we6boss Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 If it was not set to zero, the chairman accepts ANY offer. I valued Zapata at 73 million and Inter offer 4 million and the chairman accepted. Chairman accepted a bid for Ochoa for lesser even though I valued him as unspecified. Both oif those tiems I had to resrtart the game and replay around a dozen matches. Game-ruiner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
we6boss Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Originally posted by DaveRH:yeah but you indicated (by setting those players values to 0) that you were willing to accept letting them move. If you don't treat the game realistically then how can you expect to get realistic results? You do not seem to get it either. I was FORCED to set them at zero because the chairman accepts bids of like 3-8 million for WORLD CLASS players. When at zero, the chairman usually never accepts it, until now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chahin Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 But why restart the game several times? Why not pick yourself up from losing a few star players? Makes the game more fun that way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peljam Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The game might need tweaking in that if Chairman have offers they are willing to accept over the head of managers then there should be associated lower limit where they won't. That said maybe there is something like that already in place? Maybe there is a chairman attribute when it comes to player sales/interference and some are better than others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
we6boss Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Because I spent 70 million on them and will hve to sell WORLD CLASS players at an exorbitant loss. Unrealistic and game-ruining. Lol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chahin Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 lol didnt know u spent 70 million on them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 @we6boss As one of the sad blokes who visits this forum more than I should (I don't watch Star Trek though ) I must stress that the over reaction of some members re proof is more indicative of the way the forums have been in recent times rather than the posters themselves. It's cynicism borne from experience of people posting threads where they over-react to things that sometimes have a logical explanation and often leads to a thread which descends into futile back and forth sniping (as you've seen with this thread) until a mod closes it. To respond to your post this latest post you made sheds light on it. The club I am managing is in debt by like 20 million euros but they are star players that I payed over 70 million, just so the chairman can allow them to leave by accepting $0.00 offers. Makes no sense and the game should be programed to be a little bit more cognizant than that I noticed this myself with AI managed clubs. I found it a bit strange that some first team players were going for sale values close to or less than their 'nominal' value. Basically what happened with AI clubs was once they got in debt, and also had significant loan repayments (this wasn't necessary but did contribute) the players got sold for much less than you would expect (the stored 'ask value' dropped significantly). I messed around with FM Modifier and discovered that for clubs in debt their 'ask value' drops proportionally to the negative balance and I suspect this 'ask value' behaviour is linked to why your chairman let them go for nothing as he probably has a similarly coded 'ask value' which determines the point at which he interferes. As you said it does appear to be coded in a very basic manner. I found messing around that in some cases sale value would drop for a club in debt even though in a few weeks time they would gain a large chunk of income when the season ended (in the English Premiership). So by artificially putting clubs in the red by changing their bank balance 'ask value' would drop, but once the end of season income came in to put the team back in black the 'ask values' would return to normal relative to squad status, CA/PA, etc. It definitely needs refining. As it stands it is like chairmen are like goldfish and deal in the moment. For example if you spent 40m on a player at the beginning of a season, competed in all the money making competitions to a level to ensure a nice chunk of income when the season ended yet were in the red as the season approached it's end then this could happen. Chairmen need to be made a bit more intelligent:- 1. Reference to purchase value relative to time at club and role/importance to club to negate a player being bought for x, featuring heavily and effectively in the season, and then being sold for a % of x because the chairman felt the offer was too good to turn down. 2. Reference to going market prices (admittedly not easy to code, although with caveats sale value does appear to work) 3. Reference to future income and it's impact on bank balance. 4. Reference to sell on clauses with a player's previous owners. 5. Some kind of interaction not only with the chairman but also the fans. The more examples people have the better as it allows the coders to see situations arising that they may not have initially considered when putting it together. Having said that this is one of those aspects of the game that feels like it was put together at the last minute without some kind of brainstorming to figure out what possible scenarios could arise and how the code would respond before the module was put out for general testing, and then released. You would think that the possibility of a negative bank balance but near future definite income would have been incorporated in the 'ask value' algorithm. FM for me feels like it is in the midst of a struggle. Some of the heavily advertised 'new features' feel like they were tacked on to please the marketing department while the main focus of the developers was on the important stuff, mainly the continued evolution of the match engine. I know others would argue differently but personally I've seen some things in the different versions of the 08 match engine that felt so much more realistic than 07 despite the various flaws that have been posted on many times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cometdude Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I can see your point here, because of the considered flaw, you set the value at 0 to try and