UltimateEuropeForums.net
http://ultimate-europe.net/forum/

Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
http://ultimate-europe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=284&t=46436		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Admin [ Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
When you use UE points to increase a players potential, that player can’t be transferred for a set number of weeks.

The idea of potential was for managers to nurture and improve players rather than used them as bargaining chips. By not being able to put potential on them and sell them straight away, it will delay managers asking for 2 or 3 potential players in exchange for their superstar in new games.

How long would they be unable to be transferred? I was thinking as few as 3 or as many as 13 weeks (half a season).

Whether this is a gets implemented and for how many weeks, is down to you.
Author:  andyjr [ Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
That I do like the sound of
Author:  Martin B [ Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
I'm undecided on this one, I can see the arguement Ben lays out but then there are also other factors to consider.

In an HFG the top clubs are forced to sell or swap there best players there's no way around it. Bringing this change in would kill off any hope of the smallest of sides such as Haddington or Crusaders from Game 117 for example from being able to make a competitive offer for a player like Messi, Ronaldo, Bale etc.

It's that very incentive of being able to add potential to a player which can give those clubs a chance of signing such a player unless anybody is stupid enough to sell a player like Messi, Ronaldo or Bale just for cash.

It's a difficult one because using it as a bargaining chip is a big incentive for those smaller teams, for me the issue is more of the teams who put a player with potential up for swap the same week they're signed, perhaps some sort of restriction could be placed upon players with potential after they've had a transfer perhaps restrict a player with potential to just one transfer a season which would force managers to think carefully before signing such a player knowing they couldn't try and swap them on for better than what they paid out.
Author:  daveyh [ Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
IMO too many of the smaller teams offer Pot players for the top teams squads players so that would be a positive to me. If also means the bigger teams in a HFG would have to work harder and that for me is needed.
Author:  Martin B [ Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
daveyh wrote:
IMO too many of the smaller teams offer Pot players for the top teams squads players so that would be a positive to me. If also means the bigger teams in a HFG would have to work harder and that for me is needed.


I agree too many POT players were offered for mid range players in 117 but then it can also be argued that's down to how the manager uses his UE pts. My gut feel is only players worth £20m+ should ought to be worthy of being offered a POT player.

That said I'm going to counter my point and say that managers can still offer players with SA's but I feel it's important not to close the door on the smallest teams being able to make offers for players who may be worth commanding a POT player in return.
Author:  Math [ Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
I'm not sure I'm a fan of this rule. Being a mid range team in Wolfsburg I found it beneficial to my squad by going to the Barca's and Madrid's etc and offering a POT player and cash for their superstar. This proved effective for both sides as it reduced their debt, gained them a POT player and me improving my side. I don't see how this method is a bad thing for anyone with a non big side looking to better.
Author:  Natty O [ Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
I iike this proposition, purely because it is something different and will be interesting to see how it affects the game.

If you don't try new things then you don't find out.

I would be in favour but maybe start at a low number of weeks like 3-6, 13 weeks may be a bit excessive

I have personally never swapped a pot player for a big name, but understand why others do, I personally like to keep them to watch them nuture at my club.
Author:  daveyh [ Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
Whilst some managers are wise using pot players to get top players, some are not and it spoils some teams early on which leads to managers leaving and said team not being attractive to manager in future.
Author:  LUKE [ Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
it could be that the transfer side of things will be very quite at the start of the game if say pot players cant be swapped for say 5 weeks.
big teams will not swap for lesser players as we have seen all to often so will probably hold on to stars they dont want untill pot players can be part of a deal.
smaller teams might have nothing to offer for the first 5 weeks until pot transfers kick in .
so the only deals that will probably happen are for players of equal value.
Author:  Dinamo Tbilisi [ Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
If we are really going to go for a more balanced start to the game (specifically speaking about Game 119) then are UE points necessary? Potential exists in a lot of players already so possibly remove the POT player from the scheme of things.

If we do have sides starting below par then how about any UE points being available only for SAs, ground improvement etc. These weaker sides could have raised levels of natural potential on their younger players. Cash sounds like it will be mega-useful in this particular game too.


