Suggestion to make FM fun again

People often comment that recent versions of FM just aren't as fun as the old ones. This is usually put down to the fact that tactics and motivation are much more difficult than they used to be, but I think it is actually down to the one area of the game that has been made steadily easier since FM2007 - player recruitment.

For most people this is probably the part of the game they enjoy the most. You start a new game on FM because you get thinking about how your favourite team should sign X,Y and Z. Nobody starts up a game of FM because they wonder how their team would perform if the manager said "I have faith in you" before every match.

It used to be that you had a transfer budget and you had to stick to it. If the board gave you £5m you had to agonise over how best to use it. Which part of the team needs strengthened most urgently? Would it be better to put all your eggs in one basket or spread the risk?

Now when the board give you £5m it means that you can buy a £20m player if you pay over 24 months. Player recruitment is no fun anymore because there is no challange - you can buy all the players you want straight away.

It seems as though other aspects of the game have been made more difficult to compensate for the fact that player recruitment is now so easy so after gaining no fun from the part of the game they enjoy most the casual player then gets frustrated because they can't get their team of galacticos to perform as well as expected.

The game would be much more rewarding for wheeler dealers if SI made a simple change to restore the challange. If your budget is £5m then you shouldn't be able to buy a player who costs more then that. The incentive to pay in installments should just be that you only get £1.25m taken off this year's budget if you pay over 24 months.

You do realise that you can just NOT buy players using the monthly installments, right?

I think your ideas are good, but maybe your budget "strictness" should be determined by your chairman's "business" stat. If your chairman has an high business stat, then they wouldn't allow you to make deals that spread over 48 months etc, as that could affect the financial stability of the club , and vice versa. That way it would be both realistic and more fun, hopefully!

You do realise that you can just NOT buy players using the monthly installments, right?

You could also replay every match if you think the result is unrealistic, but the point of a video game is to beat the AI. If I wanted to let my opponent win I'd play multiplayer with my five year old cousin.

Unfortunately, that is life in football now. Clubs will risk both their financial and entire future to finish higher in the league, for the simple fact that it will bring more money. Look at Leeds or Rangers for example. Rangers 'bet' the club's crown jewels on finishing champions and getting an easier qualification in the champion's league. Now they haven't been able to buy anyone for a sustained period of time due to financial insecurity. And then the Leeds fiasco, where they had to finish in the top 3 and/or win a european trophy. Risdale (git) risked the club's entire future and they nearly copped if it had not been for a major miracle.

Man Utd and Arsenal are heavily in debt but their marketing should pay that off I would imagine.

.

Eh? Is what you're saying here that the only way to beat the AI is to spend above your means? Don't be stupid.

What I'm saying is that it's the job of the game - not the player - to make things challanging. Otherwise we'd all just save our £20 and imagine an FM career instead.

And bear in mind that if you are deducting £5mil each season your future budgets are going to be smaller.

What I'm saying is that it's the job of the game - not the player - to make things challanging. Otherwise we'd all just save our £20 and imagine an FM career instead.

What, so SI - who want to make this game as realistic as possible - are going to leave out a highly important (and therefore very realistic) part of the transfer system just because there are loopholes that can be used to the players advance?

So much wrongness and so many misinformed people

Trust me when I say that 99.9% of RL transfers are paid in installments, therefore there is no reason for removing them from the game, they are absolutely essential in a football management sim.

If you are one of the misguided that thinks its 'cheating' then just don't do it, however this way madness leads.

Also as TDJOF points out clubs are willing to gamble on huge layouts bringing silverware and I can tell you when I say that if you don't deliver in FM after plunging £200m into the transfer market your club will suffer and you won't be manager anymore.

So its a risk/reward thing.

You also don't have to spend a fortune to do well, if you are good enough at the game you can take the default Spurs, City or Villa squads to EPL glory 1st season.

As for making the game fun again, when did it ever become 'not fun'?

The tactical challenges presented are fantastic to people who understand football and can help those with less of an understanding develop one. As long as they are prepared to learn from their mistakes.

And if you want plug n play (typing this makes me feel dirty) success then you can always hit up the likes of Mr Hough (sorry dude and no offence meant personally but I think I will scream the next time someone wanders into a GPTG thread and asks 'will this work with Mr Houghs tactic?')

