UltimateEuropeForums.net

for me and the next HFG game:

Not too much debt for bigger teams as it then makes these teams less attractive to take over. Like of Barca start in huge debt have 2 ageing stars in Messi and Suarez who wont be worth much at all to flog to get rid of the debt.

Smaller teams need to start with less Karma points and also make top Karma players 1000 points with a cap put on how many can be created. Also no stupid names which I know Ben has agreed wont happen.

Is there anyway that non managed teams can have player rises throughout the season and at EOS? unmanaged teams are not attractive for new managers as you are playing catch up. I took over Alaves in 117 in season 2 and enjoyed div 2 and when I got promoted my team was miles behind others due to the season of increases and EOS I had missed.

Not against making points more costly to purchase but it's not a big deal for me.

I like the loyalty points but maybe make it so you need to wait a little longer between getting them?

I like the idea of making reserve and youth teams more attractive to manage. when I took on Alaves in 117 I built my team through ROW scout finds and seen plenty of rises in them but that seems to have changed in recent games?

_________________
Current teams:


Game121: F Sittard
Game 122: Arsenal, Esbjerg, Hajduk Split

Definitely agree with this. Unmanaged sides end up killing the game as they’re left so far behind that no new manager will take them on, it’s pointless. Unmanaged sides should get rises in keeping with the rest of the teams, that will also make leagues more competitive as they’ll be stronger (albeit unmanaged) sides.

Very important for this to happen imo, no point taking on a team thats been left for 10+ turns at present which limits interest and longevity of games.

Ben and I are having our quarterly meeting tomorrow evening at the Duck and Goose and this will be on the agenda.

_________________
BARCELONA 122

Some good points all round here. Nice to see an active thread on here.

So what about the league format for the next HFG? I'm not in the English leagues in Game 120 but it seems that the 4 divisions have been a success so far? And reverting back to the old school leagues rather than being able to manage Russian teams etc.

What's everyone's thoughts on that?

I quite like the idea, although it's Ultimate Europe, of being able to manage South American sides, as a switch up from the norm

_________________
Strasbourg & Breidablik Game 122
Atalanta Game 123
Penarol Game 124

The point of a hard format game is that it's a level playing field for all teams. For this to happen, the big clubs need to start in very heavy debt. It does make the bigger teams less appealing and more challenging. But it gives the smaller teams a chance to compete much earlier, and makes them more attractive.

Karma players will be downgraded for 121 on wards, and the names will be monitered. The plan at the moment is for no teams to start with any Karma, so they shouldn't have such a significant impact on the game as they have in 120.

Whether UE points should be more expensive to buy I am happy to be discussed further.

Dual SAs I think are a good part of the game and am not going to remove them for specific games. But, there will be less UE points available in the next HFG due to the bigger teams starting in debt, so dual SAs won't be as common.

You do get UE points for winning your youth and reserve leagues. There could possibly more of a cash prize and even a Karma prize. Happy for that to be discussed.

Unmanaged team rising more at the EOS is a fair point, but not really related to HFGs particularly.

Whether bigger teams start with negative points to offset some of the debt I'm happy to be discussed.

The league make up. Whether to have mixed central and eastern divisions, or whether to start just with one country divisions I'm happy to be discussed.

_________________
The voice of Ultimate Europe...

1. Totally agree with this please don't change it.

2. Really don't like Karma players, so it's good to see their influence being diminished.

3. The game is flooded with SAs, for me 20 million a point is a very good price. I know some will criticize this, but I remember the game before UE points could be purchased, I think it was better even though I originally advocated for the buying of points. 20m is a good compromise.

4. Yeah not a fan of dual SAs at all. Someone suggested only being able to dual SA a player that already had an SA. I like that.

5. Youth and reserve teams, not sure points is the answer, youth players used to get rises depending if they were a good prospect or not. That used to be great.

