Seriously needs an option to turn ref "mistakes off"

[Legion22]

I give you 10 out of 10 for perseverance.

0 out of 10 for accepting when you are beaten.

LOL. Ya, whatever mate.

My opinion of a feature that should be included is "wrong" because you say so........I`ll remember that line of argument next time.

[Legion22]

In your opinion, in real life what is the ratio of goals scored due to a referee's error in relation to games thrown due to bribery? On the basis of your argument realism requires humans to breathe too, so why is that not included in the game?

There are priorities, and refereeing errors(which are happening more than ever) are a necessity whereas bribing officials isnt.

No, the "realism" argument is NOT my argument. The "bribery" option is simply to point out that there ARE things that are NOT in the game that ARE realistic but NONE of you want in the game.

[edgar555]

LOL. Ya, whatever mate.

My opinion of a feature that should be included is "wrong" because you say so........I`ll remember that line of argument next time.

Yes thats right Legion, I'm the only one who's contributed to this thread and disagreed with you aren't I?

I'm going to take things real slow and easy for you just so that you can understand because you clearly aren't the sharpest tool (maybe thats too appropriate) in the box:

1) Refs make mistakes IRL. So, they should do so in the game. You with me so far?

2) Only one person (allegedly) has agreed with you. With over 100,000 registered users on here, it would suggest that there is almost no support for your idea.

3) Therefore even if it was the easiest thing in the world to code, SI are not going to put it in because 1 person wants it.

Cheers, take care.

[Legion22]

And I bet that 100,000 registered users have read the thread. I further bet that those 100,000 are genuinely representative of the peopple who buy the FM series.

MAny things are in the game that should not be.

Let me ask, do you think that the majority of football managers work out transfer fees? Sell on clauses? Wages? Bonuses? So should we not remove this feature in the quest for realism?

[edgar555]

No, the "realism" argument is NOT my argument. The "bribery" option is simply to point out that there ARE things that are NOT in the game that ARE realistic but NONE of you want in the game.

No, no, no.

It would appear that you are completely incapable of understanding anything.

There are certain things that some of us would like to see included (personally no bribes for me) but due to LEGAL reasons they cannot be included. Therefore it is pointless us asking and arguing for them.

Unlike your idea which is just plain pointless and no one else wants. You are still crying a week later because your team got beaten. Man up and accept it.

EDIT: this post also answers #254. I for one do not understand why the mods allowed this stupid thread and your utterly imbecilic idea to be reopened. It is a nonsense perpetuated by someone who is either as thick as they are making out or is on a serious wind up.

[Slawbawn]

No, the "realism" argument is NOT my argument. The "bribery" option is simply to point out that there ARE things that are NOT in the game that ARE realistic but NONE of you want in the game.

Probably find that thing's like bribery can't be included due to legal issues anyway, so that's pretty flawed.

Edit: Nevermind, just saw edgars post.

[aaron1606]

No, no, no.

It would appear that you are completely incapable of understanding anything.

There are certain things that some of us would like to see included (personally no bribes for me) but due to LEGAL reasons they cannot be included. Therefore it is pointless us asking and arguing for them.

Yep. Including things like bribery would just be lawsuits waiting to happen.

[Neil Peters]

Simply put, like others have said, it would take developers away from not only implementing new features into the game but also existing area. Somebody has already replied that has a fair bit of know how with programming, and sugar daddy takeovers are done with an edt file, that can be turned off, board takeovers do not happen often therefore its not a huge thing to implement, as with edt files, they are used because its doesnt take long to effect the code, but what your talking about changes a big part of the game.

The match engine is the main part of the engine which takes in many different reasonings, morale, players that play, referee, weather etc, the list goes on, your talking about changing a MAJOR part of the game, its not something that could be done in a day, your having to change a fair bit of code just to allow an option to turn off mistakes, your having to change all sorts of different variables, add code to allow for the option, then test the code, if it causes crashes or anything along them lines then the code needs changing, testing again extensivly, your not talking a days work, or a weeks work, but your talking weeks at the least of programming, testing, which would then remove the coders and testers away from developing the new and existing features. Therefore, to answer your request for someone to give a good reason, there you go.

