat hard to think or to learn all the tricks in this game, all the relations beteen what you do and what you get, so also a good ideea should be to explain the relations beteen the thinks that you can do in your team and to give some kind of explanations for the way in with they relate to one enother

i mean things like: how many experience points for a cg point, how many morale points for 1 cg point and all the things of this gender
i have a hard time learning all of them, i bet i even dont know about half of then allthow i m in sp for 6 seasons