Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About drizzlynewt

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

794 profile views
  1. Right, so because I pointed out that I hadn't taken a comment you made which wasn't about me personally - which should just be common sense - and explained why, no, a thread from 2015 absolutely is not relevant to a discussion about the current match engine... You think I'm so angry that you can feel it coming off me? I'm absolutely astounded. You come in here, your first post is basically you saying "Hi SI, just wanted to say ignore all the criticism here, these people just don't know their tactics, everyone loves the game really!", you receive universal responses indicating people feel patronised and are annoyed with you... Somehow you come out of this thinking you've done nothing wrong and the only possible reason why anyone might want to suggest you've been exceptionally rude is if they were unable to contain their anger. When there's no actual reason for them to be angry. If I might offer an alternative explanation... What if I saw someone who's clearly getting frustrated by the fact that the response to them is overwhelmingly negative and thought "I might help this guy out by explaining to him what it is about his approach that's making people react to him this way"? Because, what you're doing here is, you keep trying in every response to slightly change what you said before... To say "Oh, I meant this", to say "This was my intention". First you say people have a problem with tactics and laugh at them for it. *Then* you pretend it was a tongue in cheek comment. Then when I point out that no, you were seriously suggesting they didn't know how to do tactics... Suddenly it was just the *emoticon* which was tongue in cheek (which, incidentally, confirms that no, you don't understand what tongue in cheek means). The thing is, I believe you've actually come to understand why that silly thread you posted wasn't at all relevant, but for all you're trying to act like you're "being the bigger man", you won't do the one thing which would get you some respect back and say something a bit like this; "You know what, I came into this thread a bit overconfident and I was really rude, acting like other people didn't have a right to make a complaint because I didn't notice the same problem and because I think I'm better than everyone I started trying to tell them how to play the game which made them feel patronised. You're right, that thread wasn't at all relevant to the discussion and it was presumptuous of me to think that I knew better than everyone. Sorry". Instead you just ignore everything people say to you and try one excuse after another to try to show that you were actually right all along and everyone else is the problem, not you.
  2. Yes, I took a comment which wasn't aimed at me personally. No, I saw you obnoxiously making comments suggesting other posters were ignorant and didn't have your in depth understanding of the game in an effort to belittle their feedback and decided to step in. You can't fall back on "I was being tongue in cheek" when you then proceed to argue, repeatedly, that the problem *is* their tactics. Do you understand what "tongue in cheek" actually means or do you just think if you say you were being tongue in cheek after posting something it shields you from any criticism? I really don't understand how you can possibly be this dense. People are making posts *comparing the match engine to previous versions of the game*. What possible bearing does a thread about tactics from 2015 have on that? Did someone five years ago have a crystal ball, look into the future and detail how you'd change your tactics in the match engine of 2020 in order to get the players to be able to score one on one opportunities with the regularity one might expect? How you are *still* after numerous detailed explanations failing to grasp what they're actually saying is truly bewildering.
  3. Right, so in summary, you're talking to people who are able to play the game much more successfully than yourself in terms of winning things, meaning they obviously have a better idea than you do of how to set up a team and use tactics within the game, but you feel like you're in a position to tell them that their observations about match engine failings are down to failures of their tactics along with, completely obnoxiously, doing the "laughing face emoticon" which is exclusively the province of smug people with no idea of what they're talking about who are arrogant because they're unaware of their own boundless ignorance and so think they're the ones who are clued in and have a right to talk down to others? You're fundamentally misunderstanding what people are saying. They are not saying "Oh, my tactic has a lot of goals from X scenario, this means that Y scenario which my tactic isn't set up for is underpowered in the game". They're suggesting that in incidences of a certain scenario happening - for example one on ones - the rate at which goals are scored is considerably less than they think should be expected. You can have a tactic which repeatedly funnels opportunities for your striker to be one on one with the goalkeeper and find that he scores a lot of goals... But his conversion rate of those one on ones might actually be really low. He could be scoring a lot because of the sheer volume of opportunities he's afforded by the tactic. On that basis it may be that the chances of scoring a one on one opportunity are too low *despite* your guy getting a lot of goals. Some of your other comments are completely bizarre. Someone has set their tactics up for their players to attempt to score from set pieces... So they should change them? Tell me, which football team in the world doesn't try to score from set pieces? What a completely ridiculous thing to say! If he finds that his defenders are able to score 4 goals from set pieces and 18 over a season *that could be an isolated incident*. It might not be a valid concern. But your response is completely bewildering and, again, indicates a completely failure to even understand the point that is being made. But yeah, in summary, if you've played a lot less hours on the game than other people and you're not as good at the game, maybe instead of boasting about how you "understand the game" because you read a thread from five years ago which has no bearing whatsoever on the current engine and rubbishing their points you'd be better served to take the time to understand what their criticisms are, examine them and attempt to come up with a thoughtful response?