On the point in question as originally raised, I would be in favour of the 13-week hiatus as I think that POT has lost it's way from it's original intended use. 13 weeks would allow a bit of development and might make some managers consider making those players focal rather than swapping them for a selection of has-beens, albeit Barcelona's has-beens!
Author:  Athletic Bilbao 122 [ Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
13 weeks seems about right. I'm all for it.
Author:  Dan_139 [ Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
Like the idea, 13 weeks definitely. Will encourage people to manage and develop players rather than just wheel and deal
Author:  Admin [ Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
ronem wrote:
If we are really going to go for a more balanced start to the game (specifically speaking about Game 119) then are UE points necessary? Potential exists in a lot of players already so possibly remove the POT player from the scheme of things.

If we do have sides starting below par then how about any UE points being available only for SAs, ground improvement etc. These weaker sides could have raised levels of natural potential on their younger players. Cash sounds like it will be mega-useful in this particular game too.


Although overall the teams will be much more balanced the usual, but the gap between the best team and the smallest team will still be too big, and points will be needed to bridge it.

I'm leaning towards having a delay, and 13 weeks. Would change the feel of potential, and some managers would use it for different reasons than they do now. Would also allow managers to plan ahead to turn 13, and possibly make it a very interesting and busy week, transfer wise.

But am still happy to hear any more opinions on the matter.
Author:  Martin B [ Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
ronem wrote:
If we are really going to go for a more balanced start to the game (specifically speaking about Game 119) then are UE points necessary? Potential exists in a lot of players already so possibly remove the POT player from the scheme of things.

If we do have sides starting below par then how about any UE points being available only for SAs, ground improvement etc. These weaker sides could have raised levels of natural potential on their younger players. Cash sounds like it will be mega-useful in this particular game too.


On the point in question as originally raised, I would be in favour of the 13-week hiatus as I think that POT has lost it's way from it's original intended use. 13 weeks would allow a bit of development and might make some managers consider making those players focal rather than swapping them for a selection of has-beens, albeit Barcelona's has-beens!


This comes back to the point I made earlier. I fully understand and agree the point you and Dave have both made in regards to managers making better use of POT instead of buying a chump from Barcelona reserves at the cost of a POT player - this I agree with your point and a 13 week hiatus would protect managers from making such a deal and wasting there points in that way.

But just to re-emphasise the flip side of that coin is where the manager is able to negotiate an excellent deal for themselves. In this example I present from Game 117 the example of the transfer of S Kagawa from my Dortmund team to Aberyswyth Town.

Kagawa, a first team player worth £24.5m was transferred to Aberyswyth Town for £22.1m and Mountfield with added POT worth £2.4m

The £22.1m contributed to helping to clear my debt while Aberyswyth Town got a player who remains one of the top midfielders in the game. Meanwhile Mountfield is not one of the top defenders in the game. Therefore using POT to land Kagawa has made Aberyswyth a more competitive team in the game instead of sticking with Mountfield. And this comes back to my point in that it's not so much the tools of the game that are the problem but how the tools are used.

Yes it can be argued this deal could still happen once we reach turn 13 but it's highly unlikely big teams will hold out until then while the debt interest racks up meaning the smallest teams like Aberyswyth will miss out on the top players while the big teams clear there debt.

Put it this way even if Aberyswyth could have offered me Mountfield with LEA & DET I wouldn't have done the deal as without POT Mountfield wouldn't have gotten near my first team even if the game lasts 10 seasons while with POT added Mountfield would always have a chance of getting in the team and this is the concern I have that the smallest of teams - in an HFG at least - would be ruled out of signing top players.

What about a compromise, something along the lines of a 13 week ban with only an exception of the POT player being allowed to be swapped if the incoming player is worth £20m+ more than the player with POT? This would still give protection to teams from not bringing in Barcelona reserves but instead players of first team quality.
Author:  Dinamo Tbilisi [ Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
Little sides won't miss out though, Martin. They will have more developed POT players at their disposal if they hold them for half a season.
When you say that big sides won't hold on till week 13, you have it spot on! The idea is that they will have to sell for cash or p/x deals involving non-POT players.
Dortmund could sell Kagawa to Aberystwyth for max cash to help clear their debt. Aberystwyth can therefore get a better player and keep their POT for themselves.
That was how the HFG was designed to work.
Author:  Martin B [ Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
ronem wrote:
Little sides won't miss out though, Martin. They will have more developed POT players at their disposal if they hold them for half a season.
When you say that big sides won't hold on till week 13, you have it spot on! The idea is that they will have to sell for cash or p/x deals involving non-POT players.
Dortmund could sell Kagawa to Aberystwyth for max cash to help clear their debt. Aberystwyth can therefore get a better player and keep their POT for themselves.
That was how the HFG was designed to work.


