UltimateEuropeForums.net

This would stop

A) Managers that have no idea from giving there best away for rubbish, until they learn the aspect of the game better.

B) Stop so many John Smiths or Mark Mcgravels joining the game

C) Give managers a better idea as to how there potential players are improving or likely to improve.

D) Stop the sharks

To keep games running longer we need better competition not 10 - 15 teams that are miles better than the rest, this will help keep a more level playing field imo.

The only downside I see in a restriction would be, it would prevent the smaller sides from putting POT on a player to swap immediately adding cash to one of the big sides for a top notch player adding cash as well.

Why is it right to prevent such a good deal for both sides?

I don't agree with a restriction on swapping POT players for that reason above plus if a managers pays his money for a team he should be able to do what he likes with his players, rule abiding of course. In game 117 I put POT on 2 players and then swapped both straight away with cash for one big star from Madrid, I did the same with Barca a turn later. What is wrong with that when it benefitted both sides?

Just run the game Ben. Do what you can and forget the rest. There will be things that need fixed, but it will take the game to run a while before we notice. Just learn from this one and implement changes in the next.
I'm just looking forward to the game however it turns out.

dont really think potential selling will make a big difference in this game if the sides are well balanced most sides even the so called lesser ones should have players that are equal to the bigger teams so swapping can be done.
also remember the big teams will need to sell some top players to get rid of debt and more importantly in this game to raise funds to bid for the legends available by scouting so teams with cash will have the ability to pick up some stars from the big boys.

Amen to this

Quite agree with a lot of what's been said here, but the first edition of a legends game will be far from perfect, as with anything new it will always have teething problems. This isn't a standard EFG, nor a HFG, it's totally different.

The quality of player in this game will be significantly higher, and the emphasis on potential may not be quite as much as in other games, so why are we worrying about something that may not affect us all that much?!

Why are we worrying about something that may not affect us all that much? Fair question because it shouldn't affect the legends game when teams are starting only -£25m in debt at a maximum so there will be no pressure to move on the best players of the game, the gap between the smallest and biggest teams shouldn't be as big as normal, therefore debt busting deals with the carrott of POT players being swapped aren't necessarily going to be essential in the first 13 weeks of the game. Managers will have until Turn 13 to nuture there POT players before deciding whether to twist or stick with them so in this instance the rule of 13 weeks makes sense.

However when the subject of the thread says "and onwards" this is where the problem is because you want rules to apply to all games and the title suggests it will meaning future HFG's would be affected which will actually affect a large number of managers.

In the meantime I have no problem with it being in Game 119 with a view to it being reviewed before the next HFG comes around.

One observation that 117 has produced was very early on in season one/two - I had Swindon who had around 5-7 pot players, no superstars, then very quickly the bigger clubs had 12+pot players and some superstars and no debt - not sure how that happened so quickly - It happened because the managers put the work in to get the deals done bud. I personally managed to swap 4 pot players and cash for a superstar each from Barca and Madrid. Where as I'm assuming you just wanted to keep your pot players.

A) people selling their pot players too cheaply - far from it, many got superstars. If they under valued their players then deals would be blocked by UE.
B) smaller clubs not valuing their pot players enough - if the deal didn't seem even the manager or computer wouldn't have done it.
C) the ability to see massive gains with pot players, several times I've trained pot players for 10 weeks and no gains so the thought of swapping for a worldie is appealing, but cash wise could only afford 1 per club ie crusaders getting Suarez or Swindon getting Vardy. - You need to raise cash, I've been buying cheap scouts and selling them on for seasons. Doing this enabled me to spend 260m on 26 points in players.

S3 seems more balanced with the lower teams in the premiership and I have reasonable PV vs theirs

Not sure the 13 week ban would improve the game, but maybe a mixture so no transfers for 5 turns and new managers ban. Not liking this, stopping people dealing will create boredom and kill the game. Allowing deals with non pot players will keep the game alive.

Also would prefer a transfer committee so deals need a sanction as so many possible suspect transfers going through or a better log of the transfers so we can police and report it ourselves - This is a no no where you would almost certainly see this abused by some managers. After all the UE computer does judge each deal.

Steven

I suppose there are bans and temporary bans and create a new manager bans..... either way the transfers being more transparent is what I'm raising... ie log of transfers on the forum or site would satisfy fair play

I would rather have no pot, and just make smaller teams have inner pot and then work more on the tactical training side....

Steven