get around this. I think that the board have used the reasoning that if you set the value to 0 the players are surplus to requirements and therefore you are wanting to give them free transfers. Never had a prolem with this myself I think you may have a board who's AI my need tweaking a little so as not to be too much of a money grabber. I think you may have paid the price and suffered the very thing you were trying to avoid. In hind sight it may have been better to have the values set high, at least you would have had something to show for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peljam Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Originally posted by isuckatfm:@we6boss As one of the sad blokes who visits this forum more than I should (I don't watch Star Trek though ) I must stress that the over reaction of some members re proof is more indicative of the way the forums have been in recent times rather than the posters themselves. It's cynicism borne from experience of people posting threads where they over-react to things that sometimes have a logical explanation and often leads to a thread which descends into futile back and forth sniping (as you've seen with this thread) until a mod closes it. To respond to your post this latest post you made sheds light on it. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The club I am managing is in debt by like 20 million euros but they are star players that I payed over 70 million, just so the chairman can allow them to leave by accepting $0.00 offers. Makes no sense and the game should be programed to be a little bit more cognizant than that I noticed this myself with AI managed clubs. I found it a bit strange that some first team players were going for sale values close to or less than their 'nominal' value. Basically what happened with AI clubs was once they got in debt, and also had significant loan repayments (this wasn't necessary but did contribute) the players got sold for much less than you would expect (the stored 'ask value' dropped significantly). I messed around with FM Modifier and discovered that for clubs in debt their 'ask value' drops proportionally to the negative balance and I suspect this 'ask value' behaviour is linked to why your chairman let them go for nothing as he probably has a similarly coded 'ask value' which determines the point at which he interferes. As you said it does appear to be coded in a very basic manner. I found messing around that in some cases sale value would drop for a club in debt even though in a few weeks time they would gain a large chunk of income when the season ended (in the English Premiership). So by artificially putting clubs in the red by changing their bank balance 'ask value' would drop, but once the end of season income came in to put the team back in black the 'ask values' would return to normal relative to squad status, CA/PA, etc. It definitely needs refining. As it stands it is like chairmen are like goldfish and deal in the moment. For example if you spent 40m on a player at the beginning of a season, competed in all the money making competitions to a level to ensure a nice chunk of income when the season ended yet were in the red as the season approached it's end then this could happen. Chairmen need to be made a bit more intelligent:- 1. Reference to purchase value relative to time at club and role/importance to club to negate a player being bought for x, featuring heavily and effectively in the season, and then being sold for a % of x because the chairman felt the offer was too good to turn down. 2. Reference to going market prices (admittedly not easy to code, although with caveats sale value does appear to work) 3. Reference to future income and it's impact on bank balance. 4. Reference to sell on clauses with a player's previous owners. 5. Some kind of interaction not only with the chairman but also the fans. The more examples people have the better as it allows the coders to see situations arising that they may not have initially considered when putting it together. Having said that this is one of those aspects of the game that feels like it was put together at the last minute without some kind of brainstorming to figure out what possible scenarios could arise and how the code would respond before the module was put out for general testing, and then released. You would think that the possibility of a negative bank balance but near future definite income would have been incorporated in the 'ask value' algorithm. FM for me feels like it is in the midst of a struggle. Some of the heavily advertised 'new features' feel like they were tacked on to please the marketing department while the main focus of the developers was on the important stuff, mainly the continued evolution of the match engine. I know others would argue differently but personally I've seen some things in the different versions of the 08 match engine that felt so much more realistic than 07 despite the various flaws that have been posted on many times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Beauty of a post Even if you don't watch Star Trek I do love the current match engine. I couldn't go back to 07 or 06, and the only reason I would play 05 now is because of the amount of leagues and speed my current computer could run it at. The game is making some definate improvements as it moves along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isuckatfm Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Scratch what I posted about the possible reason for your chairman selling your player for $0 (although what I posted is still an issue). I think that change was made in the patch as pre-patch people were essentially bypassing interference using the 0 ask value as a loophole. Now the interference point seems to be related to the ask value you set. If you'd spent more time on the forum than in the real world communicating with tangible people you'd know that . Apologies for repeating what you already said (and others) in my last post. About 20 posts appeared between the time I started typing and the time I hit Post Now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