6. This annoys me, unamanged teams should get some rises to make them more competitive, but they should NOT be getting loyalty points as they currently are. It's supposed to be for managers that have managed a team for over a season. Loyalty points should only be given to you when you've managed a team for over a season. No other circumstances.

7. No opinion on this personally, I'm easy either way

8. I'd love to see 4 leagues with 4 divisions. Same amount of teams but loads more fun, with relegation and promotion a possibility.

These are just my opinions so hope I don't piss anyone off.

_________________
Sampdoria 123
New York RB 124

4 leagues with 4 divisions, now that is a very interesting prospect!

_________________
Strasbourg & Breidablik Game 122
Atalanta Game 123
Penarol Game 124

My take and probably won't be a popular one.

HFG's the big clubs must start heavily in debt. It's about the only real genuine challenge for me left in the game for me personally to be able to build a new team and clearing debt. By the time I was finished with Dortmund in 117 I had one original first team player left and that's how it ought to be.

All teams to start on 0 karma no more and no less.

UE points I've never been a big fan of teams starting out with these too unless they are a cash substitute. For example if Barcelona start -£500m in debt but have £750m worth of players they will have an overall wealth of £250m. Lets say for example someone takes Haddington FC and the squad is only worth say £50m then for me having a cash balance of £200m would be enough to level the teams out. Barcelona would be bleeding cash heavily each week through interest payments until they balanced the books and likewise Haddington would be gaining interest every week. Now i'm not opposed to the smaller teams also getting a leg up with some UE pts but what I oppose strongly is when teams like Everton are still given 30-40 pts and able to put POT on there best players which actually ends up giving those teams in mid range probably more of an advantage over anyone else.

The non-transfering of Potential Players sorry but this has to be removed in HFG's. Sometimes the Haddington's of the world have to offer there best player with POT added and maybe an SA as well in order to be able to compete for the best players the likes of Barcelona are forced to part with. Big teams like Barcelona will never cash in there top players it won't happen, but deals will always happen via part exchange. I can list several of these types of deals I have done in HFG's where both parties have been suited by such deals.

Dual SA's I would say leave them alone. Yes people buy dual SA's for players but for the most part the dual SA is wasted. Yes people will buy COM & DET for example but in reality only one of those is likely to be useful in a match depending on where you play the player. Any manager with any nous knows this and doesn't waste there UE pts doing this unless they intend to use the player in multiple positions. For me dual SA's are made up of one of COM/DET/FLA and then a second any of the others you like.

UE pts I would say leave the cost of them as it is too.

I do agree though that maybe have less cash as prizes and more UE pts instead.

What i'd like to ask though as well is how in 117 a previously managed team goes to a new manager after being unmanaged a whole season but has 93 UE pts in the bank. I've not had 93 UE pts in total throughout 117 and this team also has dual SA's throughout. Is there something where unmanaged teams are given a huge boost to make them appealing again? Seems a bit OTT if so.

_________________
G123 - Toulouse
G124 - Al-Ahli

Seeing very good, but not great, players advertised for sale, looking for 2/3 potential players in exchange, is one of the reasons the delay transferring potential players was introduced. Am happy for this to be discussed, but there will be a delay, even if it is a small one. 5 weeks seems to be working out ok, but again, happy to hear if managers think it should be less of more for a HFG.



With a potential delay, how would the bigger teams manage the debt? Am curious to hear what you would do in that situation.

_________________
The voice of Ultimate Europe...

I would just do what I did in Game 112, Part Exchange deals. None of my players went for potential players back then so I would do that again and would probably only do one part exchange deal a week to keep the balance coming down enough each week.

However the Haddington's of the game would be disadvantaged during the 5 weeks potential delay because they wouldn't be able to compete, during which time chances are a few top players will have moved on already until they can offer POT players to trump or at least match other teams offers.