  4. I tend to be of the opinion that checking the scout report for negatives like inconsistency, dreading big games, trouble adapting or being injury prone (and positives like consistency and enjoying big matches) is *the* single most important thing when it comes to actually being good at this game. Not really sure why you think there'd be a fight, but I'm also not interested in having one. Thanks.
  5. "A few matches" is a very small sample size though. Regardless, not every player will encounter those problems. It may be that you've been able to recruit a bunch who'll have no problems adapting. That doesn't mean that next time you go to sign someone from South America that won't prove to be an issue. Again, I'm not suggesting there's no benefit at all from scouting there or signing players. I'm just advising you that this isn't a completely fool proof way of doing things. Rather than dismiss the stuff I'm telling you if you keep it in mind and use it to help inform your decisions about which players to sign (or not sign) from South America you can mitigate the risks. Check the scout report. Does it suggest they will have problems adapting to living in another country as a negative? Some of them might already know English (or the language of whatever nation you're playing in if it's not England but, if you're a relatively new top flight side and have 90 million, I'm guessing it's probably England) and the ability to communicate can be beneficial to a player assimilating into a team. So if you have a choice between two players who are otherwise similar and one knows the language and one doesn't, that can be a deciding factor. I don't really understand how you think that's a different reason for the US being a poor choice; Poor players who are easily affordable, good players who are on really high wages which are well beyond their actual value. You've just used slightly different wording to make the same point.
  6. This isn't the foolproof strategy you seem to think it is. You're bringing in players who probably don't speak the language of your country. They might have issues with adapting. There is the "silly foreign player limit" to take into account limiting the scope of this which isn't that silly and is a legitimate concern when it comes to who you want to sign although I think the difficulties presented by that can vary quite a bit dependent on what Brexit scenario you get. There are obvious plus sides to scouting South America but there are also down sides. You seem to be at a point where you're making a bunch of signings and announcing "This is the way to do it, I'm on the right track now!" before you've actually had a chance to see how they work out. You also don't seem to have really grasped what it is about what you're doing that's giving you the positive results, as indicated by you wanting to scout MLS; Brazil and Argentina (and, to a lesser extent, Uruguay and Mexico) are economically weak leagues (meaning they'll accept lower value offers) who have consistently produced exceptionally good talents. This isn't the case for MLS where squads will be primarily full of poor players on low wages but, economically, the good players will be on very high designated contracts which will usually be well above their actual value. You're basing it on geographical proximity rather than considering other places where the combination of economically weak league meets consistent production of quality; You'd be much better served scouting places like Holland and Belgium than the USA.
  7. Then if I could make a suggestion; Perhaps a *private* rebuke would be in order in instances where the conduct of a person will not be visible to the community at large? Surely the only purpose of doing so publicly - assuming that you're not attempting to embarrass someone - is to have it act as an example of what is acceptable/unacceptable behaviour? The same problem arises now on account of Lucas' action; I made a criticism of you which, in retrospect, may have been invalid on the basis of information which was simply not available to me. You were able to clarify your position. I get the sense that this was, in part, because you understood that with the information available to me there was a valid cause for concern. Had my post been left in place it would have been possible for others reading the forum to be informed about this matter. Once an action is taken in public, rather than in private, it opens it up to public scrutiny. I'm not saying this just to be argumentative but because it needs to be taken into account that, had I not decided to actually address the matter with you (as the vast majority of people won't) I'd have been left with a really bad impression of the forum. I can't believe that I'm the only person who'd feel that way in instances where people are having posts directly quoted and being warned for behaviour which not only isn't in that post but can't be found at all on the message board. On the other hand chastising a user privately to address behaviour which is no longer public would not only avoid potentially giving a bad impression to other users (or, for that matter, spamming up a thread) but would also be more likely to result in rehabilitation of the poster in question because people are more likely to acquiesce to your requests when there isn't an element of public embarrassment attached. Regardless, I appreciate the clarification and the humility required to make it.
  8. Is there any reason why attributes can no longer be selected from this drop down? Removing this and forcing you to use the "attributes" section to the right exclusively results in the following problems; You can no longer select both a minimum and maximum value when searching for attributes. When you are trying to find, for example, someone to be a technical coach and you're unable to get staff members with a technical attribute of a certain amount to join you, you might want to reduce your maximum setting to exclude the people you've already tried and failed to sign. If you're playing as a smaller club remembering the individual names of all the guys you already spoke to (or rearranging the attributes which are displayed every single time to include what you're searching for, rather than being able to use your own custom settings) can be a real pain in the ass. You can no longer add a single attribute to your search criteria at a later point. You will have to use the option on the right. This is particularly annoying because if you've tweaked the values for the attributes you're looking for that'll all go out the window... When you add in another attribute that and the pre-existing ones must all be set to one individual value. I'm sure there are other problems with this that haven't immediately occurred to me... You have a game in which searching for people by a set of values is a key aspect yet you've taken a set up which offered a comprehensive set of options to do that and stunted it. What could possibly have led to such a completely ridiculous decision? Could you please advise if this is something that's been messed up by accident or a deliberate decision?