But in reality Mark, Kagawa or any player like that was never going to be sold for straight cash to clear the debt otherwise what's the point? Selling all the crown jewels would have ended up with a middle of the road team at best with no cash in the bank, no UE points and a squad short on numbers, where's the incentive?

In reality this change in HFG format will just result in p/x deals for a non-POT player with an SA or two possibly added with a medium sized team which again means the likes of Aberystwyth miss out because they can't compete so yes they will miss out Mark unless my proposal of allowing a POT player to bypass the 13 weeks ban to bring in a player worth at least £20m+ more is allowed.
Author:  Dinamo Tbilisi [ Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
If you'd known that Kagawa was going to turn into a 39/100 player, he wouldn't have left Dortmund full stop. :D
The big sides did well in 117. There were plenty of mugs who were only too willing to lose the lifeline that UE provides just so that they could buy a name. Some sides who started with no UE points have first XIs who sport POT from GK to the front men. When UE do the balancing at the start, they don't, and can't, budget for lemmings!
I can buy a UE point this week. It will cost me £10 million. If I save hard enough I can collect seven of them to add POT to a player and add another £20m in order to get someone that a big club doesn't really want. With one or two exceptions, managers do not swap the players that they see as key to their side. They get rid of positions they don't want; duplicates; the expendables. Kagawa was a FR and was behind Reus and Mkhitaryan in the pecking order. He wasn't the crown jewels - he'd have been the first one that I'd have jettisoned too in order to reduce the debt.
I don't blame the big sides for taking advantage in this way. People always wipe their feet on anything with welcome on it! My point is that it was not the aim of UE to see points used like this. Their idea is that if a team starts £200m in debt and sells £200m of players, and the small team spends his £25m and uses his points on his team, then they should be about level.
The incentive in an HFG is about competing equally. There should be no greater value in taking Real Madrid than Montrose. Managers chuck cash at a big side so they must have a reason. Is it because they can be central to the game, and control the market, or do they think that there is a greater chance of success at a major club?
Debt management under this new rule could become the incentive to take a big side. Manage the debt for half a season until they are able to swap for more developed POT players. At this stage, more managers might just be able to see the evidence of their eyes and not swap the POT for a player that will be inferior by season's end.
Author:  Martin B [ Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
ronem wrote:
If you'd known that Kagawa was going to turn into a 39/100 player, he wouldn't have left Dortmund full stop. :D
The big sides did well in 117. There were plenty of mugs who were only too willing to lose the lifeline that UE provides just so that they could buy a name. Some sides who started with no UE points have first XIs who sport POT from GK to the front men. When UE do the balancing at the start, they don't, and can't, budget for lemmings!
I can buy a UE point this week. It will cost me £10 million. If I save hard enough I can collect seven of them to add POT to a player and add another £20m in order to get someone that a big club doesn't really want. With one or two exceptions, managers do not swap the players that they see as key to their side. They get rid of positions they don't want; duplicates; the expendables. Kagawa was a FR and was behind Reus and Mkhitaryan in the pecking order. He wasn't the crown jewels - he'd have been the first one that I'd have jettisoned too in order to reduce the debt.
I don't blame the big sides for taking advantage in this way. People always wipe their feet on anything with welcome on it! My point is that it was not the aim of UE to see points used like this. Their idea is that if a team starts £200m in debt and sells £200m of players, and the small team spends his £25m and uses his points on his team, then they should be about level.
The incentive in an HFG is about competing equally. There should be no greater value in taking Real Madrid than Montrose. Managers chuck cash at a big side so they must have a reason. Is it because they can be central to the game, and control the market, or do they think that there is a greater chance of success at a major club?
Debt management under this new rule could become the incentive to take a big side. Manage the debt for half a season until they are able to swap for more developed POT players. At this stage, more managers might just be able to see the evidence of their eyes and not swap the POT for a player that will be inferior by season's end.


