Recent Posts

Subscribe to Recent Posts 17,842 posts(s) found

May 13, 2018 22:01

3,983 posts(s)



Not at all. Each different club class (when CPU controlled) will prioritise loans, first team players and future players in different orders. B clubs if I’m not mistaken would prioritise future players, then loans, then first team players. E and F should be prioritising loans.


May 13, 2018 19:10

583 posts(s)



Is it currently only possible to loan players to B class clubs? They were the only ones interested in my player so far (that I have put on the loan list something like eight times).


May 10, 2018 12:23

27 posts(s)


Sounds good to me, 6 turns should be ok.


May 10, 2018 11:25

3,983 posts(s)



Some time ago I was thinking of using the Negotiations level to provide a forced transfer price suggestion when attempting to do a forced transfer, similar to the way we have the suggested wage. In this case, however, as soon as you see the suggestion for a given player you would need to wait another 6 turns to see the suggestion again. How does that sound?


May 10, 2018 06:53

27 posts(s)


Hi all,

From long time I’m trying to buy good striker by forced transfer. My club budget is small so I don’t want spend too much money.

So in this situation, my suggestion is follows:
Could we add in our Scouting system “suggested forced transfer amount” option?
Then after a few ticks of scouting, managers would be get valuable raport:
“To buy this player, we should try to offer 15-20M $” etc.

Higher lvl of scouting = more correct suggestion in raport.

Best regards,
Luke “Bronson”


May 09, 2018 07:23

3,983 posts(s)



In some cases when player classes changed we noticed the estimated value was taking to long to catch up with the new class value range. That sometimes caused confusion and made it harder to make accurate forced transfer offers. We have now changed the logic so that the estimated value immediately catches up to a more reasonable value aligned to the new player class.


May 03, 2018 01:27

3,983 posts(s)



@Will you are not a moron! This tells me we need to make the way multi-position and multi-side works more evident.

@Joseppi and Dirk: maybe we can start with side only and allow a change from single side to single side or from multi-side to multi-side. In other words, if your player is L he can be trained to be C or R, but not LC or LR. If the payer is LR, you could train him to LC or RC. Does that make sense?
In the future the same approach could be done to player positions, and also maybe taking into account the the main skill for the new position must be no more than 5 points less than the current’s position main skill. For example, a D with 90 tackle, 85 passing and 82 shooting could be trained to become M, but not A.


May 02, 2018 21:58

33 posts(s)


First off: I’m a moron.

Secondly: Thanks for listening!


May 02, 2018 21:25

144 posts(s)


Selling Muller and Stefan West!

West – pas 98, sho 87, avg 87, dutch national
Muller – sho 95, avg 90 (!!!), brazilian national


May 02, 2018 14:09

144 posts(s)




May 02, 2018 11:43

612 posts(s)

Game Master


I rather prefer the option to train players from L to LR or LRC.

For me players with a double position like DM or AM have more value in the game. They have to be rare to find. If everyone can change players to a double position a key aspect of the game gets lost.

One exception could be if a player has a secondary skill of an other position (def, pas, sho) that’s higher than his primary skill he should be able to be trained to a new position.
F.e. A defender with D85 and M 94 could become a M or DM afer serious training.


May 02, 2018 07:48

260 posts(s)


That sounds like a good enough idea, I personally would just like to be make players from say MR into MC or ML. The problem with changing position toDM or AM is teams would have no players that are just standard positions


May 02, 2018 01:18

3,983 posts(s)



Will, I think you are incorrectly reading the way sides and positions work. Let’s consider each “row” in the field has 5 sides, let’s call them L, LC, C, RC and R. A player with L side can play both on L and LC positions with no penalties. A player with LC side can play in all positions except R, without penalties. So a player having multiple sides is actually a good thing, as it gives him more options. The same is true for multi-position players (DM, MD, DA, AD, MA, AM), they can play in both positions with no penalties. There is a topic in our game manual about setting up the formation that mentions this.

That said, I still agree it is a good idea to be able to “train” a player into a new position or side. Maybe that makes sense only if the player is not already multi-side or multi-position? For example you could train a D into a DM or DA, but if he was already DM you could not change it. What do you guys think?

I’ve made sure this task was moved higher up in our priority list so we evaluate it sooner rather than later.


May 01, 2018 21:06

260 posts(s)


I’ve mentioned this before and I agree. It would be a good way for the game developers to make more income too.


May 01, 2018 20:11

33 posts(s)


The unrealistic nature of not being able to train (or pay a few rubies) to add a new position to a player is becoming increasingly frustrating. If it requires a certain amount of matches, or whatever it may be, I’ve had some players in their “unnatural” positions for years. I feel like by now they’d be comfortable in their new role and make it their primary and preferred position.

Being able to change a players side (LC to C – RC to C – L to LC) would vastly improve the transfer market too. People would be willing to SPEND some of the money they seem to horde since they know w player might soon be useful ion a new role, rather than being saddled with an LC when they really need an L or a C.

I don’t think moving a player from an L to an R is a good idea, as this is kind of a major change to their playstyle, even in real life.


LC -> L
LC -> C

Those would make sense.