So basically I'm not down with this thread.

And bear in mind that if you are deducting £5mil each season your future budgets are going to be smaller.

By the time that kicks in you have already been promoted with all the unrealistically good players you were able to sign in the first season.

Even if you do get into trouble, you can easily sell one of these players and then go out and spend 4x the value on a much better one.

What, so SI - who want to make this game as realistic as possible - are going to leave out a highly important (and therefore very realistic) part of the transfer system just because there are loopholes that can be used to the players advance?

What did I suggest removing?

I said that installments should work in a more realistic way.

So much wrongness and so many misinformed people

Trust me when I say that 99.9% of RL transfers are paid in installments, therefore there is no reason for removing them from the game, they are absolutely essential in a football management sim.

If you are one of the misguided that thinks its 'cheating' then just don't do it, however this way madness leads.

Also as TDJOF points out clubs are willing to gamble on huge layouts bringing silverware and I can tell you when I say that if you don't deliver in FM after plunging £200m into the transfer market your club will suffer and you won't be manager anymore.

So its a risk/reward thing.

You also don't have to spend a fortune to do well, if you are good enough at the game you can take the default Spurs, City or Villa squads to EPL glory 1st season.

As for making the game fun again, when did it ever become 'not fun'?

The tactical challenges presented are fantastic to people who understand football and can help those with less of an understanding develop one. As long as they are prepared to learn from their mistakes.

And if you want plug n play (typing this makes me feel dirty) success then you can always hit up the likes of Mr Hough (sorry dude and no offence meant personally but I think I will scream the next time someone wanders into a GPTG thread and asks 'will this work with Mr Houghs tactic?')

So basically I'm not down with this thread.

1) Nobody has suggested removing insatallments.

2) I play FM for the challange - not so I can hold back because it is so easy to buy 11 new players in the first transfer window.

3) If you think it is realistic for Rangers to let their manager spend over £50m in one transfer window - as I was allowed to on one recent game - then you're mad.

4) No half-competent manager could possibly fail to deliver because you can blow the competition out of the water with all the amazing players you are able to unrealistically sign.

What did I suggest removing?

I said that installments should work in a more realistic way.

How on earth do you make monthly payments more realistic? You either pay in monthly installments, or you don't. You either pay upfront, over 24 months, 48 months etc.

You can't make it more realistic than it already is. If you think that its unrealistic, then just don't use it; simple as that. I rarely pay in monthly installments, I spend what I have and thats that. If you think the installment feature is so unrealistic, just do that. Simple.

1) Nobody has suggested removing insatallments.

2) I play FM for the challange - not so I can hold back because it is so easy to buy 11 new players in the first transfer window.

3) If you think it is realistic for Rangers to let their manager spend over £50m in one transfer window - as I was allowed to on one recent game - then you're mad.

4) No half-competent manager could possibly fail to deliver because you can blow the competition out of the water with all the amazing players you are able to unrealistically sign.

1) You suggested a massive change to them that would be akin to removing them.

2) I guess this point is in reference to my 'don't use them' comment? If so, I didn't say you should hold back, but if you have an issue with the installment thing then your only option is to stop using it. Or stop playing FM full stop.

3) I can only imagine that if you have got Rangers to the point where they can spend £50m (or £12.5m if you spread them all over 48 months) then you've had a fair amount of success and therefore the club has these finances in the bank, ergo they could easily spend that. Obviously we could discuss the fact that its unlikely £50m of talent would go to the SPL, but thats another matter.

I wonder how much Souness/Smith spent in the late 80's/early 90's? I would wager an amount that would be equivalent to more than £50m today.

4) Not sure what point you are answering/trying to get across so I'll leave it at that.

@edgar555

I had just taken over Rangers and it was my first transfer window. Here is another example of what I'm talking about:

You can't seriously defend that as realistic.

If they got a tycoon takeover, then yes it is. Lets be honest though, a club like Man City getting a takeover by a royal family from Abu Dhabi wasn't exactly believable one days time was it? Oh look at what happened there.

If they got a tycoon takeover, then yes it is. Lets be honest though, a club like Man City getting a takeover by a royal family from Abu Dhabi wasn't exactly believable one days time was it? Oh look at what happened there.

They didn't get a takeover.