[dfa120374]

UM....................................no...........

I want this option in and think it would benefit players and it would not affect those who do want stupid offside calls in the game. IF (see that word?) however, it would require huge amounts of work, to the point of taking devs away from new features then I would concede that the time could be better spent.

What part of that is difficult to grasp?

Um.......................yes..............

What part is difficult for YOU to grasp that people do not want this option in the game?? People have given their reason's why, from their own personal opinions to people actually TELLING you that the coding would take up a sufficient amount of time, yet you're still blabbering on about YOU wanting this option in the game. What about what OTHER people want?! You dissmiss their replies as not being valid and that you want proof yet when they do the same to you, you have a pop at them or throw an insult in their direction. Hmmmmmmmmmm you're getting pretty good at this contradiction stuff. Well done - something finally going your way

You brought up the bribery and said that THAT is part of real life yet it's not in the game. People have told you why yet you don't even listen to them on THAT one either - even when a member of the testing team says about it you ignore it. Would you need proof for you to believe that too?! It's just like a 3 year old not getting something they want and because they don't get it they start throwing their toys out the pram.

One other thing before I let you go back to la-la land - I'm sure that you have had plenty of bad refereeing calls in the game go FOR you yes? So why is it that as soon as one call goes against you, you want an option to turn the referee calls off?? This would brand you as being hypocritical (see THAT word?) as well. Bad refereeing calls are just as much a part of the game as they are in real-life football so why don't you just suck it up, get on with it instead of moaning about it, stop giving us all a headache about what YOU want and going on & on about it and let it drop.

If you don't like it then don't play it and give us all a break!!

I for one do not understand why the mods allowed this stupid thread and your utterly imbecilic idea to be reopened. It is a nonsense perpetuated by someone who is either as thick as they are making out or is on a serious wind up.

Amen to that!

[DSYoungEsq]

What I find quite incomprehensible in the original position taken by the OP is his complaint that somehow the fact that the "mistakes" of the officials aren't determined by real-world factors, but are instead the result of a die-roll, somehow makes it not "realistic." By that logic, nothing in the game is "realistic" because everything that happens in the game is the resut of thousands and thousands of those random number generations. When you get that stupid message that "<ST> has to bury this!", followed by no goal, that's the result of a die roll, not the result of some sort of realistic set of factors that actually would influence whether or not he buries the shot (sun in his eyes, small clump of grass in the wrong spot popping the ball up, etc.). The determination that the official made an error is no less realistic because of the fact that it's the result of a die roll.

And somehow, I don't think the OP would be any happier about the situation if the coders came in and said, "Actually, we code for the mistakes as a result of a complex set of simulated factors, such as whether or not the official had an argument with his wife that morning, is he hung-over from the night beore, and did he get distracted at the precise moment by a loud noise from a player warming up behind him." These would make the result more "realistic," and he'd still be ****ed-off that the blown call occurred.

While he's asking for options, why not simply ask for the "I win everytime my team has the better players" option?

[Guy Smiley]

This thread makes me smile. Sure, Legion's feature will never get put in due to the numbers in opposition, but that's not the point of the thread.

And I don't think he's "beaten" at all. I think he defeated the realism argument (that is, realism isn't reason enough to put a feature in). And the development time argument is flimsy (I don't think it would take very long at all).

Legion, I like your tenacity.

(It's also funny when people claim to be oh-so-annoyed, and yet strangely keep coming back to this thread to read and post again...)

[Coasterkoa]

The entire match engine is just a system of "dice rolls". A striker being in an offside position instead of an onside position is a "dice roll", the striker actually making the shot rather than missing is a "dice roll". Its the state of our current match engine. If you're saying that ref mistakes because they cant be properly coded, then you have to agree that the entire match engine cannot be properly coded, and the entire game should just be not coded because its not able to be accomplished to the Nth degree of accuracy you desire. If so, then this game certainly isn't for you.

[jod123]

This thread makes me smile. Sure, Legion's feature will never get put in due to the numbers in opposition, but that's not the point of the thread.

And I don't think he's "beaten" at all. I think he defeated the realism argument (that is, realism isn't reason enough to put a feature in). And the development time argument is flimsy (I don't think it would take very long at all).

