|
Post by box on Oct 31, 2007 10:59:10 GMT 1
. But let me also stress that 25 is not a hard number. If you do a little math, you will see that training 30 or even 35 cyclists will have an individual disadvantage, but the total "team training increase" is higher. This really depends on how fast your cyclist train..... I'm already filtering my team. I will keep my top 10 riders add 15 fastgrowing YPs (those who do well) and substitute a YP every week who will train for 5 weeks... if the YP that gets in trains faster he will stay, if he's slower he will be fired/sold. This progress is already in motion, 5 cyclists are for sale now at I think bottom-prices.... Haven't looked at the TM to see if any other managers are offloading cyclists...
|
|
radub
Cycling Tourist Group
Posts: 3
|
Post by radub on Oct 31, 2007 13:21:19 GMT 1
These changes are absolutelly crap. Some guys (many actually) were caught asleap and still have 15-20 cyclists. Now they thought about shouting out loud that it's not fair for some teams to have a lot of cyclists and that it shoud be limited to a certain amount of cyclists. I'm furious and i can't get what guys like il padrino (here) and ht johan (elsewere) think. Stop making it easy for those who can't handdle their money and don't know how to cope with fast changeing economies!! So mr Il Padrino you said that changes won't ocur suddently. Well a month from now it's preatty sudden and many guys (me included) will end up selling good cyclists for crappy prices. If you really are convinced with what you said (that a teacher can only focus on a limited number of pupils) let us hire more trainers. Let's say a trainer can only focus on 15 guys. Very well, we hire 3 trainers for example one trains 15 guys in flat, one another 15 in mountain and another one trains them in hill. This way it's much more understandable and much closer to reality and lads like me who made a long term plan in training cyclists can cope with the changes you are triing to implement. I repeat: Stop makeing it easy for those who enter once a week to check their game status and shout now that they don't have enough players and don't stand a chance to do something in this game. If you are triing to make a change make something better and closer to reality. This is my first post on this forum and probably the last. I'm already sick of this game. You start playing a game with a set of rules... you think you have it all sorted out, than the GM changes the rules because he gets intimidated by a few bunch of lads crying. Shame on you Il Padrino, shame on you game developers for trying to ruin a game i started to grow fond of.
|
|
|
Post by steingrim on Oct 31, 2007 18:06:18 GMT 1
Wauw! Such temper. The changes are better for a vast majority of the players, hence for the game as a whole. That's the developer's perspective. There are a number of ways to make the game more difficult, or let teams develop endlessly, but that would most likely reduce the number of players in the long term.
That said, changes and solutions here and in HT have little or nothing to do with each other, starting with the different sizes of the two games.
|
|
|
Post by gladharim on Oct 31, 2007 18:08:05 GMT 1
*Applauds*
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by dancingrob on Nov 1, 2007 0:07:36 GMT 1
some people posting just need to realise the game isn't just about them.
to use an HT example, having 70 cyclists was like daytrading in the old days, very successful, incredibly easy, but too boring for most people to bother with.
Whilst it allows the dedicated few who can be bothered to spend a lot of time online to make huge profits, it penalises everyone else who doesn't want to do that, who I'd argue are the vast majority.
Simple maths and a little social awareness will show that a game that appeals to more people in the long run is going to be far more successful in the long run
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 1, 2007 22:54:29 GMT 1
... The limited places for training isn't the biggest problem. But it takes most of the time 8weeks to see if a youngster is talented or not. So maybe another way to discover information about the FA would be nice. ... It won't take 8 weeks. There is another method to discover within 3 weeks how well the FA of your cyclist is. If you are interested how to see that, you can PM me. Why not tell us all here?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 1, 2007 23:08:26 GMT 1
And now for the changes. I'm also furious. Only for one thing: Changes like this in the beginning of next season is too soon. As asked above and I have asked in a different topic... Big changes: warning 1 season ahead and NO LESS Small changes: a few weeks.
But I like the new system proposed, let that be clear
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 4, 2007 9:05:00 GMT 1
No answer or remark from designers or Il.P. ? reason maybe: - They don't care about my (our) idea about big changes ? - They don't want to change opinion becouse they have allready anounced this change ? - They havent been on forum for a few days ? (not likely) Maybe I'll start a petition
|
|
|
Post by stefkeswoon on Nov 4, 2007 9:20:50 GMT 1
You've got more than 5 weeks to adjust your team. That should be enough. Everyone knows their cyclists probably good enough to know who to keep, who to sell and who to fire. It's as simple as that. (And again, you can keep more than 25 cyclists, certainly for a short period. It's no hard cap.) In case you didn't notice, the train-the-trainer-system (a big change, I guess) is announced a zillion weeks before.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 4, 2007 9:22:13 GMT 1
You've got more than 5 weeks to adjust your team. That should be enough. It isn't.
|
|
|
Post by stefkeswoon on Nov 4, 2007 9:33:03 GMT 1
You've got more than 5 weeks to adjust your team. That should be enough. It isn't. Then we have another opinion about that . I wonder, by the way, how you're judging this. I see you've got 11 cyclists yourself. Really no offence, but I guess guys like NikeBoy and CableGuy are in a better situation to judge the situation, having more than 50 cyclists each. Maybe you simply want to make a statement about timing? If so, I can assure you that we discuss about the timing of the announcements of the big changes.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 4, 2007 9:35:29 GMT 1
Oh but I'm not speaking for myself. I havent any worrys. I'm speaking for players with a lot of cyclists. I'm not selfish My opinion is for the good of the game,not for myself.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 4, 2007 9:36:53 GMT 1
Also becouse of the timing. Maybe in the future I will have problems with sudden changes. Sudden is never good for the game
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Nov 4, 2007 11:00:54 GMT 1
Any change will always be sudden. It just depends on whether it is announced before or not. In this case, we are of the opinion that the announced changes need to be implemented with the start of the next season so that the game can progress further.
Delaying it for a whole season is way too long and would simply put a halt to the progression. I assure you that when the game gets to a point where any further modifications are not 'core changes', there will be a lot more time between the announcement and the implementation. But in this case, it is absolutely imperative that it is done as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Nov 4, 2007 11:09:34 GMT 1
I finaly got you're atention quote: A whole season is way too long... In real time it's only 15 weeks and not so long as you would like to present it. But you're the boss, just wanted to let you know my opinion and if you would ask all the others, not only forum visitors... Most of them wouldnt like big changes in short periods of time. All these changes every few weeks is getting to be a bit anoying.
|
|