The "surprising things happen in real life" argument could be used to argue against any change to the game whatsoever.

Then it's not overly realistic; but it is a game.

And yes it can, hense why the installment feature is realistic. It's very rare that any clubs pay £10 million or whatever up front for a player, it's just not viable to let all that money leave the clubs balance in one shot and makes it a much more viable option doing it over a serious of monthly payments.

Ok so I'm guessing that Rangers had success before you got there. Whatever the scenario, they are clearly in a better financial state than they start the game in, in which case it may well be realistic for them to spend said £50m.

As for Marseille, is that you or the AI? Context is everything you see. Whichever it is, I'd like to refer you to Bayern Munich a couple of years ago when they'd hit a low and splashed millions on Luca Toni, Ribery, Klose and others. Similar type of spree for OM right there.

Ok so I'm guessing that Rangers had success before you got there. Whatever the scenario, they are clearly in a better financial state than they start the game in, in which case it may well be realistic for them to spend said £50m.

As for Marseille, is that you or the AI? Context is everything you see. Whichever it is, I'd like to refer you to Bayern Munich a couple of years ago when they'd hit a low and splashed millions on Luca Toni, Ribery, Klose and others. Similar type of spree for OM right there.

Rangers had won nothing since the start of the game. The only reason they had any money was because they'd just taken out a loan to deal with their debts.

The Marseille one is me in my very first season with them right at the start of the game.

Unlike Marseille Bayern actually have plenty of money, but even they couldn't spend £100m in a six month period. The problem is that you can spend an unrealistically large amount of money with absolutely every club you use.

Last time I checked David Moyes was still struggling to get together a squad to challange the big four, but if FM is to be believed he could win the title next season by spending £100m on an entire new first team.

Rangers had won nothing since the start of the game. The only reason they had any money was because they'd just taken out a loan to deal with their debts.

The Marseille one is me in my very first season with them right at the start of the game.

Unlike Marseille Bayern actually have plenty of money, but even they couldn't spend £100m in a six month period. The problem is that you can spend an unrealistically large amount of money with absolutely every club you use.

Last time I checked David Moyes was still struggling to get together a squad to challange the big four, but if FM is to be believed he could win the title next season by spending £100m on an entire new first team.

So the OM thing was you. Makes sense. Of course its not realistic. You are a student or a doctor or a bus driver or a bum or a <insert your occupation here> managing a Ligue 1 club. When has that ever happened?

You can't do stuff in game and then come on here saying its unrealistic. You did it. If the AI had done that I'd be weirded out because they don't push the 48 month limits like you really can.

Moyes is struggling because his club is skint, thats why they are struggling to get a squad together. If you offered him £100m (or even £25m that he could do installments on) he would snatch your hand off.

So the OM thing was you. Makes sense. Of course its not realistic. You are a student or a doctor or a bus driver or a bum or a <insert your occupation here> managing a Ligue 1 club. When has that ever happened?

You can't do stuff in game and then come on here saying its unrealistic. You did it. If the AI had done that I'd be weirded out because they don't push the 48 month limits like you really can.

Moyes is struggling because his club is skint, thats why they are struggling to get a squad together. If you offered him £100m (or even £25m that he could do installments on) he would snatch your hand off.

So if there is anything unrealistic in the game we shouldn't bother pointing it out so it can be improved?

My point is that Moyes can't spend £100m in real life, but if you manage Everton on FM you can.

It used to be much more realistic on earlier versions so I don't think it's too much to ask for this aspect of the game to be toned down a bit.

i think that the board should stop you from spending so many with monthly installments. there should be something like "the board has cancelled the player x deal because they think spending x millions is too much for the club's finances and that this transaction would have bad consequences in the future"

So if there is anything unrealistic in the game we shouldn't bother pointing it out so it can be improved?

My point is that Moyes can't spend £100m in real life, but if you manage Everton on FM you can.

It used to be much more realistic on earlier versions so I don't think it's too much to ask for this aspect of the game to be toned down a bit.

Not what I've said at all.

I'm fairly sure that in the 1st season you can't spend £100m with Everton.

Fair enough you say tone it down, I say its fine.

What they have to try and do is stop Barcelona buying Brian Jensen because they need a 3rd keeper, but thats for another thread.