we6boss Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Cometdude,Chanin,isuckatfm(excellent post), and everyone else who answered contructively,.. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. It is just a horribly implented feature to the point where it becomes deleteriously superfluous. Next year, they need to get rid of that chairman system or fix it completely. Thanks and Later guys... And If Im "warned"(lol!) or punished, so long. Lol! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cometdude Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Originally posted by Peljam:Beauty of a post Even if you don't watch Star Trek I do love the current match engine. I couldn't go back to 07 or 06, and the only reason I would play 05 now is because of the amount of leagues and speed my current computer could run it at. The game is making some definate improvements as it moves along. I'll second that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Smudge Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Originally posted by isuckatfm:@we6boss As one of the sad blokes who visits this forum more than I should (I don't watch Star Trek though ) I must stress that the over reaction of some members re proof is more indicative of the way the forums have been in recent times rather than the posters themselves. It's cynicism borne from experience of people posting threads where they over-react to things that sometimes have a logical explanation and often leads to a thread which descends into futile back and forth sniping (as you've seen with this thread) until a mod closes it. To respond to your post this latest post you made sheds light on it. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The club I am managing is in debt by like 20 million euros but they are star players that I payed over 70 million, just so the chairman can allow them to leave by accepting $0.00 offers. Makes no sense and the game should be programed to be a little bit more cognizant than that I noticed this myself with AI managed clubs. I found it a bit strange that some first team players were going for sale values close to or less than their 'nominal' value. Basically what happened with AI clubs was once they got in debt, and also had significant loan repayments (this wasn't necessary but did contribute) the players got sold for much less than you would expect (the stored 'ask value' dropped significantly). I messed around with FM Modifier and discovered that for clubs in debt their 'ask value' drops proportionally to the negative balance and I suspect this 'ask value' behaviour is linked to why your chairman let them go for nothing as he probably has a similarly coded 'ask value' which determines the point at which he interferes. As you said it does appear to be coded in a very basic manner. I found messing around that in some cases sale value would drop for a club in debt even though in a few weeks time they would gain a large chunk of income when the season ended (in the English Premiership). So by artificially putting clubs in the red by changing their bank balance 'ask value' would drop, but once the end of season income came in to put the team back in black the 'ask values' would return to normal relative to squad status, CA/PA, etc. It definitely needs refining. As it stands it is like chairmen are like goldfish and deal in the moment. For example if you spent 40m on a player at the beginning of a season, competed in all the money making competitions to a level to ensure a nice chunk of income when the season ended yet were in the red as the season approached it's end then this could happen. Chairmen need to be made a bit more intelligent:- 1. Reference to purchase value relative to time at club and role/importance to club to negate a player being bought for x, featuring heavily and effectively in the season, and then being sold for a % of x because the chairman felt the offer was too good to turn down. 2. Reference to going market prices (admittedly not easy to code, although with caveats sale value does appear to work) 3. Reference to future income and it's impact on bank balance. 4. Reference to sell on clauses with a player's previous owners. 5. Some kind of interaction not only with the chairman but also the fans. The more examples people have the better as it allows the coders to see situations arising that they may not have initially considered when putting it together. Having said that this is one of those aspects of the game that feels like it was put together at the last minute without some kind of brainstorming to figure out what possible scenarios could arise and how the code would respond before the module was put out for general testing, and then released. You would think that the possibility of a negative bank balance but near future definite income would have been incorporated in the 'ask value' algorithm. FM for me feels like it is in the midst of a struggle. Some of the heavily advertised 'new features' feel like they were tacked on to please the marketing department while the main focus of the developers was on the important stuff, mainly the continued evolution of the match engine. I know others would argue differently but personally I've seen some things in the different versions of the 08 match engine that felt so much more realistic than 07 despite the various flaws that have been posted on many times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeh a very good post and i think explains a bit of what I have experienced in my game. Where I am now in the red and therefore only allowed to spend certain ammounts of what comes in. The money is almost certainly going to to be in the black at the end of the season yet you are right in the way the game only seems to look short term. Because im not dealing in massive ammounts of monet it is unlikely that the chairman would sell players for offers under value but I can see how in the extrem case of this it would. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
megafan2005 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 i had this player elano and he had a poor season for me so i set his thing to £13M as his value was about £8.5M then he has a very good seasonj with assists galore. i hadnt changed his thing but his value stood at £17M but Thaskin Shinwatra obviously looked at the £13M i set and accepted the deal tbh i deserved it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
we6boss Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 I just wanted to apologize for my behavior and for anything that you find insulting. It was uncharacteristic of me. Again, I apologize. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoopyPants Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Look mate, I agree with what your saying about the forums being so negative, but if you stake a claim, you'll need to prove it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy slappy Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 This thread is full of balls if I don't see any screenshot's, I mean, what is the point of making a claim like this but not being able to produce screenshots to show as proof? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
