Polls Results

Subscribe to Polls Results 41 post(s), 8 voice(s)

 

April 03, 2016 10:32

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

Regarding the CPU teams role in making and receiving offers for non-listed players

82% – CPU should both make and receive offers for non-listed players
08% – CPU should receive and deal with the offers but not make them
06% – CPU should only make the offers, not receive them
04% – No Answer
00% – Offers for non-listed players should be made and received only by human managed teams

I’m glad we were already heading in the direction the majority has chosen :-)

 

April 19, 2016 22:58

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

Next feature poll

31% – Better player match rating calculation
31% – Coaching: Evolution Stage report should provide a ball park figure on points left to improve instead of a vague text
19% – Star system change: players become stars gradually and remain as such for longer
11% – Something else
8% – Foreign players adaptation period: performance penalty until they’re fully adapted

We had the exact same number of votes for the top two options above, so we’re doing them both next. I’ll probably work on the coach report change first as it should be quicker.

 

April 22, 2016 11:38

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

Team name change poll results

34% – Yes, go for it.
30% – No, new teams should be introduced only when we have new dimensions, countries or divisions.
28% – Yes, but if the team is managed the manager has to agree.
08% – Yes, but all managers in the team’s country have to agree.

Grouping all the “Yes” options we have 70% against 30% of “No” answers. Grouping the ones who want some kind of control on the renaming it’s 36% against 34% who just want it done regardless. As a result the name change will happen but we will always consult the team’s manager (if it’s a managed team) or all the managers in the team’s country, when deemed relevant.

Thanks for your participation! A new poll will come soon about how detailed should the Evolution Stage coach report be.

 

April 26, 2016 12:59

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

Evolution Stage report changes: what to show in the report results

39% – An estimated range for the final value of the player’s main skill (e.g 90-92 tackle)
25% – An estimated range for the final value of the player’s currently worse skill (e.g. 79-83 control)
21% – An estimated range of points the player will increase in each skill (e.g. 9-10 from the example above)
15% – An estimated range of total points the player will increase among all his skills (e.g. 63-70 points for a non-GK means 9-10 points in each skill assuming points are distributed uniformly)

I’m happy with this result, it means the report will be more useful but without revealing too much :-)

 

June 16, 2016 21:52

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

It looks like the transfer budget investment area is going away…

62% – Not be an investment area and calculated based on total money balance and wage expenses, as it was in the past
27% – Remain exactly as is, calculated based on the investment level
11% – Still be calculated based on the investment level, but with more generous values especially for lower levels

 

June 29, 2016 23:35

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

Should we have a single smaller dimension (game world) with 3 to 6 countries initially in order to have more teams with managers overall? Do not worry about additional details of the new dimension (tick frequency, transition from existing ones, etc), just give your opinion about creating it for now.

35% – Yes, but also keep the two we currently have
33% – No, keep the two we currently have
19% – Yes, and you should inactivate the two we currently have
6% – No, just inactivate one of the existing ones after agreeing on a tick frequency for the one kept active

7% – No answer

Very close, I suppose we’ll need a follow up poll. When grouping answers we can say 68% don’t want the existing dimensions inactivated and 54% want a new dimension. I’ll create a new poll without options to inactivate existing dimensions but giving a different view on the new dimension. Bear in mind that, even if the new dimension option wins, it will not be a high priority work, new features and enhancements are still higher priority.

Thanks!

 

July 02, 2016 04:26

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

New small dimension poll results:

Would you like a new smaller dimension (game world) with 3 to 6 countries and a frequency of 4 ticks per day (to be confirmed)?

42% – No
38% – Yes
15% – Yes, but you can only play in the new dimension if you have a team in FastTicker and/or MediumTicker as well
5% – No answer

Things will stay as they are. Even though you could argue that the majority (53%) would like a new dimension it’s too close for us to spend the time doing it with the risk of having greater spread of managers across dimensions. Thanks for voting!

 

July 06, 2016 21:40

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

It looks like investment points will go away (not necessarily next season, it will take some time):

55% – Yes, I’d like to use money to manage the club investments
41% – No, I prefer to keep the point system
04% – No Answer

 

September 25, 2016 22:29

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

Psychology Investment Area

Would you like to have an investment area for Psychology? It would influence your player’s pressure handling and probability of receiving cards in a match. Do not worry about cost yet, just consider if you would like it or not.

55% Yes
12% Yes but I would prefer it to have a different role
33% No

Let’s get the work started!

 

February 06, 2017 00:43

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

How should we update club names to match real life first divisions?

44% – Relegate the last placed clubs in bottom divisions of each country to an invisible division replacing them by new clubs
36% – Continue renaming clubs as you’ve been doing
20% – Do not update, leave them as is in RubySoccer

It looks like we have some fun work to do creating “invisible” divisions and adding new clubs to the game. We will most likely create a couple follow up polls to gather your opinion on what should happen to a manager that is relegated to an invisible division and what should happen to the players of relegated clubs.

 

February 16, 2017 23:19

3,871 posts(s)

Administator

 

Now that we’ll have the new club rotation system, should we rename clubs back to their original names?

35% – Yes for CPU managed clubs, for human managed clubs you should ask the manager
31% – Yes, it will be good to have old names linked to the history
27% – No, what is done is done, let old clubs come back via the new system
07% – No answer

Thanks for answering the poll. I’ll start renaming clubs back either today or early next week. You can expect to see relegation spots in the second divisions of Brazil, England, Spain and Italy still in the current season.