Look, it's the only thing that makes FM10 playable. I won one league title in about 12 seasons of playing the game, and that was when I assembled a squad that was far, far superior to the rest of the league. Otherwise we cannot cope with the 2-3 guaranteed winless runs which usually stretch to 4-5 games and seem unavoidable regardless of tactics, teamtalks etc. In my current save, I have the best squad in the league but it's not far ahead of the rest and though we did brilliantly against the rivals, these inexplicable losing streaks (three of them) destroyed our chances of winning the league. I'm afraid if the transfer system is also made more difficult then FM will be unplayable for me.

So, Why don't SI add the caps on monthly payments??? The board will say they will allow X amount of money as monthly payment on the transfers. That amount will depend on the incomes of the club, and if the income of the club increases the amount will increases too. If you are at the limit of that amount, you cannot offer any more monthly payment on the future transfers until one of the current payment is paid off or something like that. So this will solve the problem of people using monthly payments on the transfers to sign unrealistic transfer targets, such as Sunderland signing Messi. Hope you guys like the idea.

UEFA is going to implement new rules for transfer spendings for european clubs from 2012 or so. I think FM should implement that feature from FM11 onwards.

UEFA is going to implement new rules for transfer spendings for european clubs from 2012 or so. I think FM should implement that feature from FM11 onwards.

This shouldn't be implemented in game until (& if) it becomes law. There are many, many powerful figures fighting this so it is by no means a foregone conclusion.

SI wouldn't put it in until it was a fact.

Besides its not a cap on transfer spending they are proposing its a cap on all spending, they want it to only come to 60% of earnings or something similar.

This shouldn't be implemented in game until (& if) it becomes law. There are many, many powerful figures fighting this so it is by no means a foregone conclusion.

SI wouldn't put it in until it was a fact.

Besides its not a cap on transfer spending they are proposing its a cap on all spending, they want it to only come to 60% of earnings or something similar.

Not exactly, it is about the club being solvent. Clubs won't be allowed to operate at a loss every year and they can only sign players from money generated by revenue streams such as TV money, sponsorship deals, prize money, match day income... In other words, the Abramoviches of this world won't be able to throw money at relatively smaller clubs to make them giants of the game, although they will be allowed to invest in stadiums and youth development.

Most of FM is a shambles these days.

Tactics are near impossible to get right for the average "clueless" casual gamer.

Players get upset at the silliest things, affecting entire squads. (I forgot to do a team talk after a 10-0 win versus a non league side, and my entire squad hated me. This lead to my side under-performing for months.)

Finances are ridiculous and poorly researched (ie researchers thinking every club is hundreds of millions in debt, when they are not. Napoli is one team in the database that has a debt, when in real life they are only of 2 or 3 in Serie A running on a surplus.)

Transfer market is also silly. Most clubs buy players purely on their PA and make poor squads while the human player buys meerly on stats alone and can buy over 48 months quite easily.

Even when you finally win a cup or league, nothing happens in 3D and you get a few messages about the event.

Such a let down.

I used to love this game, but I don't play it much anymore as it really is no longer fun.

Not what I've said at all.

I'm fairly sure that in the 1st season you can't spend £100m with Everton.

Fair enough you say tone it down, I say its fine.

What they have to try and do is stop Barcelona buying Brian Jensen because they need a 3rd keeper, but thats for another thread.

I've finally got around to proving you wrong on this point. This is what Bill Kenwright allowed me to do in the first transfer window:

That's not even the most extreme case. I still have £5m left in my transfer kitty and I could easily get more if I wanted.

I hope SI have fixed this problem for FM11 but I'm not holding my breath. I can just imagine all the threads on here complaining about the "bug" that stops your from signing Kaka, Messi and Ronaldo in the first transfer window.

Most of FM is a shambles these days.

Tactics are near impossible to get right for the average "clueless" casual gamer.

Players get upset at the silliest things, affecting entire squads. (I forgot to do a team talk after a 10-0 win versus a non league side, and my entire squad hated me. This lead to my side under-performing for months.)

Finances are ridiculous and poorly researched (ie researchers thinking every club is hundreds of millions in debt, when they are not. Napoli is one team in the database that has a debt, when in real life they are only of 2 or 3 in Serie A running on a surplus.)

Transfer market is also silly. Most clubs buy players purely on their PA and make poor squads while the human player buys meerly on stats alone and can buy over 48 months quite easily.