Legion, I like your tenacity.

(It's also funny when people claim to be oh-so-annoyed, and yet strangely keep coming back to this thread to read and post again...)

You don't think it would take very long?

I am not being funny here. Just out of curiosity, seen as I have experience of coding, I would like you to expand on your opinion on that. I mean your opinion might possess more expertise than mine and I would like to know your take on that side of the argument. I am only a student after all so maybe you could have a better understanding. Thanks

[Legion22]

No, no, no.

It would appear that you are completely incapable of understanding anything.

There are certain things that some of us would like to see included (personally no bribes for me) but due to LEGAL reasons they cannot be included. Therefore it is pointless us asking and arguing for them.

Unlike your idea which is just plain pointless and no one else wants. You are still crying a week later because your team got beaten. Man up and accept it.

EDIT: this post also answers #254. I for one do not understand why the mods allowed this stupid thread and your utterly imbecilic idea to be reopened. It is a nonsense perpetuated by someone who is either as thick as they are making out or is on a serious wind up.

Are you seriously attempting to misrepresent me? Dont have the audacity to call me thick, when you cannot see the point I was making with the "bribery"

Here, let me spell it out.

If it were possible to include bribery in the game, would you want it included?

Do you want the transfer system removed?

The first IS realistic, but nobody would want it in the game.

The second is NOT realistic, yet we all want it in the game.

Thus the "realism" argument only stands as long as YOU want it to.

[Legion22]

This thread makes me smile. Sure, Legion's feature will never get put in due to the numbers in opposition, but that's not the point of the thread.

And I don't think he's "beaten" at all. I think he defeated the realism argument (that is, realism isn't reason enough to put a feature in). And the development time argument is flimsy (I don't think it would take very long at all).

Legion, I like your tenacity.

(It's also funny when people claim to be oh-so-annoyed, and yet strangely keep coming back to this thread to read and post again...)

Yes, it is funny how all these people are so offended by my "imbecilic thread" that they simply HAVE to come on and make the argument that they don`t like the idea, thus the option is worthless.

I maintain that for all future incaranations of FM the number of managers available should be limited to 2 simultanueous, as I don`t like the fact that other players may use secondary managers to buy their reserve team for £200000000000000000000. Further, I demand that in future the game can only be saved once every game month because I don`t want other players to load/save to victory.

[Legion22]

What part is difficult for YOU to grasp that people do not want this option in the game?? People have given their reason's why, from their own personal opinions to people actually TELLING you that the coding would take up a sufficient amount of time, yet you're still blabbering on about YOU wanting this option in the game. What about what OTHER people want?!

Because an option that you DON`T use does NOT affect you does it? For the same reason other people load/saving to World Cup victory doesn`t affect you.

You dissmiss their replies as not being valid and that you want proof yet when they do the same to you, you have a pop at them or throw an insult in their direction. Hmmmmmmmmmm you're getting pretty good at this contradiction stuff.

Because EVERY argument aginst the option is an argument FOR NOT USING it, not for not having it. The exception to this is the coding workload, which has not been evidenced in any way.

You brought up the bribery and said that THAT is part of real life yet it's not in the game. People have told you why yet you don't even listen to them on THAT one either - even when a member of the testing team says about it you ignore it.

No, I didn`t. Your failure to understand the point is not my problem. Here it is again. If it were possible to include bribery, would you want it included?

If you answer "no" then the realism argument has dissapeared, as you freely admit that an aspect of the real world should not be included, simply because YOU don`t like it.

Would you need proof for you to believe that too?!

That including bribery........oh I can`t be bothered, read what I said above.

This would brand you as being hypocritical (see THAT word?) as well. Bad refereeing calls are just as much a part of the game as they are in real-life football so why don't you just suck it up, get on with it instead of moaning about it, stop giving us all a headache about what YOU want and going on & on about it and let it drop.

lol, must be a real bitch, yanno, actually HAVING to read and respond to this thread? Tell you what, I`ll stop coming to your house and forcing you at gunpoint to read it.

[Neji]

Once again, the thread is going round in circles and no one is going to agree here so thread closed.