PDA

View Full Version : Logical behaviour or a bug? [11.0.3]



Fat_Steve
20-04-2011, 21:50
Players that are plenty good enough to be star players in my first eleven start asking for Backup squad status when I approach to sign them.

Previously they have wanted Key Player status - which has usually been negotiable down to First Team, but unfortunately I couldn't meet their wage demands so I waited a little, then inexplicably (to me) they start asking for Backup status - but for more money! (Though this is usually without a team of year bonus clause, even the addition of one won't lower their demands)

I've been experiencing this with free players (I don't have a transfer budget to test other players). As a general rule of thumb these players' wage demands quickly go up in the first week of the game, then after the start of the season gradually drop until just before the winter transfer window when they start to go up again. A pretty logical basic model. That was the premise upon which I was trying to sign players that I hadn't been able to afford at the start of the game.
The first time through it was fairly successful - while I did notice that some players made unusual squad and wage demands I didn't realise how odd it was until (due to a player-coach bug) I had to start the game again from an earlier save point. The second time through I was very frustrated that I couldn't sign the players I had spent so long scouting and chasing in the first game due to bizarre wage demands behaviour.

In the end I started reloading the game over and over to see if I could identify why it suddenly changes - but I couldn't. I could holiday once and they would act as expected. But when I tried to play through to the appropriate point they would ask for backup player at twice the previous wage demand. And then vice-versa.

I have one player in particular on trial that is frustrating me. He is a left midfielder and clearly the best player in my squad for that position, in fact he is among the very best players in my squad fullstop. I have a save point right before the first friendly of the pre-season. He is on trial for one week of which there are 3 days remaining.
The only variables that occur over these three days that I can find that might affect his wage expectations are to do with the match (how well he plays, the team plays, my team talk, his morale) - (a right-back is ready to join (accept, delay or cancel), and I get to recommend a feeder club or reject the options but I've eliminated these by experimentation).
Before the game he requests 250/wk + 25/app as a Key Player - his morale is Good and his happiness is "Happy to stay at the club" (this is the same in all scenarios). After the game the right-back joins the club, and the day after the game the left-winger on trial wants the same wages and status. (This is negotiable down to 150/week as a First Teamer if I extend his contract an extra year.)

But then the next day, the day before his trial ends, he changes his demands. This is always one of two changes:
a) he asks for 220/week + 25 /app as a First Teamer (accepting an extended contract at 130/week) or
b) if his morale is very good, he asks for 210 + 85 as a Backup player! He won't come down below 150 + 60 as a Backup player, or 210 + 60 as a first teamer - even with a doubled Team of the Year bonus and a year's extension thrown in.

When I reload the game to resume my campaign in proper, I will be doing so in the knowledge that if I make the player unhappy I will be able to sign him for less! If I intentionally lose the match I will have a better chance of signing a player! If I don't pick him he will sign as a first teamer, but if he plays and picks up man of the match he will expect to be a backup player! :S

More than half of the trials I offer end with players bizarrely asking for Backup status and the higher wages that go with it.
But the fact that this key players wanting backup status & the backup wage demands being more lucrative than the key player demands is occuring all over my game with players that aren't on trial either.


Another specific example these crazy variations and illogical demands is, after the England Triallists matches several young players suddenly drop their high wage demands and "not interested" attitudes and ask for youth contracts. When offered part or full time contracts they then add a clause that after 20 league appearances they should get paid 500/week for example, about twice as much as their original extortionate demands!
(just to put that into perspective, the most I can offer a Key player is 300 / week, the most I can offer a first team player is 150/week) So if I try to give them a little first team experience for the last few minutes of matches, before Christmas they would be the club's biggest earners earning as much as half-the-team-together! This is made even more bamboozling, because if I change the squad status from youngster/ hot prospect to first teamer they want an unrealistic 400/week - much more than the 25/week they initially wanted as youth players and yet less than as youngsters, yet less than their demands as youngsters! :S

I'm eager for rational explanations because so far I'm regretting starting this game now - I've found it so frustrating that I've been playing for a month and haven't even reached Christmas of the first season - and it's been nothing to do with results.

The more I try to understand how the game works the more bewildering it gets.
I can't work out why two almost identical coaches give conflicting backroom advice. The only time they agree is when the advice blatantly wrong!
Two almost identical scouts do too.
Why do so many players need to be discouarged from using their weaker foot - even when they are skillfull with both feet?
Which physio is assessing my injured players? The "obscure" one with the 19 attribute in physiotherapy, or the "regional" one with 14 in that skill? The regional one is giving the reports despite being inferior in every mental and coaching stat. Which is the better physio? The one with the good stats or the one with the bigger reputation?
How can a player be given a good stat for a technical ability but then a poor technique stat? Either he can cross or not, surely? The same with finishing affecting penalty taking - what was the researcher assessing for the penalty taking stat if not the player's ability to finish from the penalty spot?
Even at the very start of the game before the continue button is clicked this game is infuriating - board requests! I'm certain yet reluctant to believe that the board's responses are utterly random.

Is it just 11.3 that's like this or have all the versions been this way?