Nick Romero wrote :
Not sure how feasible this is, but I feel like it would be neat if we could see former players of either your club or others also be put in the game as robot managers, coaches, physios, and scouts. And that you could train them, or they could improve over time, etc. Anyone else agree?

+1

I think it's time to address cup competition draws to make them more randomised. I saw a post that 8 plays 1, 7 v 2 etc and really this is not realistic. Yes have cups seeded if you want but the schedule of who you play next should not be something you can follow, these draws should be random

Ello wrote :
I think it's time to address cup competition draws to make them more randomised. I saw a post that 8 plays 1, 7 v 2 etc and really this is not realistic. Yes have cups seeded if you want but the schedule of who you play next should not be something you can follow, these draws should be random

Isn't it already random if the groups are random initially? The 1st vs 2nd only applies to the knockout round right after the group stage, afterwards it is already random.

I just don't want the problem we had earlier where 1st vs 2nd of the same group plays each other, if first knockout round is randomized then Tegimus needs to make sure it doesn't happen.

It should not be that 1 plays 8, 2v7 etc
The top 2 teams should not play the top 2 from another group as standard.
Yes the top sides should play a 2nd placed team but the same draws season after season is not realistic and let's the game down imo

Pre-defined groupings, like in the World Cup, would be the coolest for me.
And it should have the keying map with the trophy in the middle.

SUGGESTION: Increase the number of players we can List for Sale to (minimum +4)

Currently, the minimum number of players we can have is 18. That becomes 20 with loaning. For example, I now OWN 21 players. Loaned 2, Loaned out 2, still 21. I can only list 1 of my players on the market. The system doesn't allow me to list another because it doesn't consider the loaned-in players, while loaned-out players are deemed gone.

I suggest increasing that amount by 4 so that I can list 5 of my players on the market, but ALLOW only 1 of them to be sold. How?

Example: I have 21 players. 2 On loan so I can only sell 1 player.
Step 1: I try to list a player on sale.
Step 2: The system checks if the team has more than 20 players and denies if false, like usual.
Step 3: If I have more players than the minimum, (which I have as 21 > 20), it allows me to list 5 players.
Step 4: Now I have 5 players listed on the transfer market.
!!! Step 5 !!!: As soon as one of those 5 players receives an offer, the system checks minimum again and immediately de-lists all my other players from the market.

Example 2: I have 22 players.
Steps 1-4 are the same, except now I can have 6 players on the market.
Step 5: The system checks the minimum after an offer. I still have 21 players so nothing happens.
Step 6: I receive an offer for my 2 players. Now (just like Step 5 in the earlier example) The system delists the remaining 4 players from the market.

WHY?
1. Teams will be able to list more of their players that they are willing to sell.
2. This will increase the market, effectively creating more opportunities for people to find what they are looking for.
3. Minimum values (18-20) still preserved.
4. Great success (I just love that line 😂)


The minimum + 4 can be increased or decreased.

Set piece skill (and stamina) should influence penalty kick outcomes

Michael wrote :
Set piece skill (and stamina) should influence penalty kick outcomes

I thought it did... Definitely should otherwise.

Would it be possible to have a button added so that scouting reports could be deleted from a player's individual scouting reports page?

I think goalies match ratings should be tweaked. Consider this game: https://www.f4football.com/matches/report/91312

One of the goalies had 100% pass completion, 60% save percentage (3 out of 5), 5 interceptions and received rating of 58.

While other had 50% pass completion, 0% saves, 0 interceptions and his rating is 55, almost the same.

The difference in match rating should be more noticeable in this case, imo.

Small Suggestion: Balance Match viewer times:

This:
"It looked like a sure goal if Winston Villarreal was not able to cover that run. And he wins the ball back for his team"

This:
"That's quick thinking by Pat Van Den Hauwe 96,5/2.5 32* trying to start an attack with that long ball. Herbert Coleman tries to get to the end of it"

And that:
"Goal kick for Disteryan"

Stay on the screen the same amount of time. I'm a fast reader but the 1st and 2nd messages are too long for me to read in the normal speed. And when I slow it down (.5 speed), then the rest of the match becomes too slow.