If i'd known Kagawa would develop so well I would still have swapped him on but for more than a tin of baked beans :D He was always disposable as I decided not to play FR for the first time in donkeys years and switch to playing an IF instead for the first time. Reus was actually a RM and Mkhitaryan a FR/PL. But in the case of Kagawa I think this is a perfect example how the deal worked well for both sides. I swapped on the player I received not too long later for a similar player so there would be an added challenge there immediately in this instance to use the POT player I initially received.

I agree with you 100% about too many mugs paying over the odds for names and I get the point you make about levelling it out. The trouble with doing this is potentially I could flog £200m of talent on Turn 1 and my books are balanced but I am now without my best 5 players and only 19 players left in the first team squad while everybody else has 24 players + any they have bought. Then once the smaller clubs have spent the £120m and the points they won't be level because they will have actually overtaken the big clubs by having potentially Hummels and Aubameyang in there squad and points available to improve those two players for themselves or on other players they have. I agree with you that the see-saw needs to be level on both sides but I just feel if you arm the smaller teams with the players and the points it tips the see-saw in the favour of the smaller teams. Personally I feel p/x deals on POT players done in a responsible manner for players worth £20m+ more than the player swapped keeps it about on an even keel. Is it all meant to balance out immediately after 5 turns? I've never seen it happen, is it supposed to? I guess only Ben can answer that and if it's meant to well then the only way to do it will be to ban p/x deals no swaps until you have gotten down within -£25m rather than halting the movement of POT players which won't prevent p/x deals from happening.

I do like your idea of debt management and it's commendable to want to do so for 13 turns however when you are bleeding £5m a WEEK interest on turn 1 there is immediate pressure for the big clubs to do business where not even the sale of a reserve player will cover the interest payments. It would be extremly difficult to reach Turn 13 without having lost your best players to do for p/x POT deals. Personally i'm not sure how well this part of the game is known to managers as it would only ever affect a small handful of teams to bleed so much interest which backs up my point big teams will look to deal immediately and if POT players aren't available then managers will turn to those with SA's instead and is why I still feel the smallest teams will miss out.
Author:  Dinamo Tbilisi [ Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
So my next point is why UE would want to protect POT players and not S.A. players also? There is very little difference in cost between POT and SA but the fact that only one needs protecting implies a mismatch between their relative cost and long-term value.
Author:  Admin [ Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Proposed game change for 119 and onwards
Special Abilities are more common. Every squad starts with a number of them, they can be found in scouted teams, and newly generated players can have them.

Potential. Every player starts with a few hidden potential values, these can be gauged to an extent by the response you get when you give them individual training. Spending points boosting a players potential, set their potential values to a very high level. For some players this is a significant boost, for others a minor boost, and it is even possible that it will give you no boost at all, as a players natural potential can be higher than the level ‘added potential’ set it to.

But what spending points on potential does is flag that player up as having been given ‘added potential’. Judging by how the last few games have gone, this makes him a valuable trading tool. I can understand why teams do this, if they are in debt and other managers are willing, why not get two or three added potential players while selling a star player for players and cash. It seemed like trading potential players dominated the early deals in recent games.

By making added potential players not available to be transferred for x weeks, teams might instead ask for in part exchange: older quality players, players who can cover several positions, younger players who get good training responses or have good untrainables, or just players they like the look of. Smaller and middle of the road teams may have these types of players.

It is still possible it will be harder for smaller teams to get superior players initially, but they could have added potential players improving, who I imagine will still be valuable trading tools in the future if they wish to use them that way.

Yes, the bigger teams won’t be able to collect dozens of potential players while selling some of their better players. They still have control of some of the best players in the game. While they may have to sell some, they can keep the ones they want most.

This Legends game seems like a good one to try the potential delay on. The gap between the biggest and smallest teams will be much smaller than in normal games, everyone will have some good players to trade, and the standard of players available from the ROTW will be higher than ever before.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/