Could even make C players be able to go LC or RC, but note on their profile they are originally C players, and therefore cannot be changed to L or R after they have been trained in LC or RC. Same with LC or RC who have been changed to C; they’d be unable to go LC -> C and then over to RC.

Give players sides (L or R) and let them train (or pay) or play a certain number of matches in a C LC/RC or L/R role so they can be 100% proficient in their new position.

Just getting a bit frustrated with buying or training up players who refuse to play a couple yards outside their comfort zone after years of training.


April 30, 2018 08:33

3,983 posts(s)



Team classes can now be seen in the league table and team matches screen. We can easily add that info to more screens in the future, if it proves to be useful.


April 29, 2018 08:16

89 posts(s)


Goalkeeper (a) leaves the field (not possible to replace)



April 25, 2018 01:21

3,983 posts(s)



Scout searches can now be configured to look only for multi-position (MA, DM, DA, etc) and/or multi-side (LC, RC, LR) players. If you do not check this option the search will work as before, looking for all types. For example, if you search for D with multi-position checked the search will only find DM, DA, MD or AD; without mutli-position checked it will also find D players.



April 24, 2018 00:03

3,983 posts(s)



With the number of very rich clubs increasing, should we introduce some kind of tax over their transfers or profit in order to control the inflation? Do not worry about specific rules yet, they will be discussed if this goes ahead.

15% – Yes, a tax paid when the club sells a player (in some specific conditions to be determined) is a good idea
24% – Yes, a tax over club profits at season end (if they exceed a certain threshold) is a good idea
13% – Yes, both taxes are a good idea
43% – No, keep the game as is, free of taxes
5% – No Answer

Even though the majority (52%) is in favour of some kind of tax we are not going to introduce any changes. With such close results it is not worth spending the time and effort, we will look into other ideas to better control the amount of money in the game.

Thanks for voting!


April 18, 2018 00:14

3,983 posts(s)



In some cases it can. Basically the game calculates a factor based on how much you offered and how much the player wants. For example, if he wants 50k and you offer 100k this factor is 2. Then this factor is modified by the player priority (which can add or subtract 1 from it) and also by the hiring bonus star, which has no limit at the moment (we simply add up all bonuses).

Sometimes I think we need to do something to benefit smaller teams to try and give a chance to everyone and also pose a challenge to the top managers.


April 16, 2018 11:07

612 posts(s)

Game Master


Thanks Gabriel. This explains a lot. I didn’t know the impact is that big.
Another example:
“Nórton Nobre has rejected your contract proposal (wage: $227,000). He was hired by KV Oostende (wage: $114,160).”

Can a hiring bonus overrule a difference of more than 100k? Makes it almost impossible for small teams to hire players of the free transferlist.
I already regret I sold my key players. :-)


April 16, 2018 07:53

3,983 posts(s)



There is also the “hiring bonus” star players that can add up to it pretty nicely. Some people disregard these types of star players but I’ve seen what they can do multiple times in the past when people asked about why they’ve lost the bid for a particular player. I haven’t check in your case Dirk but I’d bet it is related to that as well.


April 16, 2018 04:57

612 posts(s)

Game Master


I know but I have a C class team now. I do think Inter is way better at the moment and has better strikers.


April 15, 2018 20:24

27 posts(s)


Because main priority for the players is chance for play in the first squad, wage is the next one priority.
So teams with poor squad and low money have big chance to recruit good players for free.


April 15, 2018 14:10

612 posts(s)

Game Master


Seriously…. :-/
“Thiago Guerra has rejected your contract proposal (wage: $210,000). He was hired by Inter (wage: $144,886).”


April 15, 2018 10:56

612 posts(s)

Game Master



Could someone please explain me the negotiation rules of (free) listed players again.

I did a bit on this player with no specific priority. My bid seemed to be higher but he went to Marseille. How is this possible?

“From: Assistant 
Subject: Negotiation failed 

Maximino Cantina has rejected your contract proposal (wage: $77,335). He was hired by Marseille (wage: $65,000)."

If he had a priority I would understand.
Does someone has an explanation?



April 13, 2018 14:57

144 posts(s)


Some good players for sale in Goias:

Josue (M): tac 91, pas 88
Kevin McDonnell (M): pas 94, sho 89
Grafite (A): Sho 98, great secondaries (all > 80)

Check them out!


April 10, 2018 18:28

144 posts(s)


Vota no vasco para ele voltar dos inativos. Acabei de votar lá pra ajudar. Se soubesse, tinha votado antes e ele já tinha voltado nessa temporada…


April 10, 2018 12:45

27 posts(s)


I no need to ask they Dimitri.

First of all they manage clubs in top4 the best and richest leagues in RubySoccer. They play regulary in international cups too so they have huge incomes for invest in club or players. But relax man, I changed top English club NFFC (after won championship title) on Danish Brøndby becouse I like challenges. I try to do my best but I need a little more time to earn some money and invest them in the new club and good players :)
Rivals are strong and experienced but no one sayed that’ll be easy job ;)

Good Luck everyone and see ya on stadiums!

Luke “Bronson”


April 10, 2018 12:26

3 posts(s)


Gabriel coloca o vasco de volta no brasileirão, tem muitos times que não tem apelo popular.