Even when you finally win a cup or league, nothing happens in 3D and you get a few messages about the event.

Such a let down.

I used to love this game, but I don't play it much anymore as it really is no longer fun.

Ronaldo got mad that he had to do a photo shoot with drogba....because there were both shirtless. This happened....in real life......not silly at all

miso i hear what your saying I and understand the point that you are trying to get across.

I think in your marseille example, at some point, the board would have stepped in and told you that you would no longer be able to make any more transfers 'as it would endanger the financial well being and future of the club'....or something to that effect.

I honestly doubt that marseille would or have ever spent money like that in one season let alone one transfer window.

I think it has to do with the AI of the board and I would like for it to be improved.

I agree with the OP. Transfers being paid in installments is definitely realistic, in fact the AI should do it more often, BUT the board should not allow us to spend 4x of our budget in one season by paying over 48 months.

I mostly play the so called "journeyman" way and it makes the game hell of a lot easier. By the time you get in trouble for spending all that money, you've already been promoted several times, your reputation is high and you are ready to move on to a bigger club anyway. Then, when I do get in charge of a big club, I don't have to wait 2 or three seasons to get all the players that I want. I can easily get them all right away, most likely win everything there is and get bored of the game much sooner than I used to.

The thing is though, with that Everton example above, you'll be losing almost £5 million a month just in transfer clauses.

Let's say we equate the signing on fees + increased wages of the higher profile players is roughly equal to money gained from losing the wages of the lower class players + the cash they were sold for.

So, over a year, you're already losing almost £60 million pounds. And that's a damn large amount to win back in prize money.

Whether or not it is wise to spend £208m in the first transfer window is not really the point. The point is that I shouldn't have been given the chance to find out.

The board should step in before you get close to spend that amount of money. Monthly installments or not.

I've finally got around to proving you wrong on this point. This is what Bill Kenwright allowed me to do in the first transfer window:

<snip>

That's not even the most extreme case. I still have £5m left in my transfer kitty and I could easily get more if I wanted.

I hope SI have fixed this problem for FM11 but I'm not holding my breath. I can just imagine all the threads on here complaining about the "bug" that stops your from signing Kaka, Messi and Ronaldo in the first transfer window.

You did make over £65m on transfers...

But I agree, I don't think most chairmen should be so willing to let you offer payment schemes over long periods of time that are unsustainable. If it is your original budget, then sure, but be prepared to lose money from your next few budgets. However, I disagree with the money I get from player sales effectively being multiplied by 2 or 4. If I sell Lionel Messi for £100m, I shouldn't be able to pay £400m over 48 months for Cristiano Ronaldo, because the £100m is a one off payment, unlike the budget which will be renewed next year. Even if my chairman only gives me £50m from the £100m, then I could spend £200m.

My proposal: separate "the budget" from money raised through sales that is available to spend. "The budget" can be spent on up front payments or in installments, as can a percentage of the money in. If you want to make payments over 48 months, that's 4 years. 100/4 is 25, so 25% of the transfer money made available can be spent on installments over 48 months. The other 75% can only be spent on one off payments.

while i agree that transfer installments should get a revamp in the form of making the installments take more from the transfer budget/making the owner more cautious about over-spending in a single year, i petty anyone who thinks that installments are risk free!!!

i was burned by installments in fm09, and after spending some heavy amounts with hull city, even though i got really big and was a top 4 side, it came back to bite me in the butt... i went into administration and lost the league by 1 point because of the -9 points :|

so its not as harmless as people think.

If you find it so unrealistic, and it ruins the fun of the game for you. Then why do you do it? I never get it why people complain so much about exploits in the game when it is so easy to not take advantage of it. Ofcourse it should be looked at by SI, and I am sure it will be. But that it ruins the fun of FM? Not by a long shot. You ruin it yourself by not being able to stay clear of the exploits.

If you find it so unrealistic, and it ruins the fun of the game for you. Then why do you do it? I never get it why people complain so much about exploits in the game when it is so easy to not take advantage of it. Ofcourse it should be looked at by SI, and I am sure it will be. But that it ruins the fun of FM? Not by a long shot. You ruin it yourself by not being able to stay clear of the exploits.

