Taavi >> cumartesi nisan 13 - 06:16, Düzenlendi pazartesi nisan 15 - 06:29

@numpty i have no intention to use him, i am just testing it 

MAT >> cumartesi nisan 13 - 15:38

GK 42-46y i think will be better

Lumpen >> cumartesi nisan 13 - 21:17

I cant undestand why anyone would be angry with this development. To begin with, it's very important that the game is getting developments. I would strongly support we have more coming.

You are crying to much over too little. Money has never been an issue in this game. They even made the facilities and wages go into higher levels so there would be a reason to spend the money. It's very easy to build up some good fortune, it's a bit slow, but i bet numpty is saving more than 500M USD by season, so what's the hard deal on having to spend some money in a goal keeper? Once you get the stadium to level 11 and start filling it you can make almost 700 M USD in a season... so i bet no one ve lost more money than the one they would make in one lvl 11 stadium season. Its less than 2 month. (I have spent 400M in a goal keeper before the change was released, but im very happy to lose the money)

@stephen made like 3 good points on why the development benefits the game. i can happily repeat them if needed

Numpty >> pazar nisan 14 - 08:55, Düzenlendi pazar nisan 14 - 09:31

Some interesting points there @Lumpen.

I'll address the new ones that haven't previously been discussed to death earlier in the thread. 

The first point is correct. I am indeed able to save more than $500M per season. On average I make about $750-800M.  

The second point about the value of the keepers is incorrect.

I'm a little reluctant to go into detail because it'll likely only generate more questions. But the value of some of my better keepers is at least a few $billion each. So the total loss to my own club is at least $10-20 billion and probably a lot more. 

In short, my keepers simply aren't replaceable with like for like. We can argue forever about the details, but all I've ever done is played the game the way it was designed and coded. You don't expect the rules to change in such a big way after it's been running for 11 years - and had absolutely zero development for the last 6 of them.

I've already explained my reasons for playing that way on page 15 here:

https://rockingsoccer.com/en/soccer/forum/home-en/15?topic=88242

Lumpen >> pazar nisan 14 - 13:37

I compeletely  disagree with you.

You neither invest too much money (most of the goalkeepers ive seen you had you bought them for less than 30M), neither they valued that much. I agree they could have cost much more, but your expectations where for the future, not the actual cost.

So at the very least the amount of money you invested that you are losing cause this change dont even reach one billion... and even if they would have anounced the change with time, your farm of old goalkeepers wouldnt have peacked in orden to be worth billions. 

You were expecting to invest too little to get billions back, do you think that is intended in the game? Now are you still thinking it was a desing choice rather than a bug?

The feature you were trying to exploit has lots of not desire consequences:

1. It makes not worthy to invest in new goalkeepers, cause theres always a better one

2. It makes defense players not as important as they should be (cause foward player quality is capped) and eventually there will be no chance of scoring againts those super keepers (i belive this wasnot that far as there were quality 70 keepers). 

3. Distortion of wages... you can have a quality 100 player with wages that are really low. How is even suppouse for a new player to catch on that.

(All the points mentioned before were pointed out by stephen)

Ive been reading some of other design features you mentioned before. i believe they were chosen (like bots buying players or super museums) but not fully tested. Its easy to argue for example they thought the suggested value was real. Yes i agree bots should buy them based on historicals sells, but the consequences of those desing failures havent arrived to its full potential. Not all the 200+ museum or selling bot players are even compiting in the big tournaments, while the old keepers were everywhere

Cresencio Fernando >> pazartesi nisan 15 - 08:53

All we have done is play the game as designed and coded.

And now we play the game as redesigned and recoded.

So be it.

Numpty >> pazartesi nisan 15 - 10:24, Düzenlendi pazartesi nisan 15 - 10:35

You didn't understand so I explained it for you.

• I cant undestand why anyone would be angry with this development. ... You are crying to much over too little. ... so i bet no one ve lost more money than the one they would make in one lvl 11 stadium season

I don't have to explain at all. But since you asked and mentioned me by name then I have shown you the courtesy of a detailed answer. If you don't accept my explanation then that's not my problem.