turn it upto 11 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Originally posted by we6boss:Lmao? Do I want a warning? Lol.. please do not reprimand me in this society filled with the amalgamation of camaraderie and accord. Wow,,, this isn't Lost. 1st off, I did not anything wrong. Secondly, I am calm, just really shocked at some people's pitiful outlook. Thanksfully, I live in a city and I have tangible people to communicate to. You should warn yourselves that winning a UEFA cup in FM will only give paltry and spurious satisfaction. Seriously, be productive and stop living in la-la land. Where is the star-trek convention? somebody got a thesaurus for christmas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klimowicz Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Originally posted by turn it upto 11:somebody got a thesaurus for christmas class i read the whole topic (very entertaining, thanks guys), i can understand why you would set the player values at $0.00 from what you've explained, we6boss, but you have to understand that if the AI sees a set value for a player, the AI will bid. the chairman should have rejected the bid, but you assumed that chairmen in FM08 made sensible financial decisions sometimes (apart from accepting mediocre amounts for world class players). they obviously take into account the managers valuation of a player. you should have guessed that if they were accepting $4M for players worth more than that, they would accept low amounts for players, despite a more than secure financial situation. four words could have avoided this situation: minimum release fee clause. whichever league i'm managing in, when i sign a player or negociate a contract with an existing squad member, i will always include a stupidly high release fee in the contract, usually no less than £80M. sometimes, i set £30M or so, just incase the player is expendable. you don't want to completely price the player out of the market, but you want to be overcompensated if you lose him. setting release fees deter AI clubs from amking a bid 99% of the time, unless the fee is realistic and affordable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lambs Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 If you keep an eye on the list of managers job stability, you will see that the list can also be organised by the clubs wealth. If I see a club in money trouble or bankrupt I always go and check out their players, in my experience, 90% of the time a bankrupt club will accept a £0 bid for any of their players. I landed a few stars for my championship side over the last couple of seasons by doing this. It appears that any chairman that is in debt just wants to lower his wage bill as soon as possible. Luckily i have not run a club into debt my self, so I have not had it happen to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest arrogantio Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I'll agree that the system ought to take into account expected future income when evaluating a club's financial situation A chairman selling players for well below their market value when a club is in unsustainable debt is not a problem however. Leeds collected 3 million for Kewell, 7 million for Keane, 3.6 million for Milner, 1 million for Lennon, 1.5million for Robinson and 3 million for Fowler - that's less than £20m for players that would have recouped around £70million if the club didn't have debts to pay. Setting the transfer value to £0 in the hope that this will lead to rejected bids is simply hoping to exploit a bug - in this case there was no bug and the chairman deferred to your judgement on their value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earmack Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Good. How about not setting the value of your star players as 0 in an attempt to stop better clubs bidding for them. Also I read a thesaurus once aswell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephanie McMahon's Secret Lover Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Well I do watch Star Trek and I say... Why does everyone keep firing at poor Will??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave C Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Originally posted by turn it upto 11:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by we6boss: Lmao? Do I want a warning? Lol.. please do not reprimand me in this society filled with the amalgamation of camaraderie and accord. Wow,,, this isn't Lost. 1st off, I did not anything wrong. Secondly, I am calm, just really shocked at some people's pitiful outlook. Thanksfully, I live in a city and I have tangible people to communicate to. You should warn yourselves that winning a UEFA cup in FM will only give paltry and spurious satisfaction. Seriously, be productive and stop living in la-la land. Where is the star-trek convention? somebody got a thesaurus for christmas </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But unfortunately not a dictionary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
howdy-doody Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 In reply to the OPs comments about why he was allowed to spend so much,is it possible that it was simply bad financial management by the club owner(ie.as was the case with Leeds recently). If so maybe this shouldnt be a feature in the future!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Themistofelis Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 making the chairman part of the transfer market was just a bad idea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggressive minor Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Hahahahaha! The people on this forum are such babies sometimes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryknow Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 I made a 80k bid for a barcelona youth who was very promising and the barca board accepted it saying it was too good to turn down, found that very strange. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thepathtoamen Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 same here. got the kid when he was like 16 and couldn;t move till he was 18 so had to wait 2 years but the other board said it was to good to say no to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.