Asunto: Questions & Answers

Good point,thanks...that it is all i find too...in the Guide

Here's hoping they fix up the Oceania sponsorships next season... back to the way Australia was.... hoping!

It's disappointing that three of us asked this question and got no response.

it's not going to happen unless Oceania manages to get enough teams to warrant a third league tier. I am sorry, but with the level of competition down under it's far too easy to stay at the top. It's not the same being the top team in Oceania or in a country with 4 or even 3 league tiers.

Thank you for replying.

I understand what you're saying but what happened in our case was slightly different. We're not asking to be given the same treatment as a larger league. We want to be treated the same as a similar size league.

In our case, a larger league (Australia) was merged into a smaller league (Oceania). The next time sponsorships were calculated, they appear to have been based on the history of the smaller league alone, probably because it was the smaller league that retained the name and history. I suspect that if the operation had been reversed and Oceania had been merged into Australia, the Australian sponsor offers would have stayed much the same but the Oceania offers would have increased.

I'm hoping that after a year with higher numbers in Oceania, the sponsor offers will automatically start moving back up towards what they were in the Australian league. I guess we'll find out in a week or so.

One manager made a ridiculous bid on my UFA player (1 billion for a 32 old player). He did this only for one goal, to harm my team. I asked the GM for changing the bid, but in vain. This way the future of a Hungarian NT player became uncertain. Unfortunately I am not the only victim, another fellow manager got unreal (1B) bid for his RFA player. If the RFA-UFA system can be abused such way, it has to be cancelled. Why is it not possible to decrease the unreal bid before the transfer happens? Why is it not possible to limit the amount of the bids according to the age or OR? I am very upset! I am very upset, because the developers didn’t seem to care about this problem, although the whole Hungarian team asked them to. I pay for the game for a long time, but after this I won’t ever buy a PRO-pack again.

We will not cancel the whole feature just because this happens from time to time. It could happen to a normal transfer as well. That player is going to a new team, if that team folds and the players is in NT, he will go back to the market so he won't get lost.

We do not want to put any limits because that would only cause more problems with multiple people bidding the maximum value.

I am not aware that the Hungarian team asked the development team to do anything about this. I was informed about this situation by a gamemaster who asked me how to proceed. I said we don't want to interfere because then there will be no end to such requests.

Don't make it look like this is a problem for the national team because it isn't.

1 000 000 for an 32 years old player not problem?
I think it is very big problem.
The manager has been blocked. The players do not get experience, do not training as well!
If the manager has been recommended for a realistic price, we keep the players!

Undo the ban, then. Why is he banned anyway? And for how long?

"If the manager has been recommended for a realistic price, we keep the players!"

And that is exactly why they can't put limits on bids - with a "realistic" limit, no bidder would ever be able to win away a good player from a top team.

He is banned because he broke the rules. For how long? I don't know, maybe permanently. That's up to the gamemasters.

Whether a player trains well or not has nothing to do with this really. That happens all the time with NT players changing teams.

A 32 year old player doesn't improve that fast anyway so the loss will be negligible. If the manager remains blocked and loses his team, the player will be back on the market and you can buy him back.

Thanks for the answer, again.

He also brought up the player himself!

Quick question about substitutes. In last night's game, my right midfielder was suspended. On the bench was a central midfielder and a universal wing midfielder whom I had designated LM. However, the code chose the central midfielder as replacement.

I checked the guide, and that is how the code works. It chooses RM first then M, CM and finally LM. For some reason I had thought it went RM, LM, M, CM, Surely, it makes more sense to have a player lose a small amount effectiveness for playing on the wrong side than larger amount for having the wrong skillset?

Anyway, I realise it's my fault for not having checked team or rules properly, but what do other people do with side substitutes? Are you meant to just call them D and M?

You should designate your universal wing midfielder as M and the central midfielder as CM. Then put the winger on the bench BELOW the CM.
That way the system will prefer the winger for side subs and the CM for central subs.