I can understand the 5 weeks delay and for the reasons you mentioned. In 117 I only ever accepted one POT player in any one deal for a top player which I don't feel is unreasonable but I do agree 2 or 3 POT players for one top player is wrong and perhaps that's where the solution is. But in the games where there's been a 5 weeks delay there hasn't been any need for the big teams to clear debt and be forced to move on their top players so the offers of POT players haven't been needed which means the rule is nicely enforced as you say.

Maybe a solution could be that teams heavily in debt should not have players forcibly put on the transfer market by the board for the first 5 weeks either allowing managers time to assess their squads too in the same way teams spending on POT are given time to assess their POT players. This then means that they can wait for POT players to become available although still rack up interest debt in the meantime, and also enforce no more than one POT player in a swap deal for any one player.

_________________
G123 - Toulouse
G124 - Al-Ahli

I agree with what Ben has been saying, the big clubs hold the cards in an HFG and they do hold smaller clubs to ransom over pot players.

Potential easy fix could be....

Make it so there can only be a potential player deficit of 1. No more. Meaning unless a pot player is coming back, you can only trade one. Remove this season 2.


Fact is small clubs are grasping for early success and will hurt themselves long term. It's why many managers quit after 1 or 2 seasons. They need to have more vision.

_________________
Sampdoria 123
New York RB 124

I’m nit sure whether HFG’s work differently but I would also suggest not dumping a load of quality players into ROTW teams as early as 120.

120 appeared to be a game where building teams and spotting raw talent would be rewarded long term but then turn 12 came along and suddenly OA’s were 93+. If you want to encourage longevity then keep adding the odd star etc but allow the game to develop for a bit before just chucking a load of talent in.

This isn’t sour grapes either, my Montrose side got a new defence overnight however it did render the longer term scout buys a bit useless.

This is a very good point. The mass dumping of excellent unknowns midway through the season totally renders the early scouting/training/adding potential to players a waste of time.

But then you're encouraging managers to take over more teams in order to be able to scout more sides to find the decent scouts, something a few moan about.

So it appears to be a catch 22.

_________________
Active Teams

Game 123 (EFG) - Bayern Munich
Game 123 (EFG) - Notts County
Game 124 (HFG) - Al Nassr

Don't agree here. Just asking that as players are added it's on a more consistent basis, not one week where everyone is scouting 87/88 looking for good untrainables and maybe someone to add pot to and then the next week the market is flooded with 94+ players and you've wasted points.

Believe it or not monkey i actually agree with your points, apart from i think unmanaged sides should be given points and cash to make them appealing. Don't forget you may have not had 93 points in a game but the unmanaged sides don't have rises, you do. So the points and cash can be used as a substitute for the absent rises.

Also it might be worth pointing out a managed side can accumulate 15 points at Xmas, 1 point given per 5 turns means another 3 there taking it to 18 plus whatever a manager buys throughout ta season, i know im guilty of buying say 12-18 a season. So you can't really say we as managed are not having enough.

_________________
Active Teams

Game 123 (EFG) - Bayern Munich
Game 123 (EFG) - Notts County
Game 124 (HFG) - Al Nassr

Monkey Man Maxi in reference to having 93 UE points the team I was referring to was actually the side you have just taken over again - Wolfsburg.

There is no way with your best eleven all having POT and dual SA's that 93 UE pts were needed to be given as an incentive to take them over. Yes I know Wolfsburg were cash rich knowing you would have had £250m+ in the bank when you left first time around - which equates to around 25 UE pts if converting it all to UE pts.

Yes Wolfsburg were unmanaged for some time but missing out on EOS rises were negligible for Wolfsburg because they all had POT and most had improved significantly anyway that missing out on one lot of EOS rises need not be compensated with 93 UE pts.