So my suggestion is;
1. Either Cut those messages to 2 or 3 parts
2. Or give them more time to stay on screen.

Additional suggestion: Give a noticeable break between half times.
HALF TIME: STARRY CITY (1-0) Disteryan... hanging there for 3 or 4 seconds would be amazing.

Agree with both Alex and Engin's suggestions personally

Alex Kalinin wrote :
I think goalies match ratings should be tweaked. Consider this game: https://www.f4football.com/matches/report/91312

One of the goalies had 100% pass completion, 60% save percentage (3 out of 5), 5 interceptions and received rating of 58.

While other had 50% pass completion, 0% saves, 0 interceptions and his rating is 55, almost the same.

The difference in match rating should be more noticeable in this case, imo.

Totally agree. GKs are not getting the ratings they truly deserve.

I've never seen a GK with a rating above 80, ever, in any match.

Check my match: https://www.f4football.com/matches/report/70865 . My GK saved the entire match, did spectacular savings, and still only got 72 rating.

My league leader Şövalyeler only saw 1 goal in 22 matches. His GKs ratings are 62 and 60.71.

A player who scores 2 goals can easily get a rating of 99 but GKs can never get above 80, or even 70 no matter how well they perform. That doesn't seem fair.

In-Game Changes > Tactical Change/Substitution > Criteria

I'm wondering if it would be feasible to add a new option to the criteria dropdown: "If we are leading by less than..."

There are times when if I'm only leading by 1 or 2 I want to change mentality, but if we're ahead by more I don't want the change to occur.

Likewise, with subs, if I'm only leading by 1, I may want to make a defensive sub/formation tweak, but if I'm leading by more I'm happy to let a lesser player stay on the pitch to earn exp.

I suppose in regards to the mentality changes, this can be achieved by setting multiple In-Game Changes, but I'd prefer to keep that list shorter, and if I'm not mistaken, non Plus members can only set a certain number of changes.

I'm not sure there's a way substitutions could be set up how I'm asking in the current format, however.

Happy to hear how to accomplish these things if I've completely missed something!

I'm going to suggest something that's pretty banal but can be fun. That teams could have nicknames, like real clubs. And that the narrators of the report, from time to time, say something similar. “The Fantasma crowd leaves happy today. Operário Great Game.
Perhaps this could be given to teams that somehow made it through, reaching the championship ranking zone, or participating in the finals or semifinals of local Cups. For international matches, the nickname would only be recognized if the team had already reached the quarterfinals. I was even going to suggest that players also have them, but they are very brief and the nicknames would end up being repeated too much and losing their fun.

For players, the suggestion is to create a name bank, so that communities in each country can send names and surnames. These would be combined and interesting names like Jairzinho Cachaceiro, or Paulo Tratorista (tractor driver) could emerge. If Paulo was a quarterback, it would be very funny.

Add other countries in the new season

I think the purchase limit between clubs is annoying.

The transfer market is so quiet that it tends to be dominated by single sellers (usually after heavy purchases earlier in the season) and if you happen to have bought from them earlier in the season you end up missing out on players despite them being perfectly unprompted
arms length sales/purchases.

I agree with Adam and Loko, both are good. As for Al-Haytham, I would say this would be good but there are SO SO many robot teams in the game that it would further dilute the pool of actual real players. It would be great if we could, say, get rid of the 3rd divisions in really all but England, where they are semi-populated, and use those teams to create top-flight leagues in other countries

I think you should be allowed to get into debt.

As you can't guarantee there are going to be players you want to buy on the transfer market at the moment you're forced to sell players in advance with the risk of being left with a buildup of cash that you then get hit with tax.

The alternative risk is that you wait for a player you want to come along and hope you have enough cash for them or delay bidding while you try and sell someone to be able to afford them.

I'd like to be able to manage by buying what I think I can afford (even if I don't necessarily have the cash at that moment). It would help teams with infrastructure timing too.

Perhaps you pay interest by round for the debt to encourage you to sort it out quickly through player sales. Maybe sales are forced on you if you haven't sorted it out after a certain period.