Great post mate

If you find it so unrealistic, and it ruins the fun of the game for you. Then why do you do it? I never get it why people complain so much about exploits in the game when it is so easy to not take advantage of it. Ofcourse it should be looked at by SI, and I am sure it will be. But that it ruins the fun of FM? Not by a long shot. You ruin it yourself by not being able to stay clear of the exploits.

I don't know why some people are so hostile to criticism of the game's defects.

This problem isn't caused solely by monthly installments; the whole system that determines your transfer and wage budgets is fundamentally flawed. To give just one example, the way you can move money from your wage budget to your transfer budget creates a perverse incentive to sack players so you can get a bigger transfer buget. To give another example, the fact that the board only care about bank balance means that they'll keep giving you unsustainable budgets even if the club is losing money hand over fist. The whole thing needs a complete overhaul.

I don't know why some people are so hostile to criticism of the game's defects.

I think you missed the point he was making, which is this bug doesn't make the game unplayable, as some posts seem to be saying. Indeed, you only encounter this bug if you go out your way to use it.

@edgar555

I had just taken over Rangers and it was my first transfer window. Here is another example of what I'm talking about:

You can't seriously defend that as realistic.

Yh i have to admit this is a joke. Ive been doing a network game with Arsenal and i got given about 38 million in 3rd season but spent about 100 milllion by doing monthly instalments !!! I hope this is sorted out for FM 2011

It's not a bug, it's just unrealistic chairman behaviour. FM is supposed to be a realistic simulation, so they should look to make the chairman behave in a more realistic manner.

Another comment on those screenshots: There are players arriving who probably would not IRL be interested in moving to said clubs (Gourcuff, Jovetic for example). In general it does seem to be far too easy to attract players to come and play for you. The worst examples I've seen are hot prospects/young players at big sides who have potential but are not yet close to making the first team. They seem far too willing to leave, and the big teams seem far too willing to let them go.

If you find it so unrealistic, and it ruins the fun of the game for you. Then why do you do it? I never get it why people complain so much about exploits in the game when it is so easy to not take advantage of it. Ofcourse it should be looked at by SI, and I am sure it will be. But that it ruins the fun of FM? Not by a long shot. You ruin it yourself by not being able to stay clear of the exploits.

True, but you should understand that its almost impossible to resist if its available especially for those managing lower-mid table teams.I think he has a point and this should be looked into as its a temptation even hardcore players might not be able to resist.Its like saying SAF shoulnt have sold Ronaldo 80million just because he didnt want to inflate the transfer market, that he should have asked for 40m when he was offered 80m.

Agree with OP : let's say Marseille have around 25M budget to spend at the start of the game (according to the 100M spread over 48m). They can choose installments or upfront payment. Installment is only a facility option but does not affect the budget allowed. See, Whether Marseille choose upfront or installements, they still have 25M to spend. They could buy for example 2 players, either paying upfront or spreading the 25 over 4 years. The club shouldn't be allowed to spend 25M every year with an original budget of 25M. Or, they could only if 1/ they would expect to have 25M of budget every year, for sure (which would not be realistic at all), and 2/ they would admit the annual 25M would have already been used in transfers from year 1 and so would agree to do no more deals (completely non realistic either) unless budget has been increased or some players have been sold.

As long as the 2 conditions are not gathered, and they are not, Marseille shouldn't be allowed to buy players for 100M value. This is indeed non realistic. Both the original budget of Marseille (25M) and the option to spread it over years (though 4 years look too much for me, not sure if it is used that much IRL?) are realistic, only the way it is applied is not.

It's not a bug, it's just unrealistic chairman behaviour. FM is supposed to be a realistic simulation, so they should look to make the chairman behave in a more realistic manner.

Another comment on those screenshots: There are players arriving who probably would not IRL be interested in moving to said clubs (Gourcuff, Jovetic for example). In general it does seem to be far too easy to attract players to come and play for you. The worst examples I've seen are hot prospects/young players at big sides who have potential but are not yet close to making the first team. They seem far too willing to leave, and the big teams seem far too willing to let them go.

I agree, most chairman, who would care about the club a little bit, wont take such a risk with finances.

Another option is that your transferbudget for next year(s) gets slashed: due to last years investsments the board have decided to cut the transferbudget and use 15 mln to pay outstanding fees