If you had stayed with Wolfsburg all the way through the game from the start to now there's no way Wolfsburg would have had any extra incentive given to them - not that it was ever needed anyway and this is not a dig at you for leaving Wolfsburg when you did, merely stating the argument that teams who were previously managed and then get taken over get an unnecessary extra boost to incentivise taking the team over. My point is Wolfsburg during your absence have been improved significantly more so than they would have done if you had remained from day one - which gives Wolfsburg and any other teams who have changed managers an unfair advantage over teams who have had no change of manager. Again none of this is a dig aimed at you so please don't take it personally as I thought you already had a great Wolfsburg team which did not need giving a nuclear weapon when Steve was given them with 93 UE pts.

_________________
G123 - Toulouse
G124 - Al-Ahli

Wolfsburg had 93 points when a new manager took them over? Is that true?

Well i can tell you now, the side is actually worse off since i left. Several players have gone most notably a 40 PV WB 105oa with POT and all i have is 14 points and 55m in the bank. So im assuming he was swapped for 2 average players who have since disappeared? I don't know.

Either way i do think unmanaged side do need an incentive for new managers to take them but not over the top.

_________________
Active Teams

Game 123 (EFG) - Bayern Munich
Game 123 (EFG) - Notts County
Game 124 (HFG) - Al Nassr

agreed

_________________
Fadi Mazloum
Botafogo G124
NEW PODCAST WEBSITE COMING SOON
07787560603
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
-------------------
Real Madrid Game 43 - Champions League Winners - S2
Inter Milan Game 105 - Treble Winner S3
Santa Clara Game 108 - Doubles Winner S2

lets simplify this all a little.... Here is my input with some of the above inputted copied over.

1) Game 121 is a HFG and starts sept 2nd (after the summer transfer window closes).

2) Karma Points and UE Points to be reviewed again and to cost more for Karma Players and Cost more to buy points.

3) Dual SA's are only for Gained SA and a Buyable SA not 2 Buyable SA's

4) More incentive for unmanaged teams to be taken over, maybe all teams go through EOS rises regardless if being managed or not at the time.

5) Remove ROTW from the transfer list, make people scout players. One its better for the business and 2 it stops people buying players without making a effort.

6) Teams in debt have to shift a certain amount of money per turn or face a fine from the banks: EG Barca are £700M in debt, they have to shift £50m per turn until clear or face a £5m fine from the bank - This way they have to shift players continously. By Turn 5, they would of sold everyone (that are backup/squad players) and would have to now start dealing with bigger players meaning POT players can be swapped to the benefit of the game as they will have to change their team around completely to shift debt and still compete.
But a balance needs to be made if they are £700m in debt but a squad value of £850, they are techniqually £150m in profit, but small teams have a squad value of £50m and £50m in the bank and 50ue points it doesnt balance and doesnt make the small teams worth taking because they dont have enough cash to compete and buy players from Barca plus the scouting scene.

7) Maybe have board targets:
A) Win the League
B) Quarter Final of Champions League
C) Semi Final of FA Cup etc

By doing 1 or any of these your DC% goes up a certain amount: EG Winning the league 10%, 2nd place 8%, 3rd Place 6% etc ... you get more money from director activity EOS £5m for winning, £2.5m for 2nd £1m for 3rd etc and maybe some Karma points?

8) Reserves/Youth teams currently on £4m/£2m + 3 UE points for winning depending on being in the 1st or 2nd divisions - I would go as much as £10m/£8m + 3 UE Points and 100 Karma Points.
A bigger incentive means again better business as youll make money for managing them both for UE and for the club in the game.

9) Looking at the process for 4 Leagues ENGLAND&SCOTLAND&WALES&IRELAND (UK)/SPAIN/FRANCE/GERMANY/ITALY - Pick between them and 4 divisions in each.

_________________
Fadi Mazloum
Botafogo G124
NEW PODCAST WEBSITE COMING SOON
07787560603
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
-------------------
Real Madrid Game 43 - Champions League Winners - S2
Inter Milan Game 105 - Treble Winner S3
Santa Clara Game 108 - Doubles Winner S2