The last bit is simply wrong by a very long way. That's clearly the bit that you don't understand. 

The initial transfer price of a keeper that was bought say 20, 30 or 40 seasons ago bears absolutely no relation to what they are worth a few years later after being trained for a very long period. Unless they are recent purchase what they cost to buy is of no relevance whatsoever. 

I appreciate that others may value my keepers differently to me.  However, no-one else has the full details of each player and all the factors that contribute to their value. My rough valuation is largely based on the total cost to the club of a like for like replacement, which includes any significant difference in wages for the duration that they are the first or second choice keeper. .  

But regardless of who is right or wrong when it comes to my own perception of the loss of value my own valuation is what matters.  

The rest of it has been discussed at great length earlier in the thread, so I'm not repeating myself.

Lumpen >> pazartesi nisan 15 - 12:22

Do you undestand the necessity there was to fix the problem? And the good and bad consequences of having it? The longer the not intended feature was there, the more ambiguos the game would be and the higher the goalkepers quality would be. Imagine they let you keep all your goalkepers, so then none of the problems would be fixed. Would you like to have a game with infinite GK quality? And even if you want that, be aware that there are clearly teams with better eternal GK that would have much more better GK than you do...

onuelver >> pazartesi nisan 15 - 13:34, Düzenlendi pazartesi nisan 15 - 13:51

Those eternal keepers would mostly bring their teams to bankrupt. 

One thing that is mostly missed is that all other things compared were mostly planned to be like that (stadium limit 200k ....) but Vincent didn't see complex consequences of last upgrades as he soon disappeared and then those zombie keepers were very rare or didn't exist in such form. He was sure that game itself can avoid teams going to deep debts. Thanks to zombies currently we have very few younger keepers as almost nobody trained them because olds were much better and age when keeper get suitable without harming team rised to 30+ when some fieldplayers already declined seriously. 

Must agree that timing has been wrong and maybe it's better to delay retirements by 1 season so everyone has chance for selling them to bank at least. 

PLAN shandong - CV17 >> pazartesi nisan 15 - 23:26

hi~    @Stephen   

I have a question, who pays the wages of the loaned players? Is it the player's home team?          

Q >> pazartesi nisan 15 - 23:39, Düzenlendi pazartesi nisan 15 - 23:41

I strongly disagree. Teams with these goalkeepers have received sufficient rewards both in the leagues and in international matches. Since we did not have these goalkeepers, we could not get our rights from the rewards because of these goalkeepers. Because we didn't take it easy. We did not complain, we continued to play our game. neither will you. This hard bend must be turned. It's up to you to enter fast or slow.

Stephen >> salı nisan 16 - 05:44

@PLAN shandong

When you get a player on loan from another club you pay a loan fee. That is all you pay. The club who owns the player continues to pay the weekly wages of the player.

If you have any other questions, stick them in the 'questions' section of the forum. Someone will answer them for you :)

Kupus >> salı nisan 16 - 08:58

@Agree with Q

Those that have elderly GK´s has already benefited from them being overpowered through positive results in matches. You deserve no compensation by money. 

You are the type of people that would invest in high risk shares, celebrate the first year when the stock is high then cry when the share value drops and you lose money wanting compensation.

That is not how the world works and that is why some people choose not to invest in to kind of shares and equally why some players did not want to invest in old GK´s. Because we knew it will most likely be changed one day and it is not worth the risk.

One thing is to disagree with the change, thats fine. But the crying in this is just snowflake behaviour.

Thankfully most users in Rocking Soccer would accept changes for the long term good even if it hurts us slightly financially short term.

And stop crying about this being added in the wrong way. Actually, you had no clue if there was a feature that would make players retire. You assumed there was non as players was getting older and still valuable as GK´s. So, you did a calculated risk assuming there is no limit at all. Still a risk taking.

PLAN shandong - CV17 >> salı nisan 16 - 12:31

 @Stephen                    thanks

Stephen >> salı nisan 16 - 19:30

I don't think language like "crying" and "snowflakes" is especially helpful. It doesn't seem respectful of people's concerns so I would ask that we remain civil.

I understand there are different views here but we should be able to respect those views even if we do not agree with them.