  9. Hopefully this is me having a moment where I'm going blank and forgetting how to do something really basic which should be obvious, because if this is a change that someone's actually decided to make to the staff search I absolutely despair to think how someone who'd come to this decision would be allowed anywhere near the game, but... When you're searching for a staff member, how do you select both a minimum and maximum stat for an attribute? I don't mean using the thing on the right where you click on "pick" next to "attributes"... So far as I can see it only gives the option to highlight the attributes you want and then set a minimum OR maximum value. I'm sure it used to be that in the general drop down on the left, through which you can select contract, employment status, nationality, etc. there was an option for attributes too, which allowed you to select one individually and add it onto the list. If this has been removed then not only is it limiting the functionality of setting both a maximum and minimum value you want to search for; It also means any time you want to add a new attribute to the search you can't do it individually and have to do it by using the option on the left, which will immediately set ALL highlighted attributes to the same value... Meaning that if you'd already been tweaking them to different levels individually you'll have to do that all over again when you add an additional one. So yeah... Can anyone reassure me that it's just me suddenly forgetting how to do something I used to know rather than being an actual feature change from SI?
  10. Hey man, just to let you know so other people making stuff up doesn't put you off: I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with being consistent, season upon season. The idea that the computer just randomly decides you're going to have a bad season is completely ridiculous. In your case if it's always happening in the third season I'd suggest there's something to do with what you're doing which is causing the problem. Unfortunately you've provided very little information as to how you're approaching the game, which makes it practically impossible for anyone to offer any suggestions as to how you could go about changing that. You could have players who are getting old. If you're missing out on promotion you could have players being unsettled by bids for bigger teams. Your choices of "improved" players to sign could actually be bad players to play the roles you want them to. Or it could be that none of that is the case and there's something completely different going on. Whatever the case may be; Try to offer as much information as possible (without going into tedious detail that'll make it difficult to get through) and I - and I'm sure others - will be more than happy to try to advise you on how you might be able to stop this from happening in the future. If you're otherwise enjoying the game *don't give up* just because some random on an internet message board is telling you that sometimes the computer will just decide your season isn't going to go well.
  11. You are absolutely fine. The money you get when the league finishes should absolutely obliterate any losses you've made.
  12. I think you're possibly thinking there's a more direct relationship between how successful the team is and how much sponsorship money you'll receive than there actually is. Consider the real world where teams like Liverpool over the past couple of decades until recent years, or Man United over the last decade or so, still get absolutely massive sponsorship deals. There's a combination there of past success, but also being the "big two" teams in the northwest meaning that people from not only Manchester and Liverpool but all across the area will support them. There's also factors like being really popular in Ireland because a lot of Irish diaspora will have moved to those areas, etc. On the other hand you have Gateshead, a place with a tiny population and in an area where there are already much bigger, more established teams in Newcastle and Sunderland who will have hoovered up most of the support in the region. In order for a team like them to build up a significant enough fanbase for an association with them to be really worthwhile to a sponsor it'd take decades... I know your save is pretty far in the future but even so I don't think it's gone on long enough for that to have realistically happened. I also don't think it'd be worth continuing for as long as that - I have a suspicion that SI probably haven't coded the game well enough when it comes to thinking how to make the world evolve properly 50 years into the future - and by the stage you're at you SHOULD be getting more money than you seem to be... But I don't think the difference between what you're getting and what would realistically be expected is perhaps as high as you think. I'd really recommend starting with someone better than Newcastle; The game you play at the top end of things challenging for all the silverware, etc. is a very different game from playing as a team who you'd expect to struggle with relegation under normal circumstances. You haven't really been able to experience that side of the game without loads of frustrations, take a team that's the sort of club you feel like your Gateshead side *should* be now. But, of course, that's up to you.
  13. I really feel like you'd get more mileage and fun out of the game if you played as a "big" team to begin with. It seems like about half of the threads you make expressing frustration are a direct result of the side you've chosen to play as. You should be proud that you've managed to achieve what you have but if it's just a frustrating slog at this point I don't know why you'd continue. You're at the point now where you're not playing the "slowly build up a club" game any more but you're playing the "top of the tree, fighting to try to win everything every season" game. Just start again playing as someone who isn't handicapped playing that game by what appear to be hard coded problems within the game.
  • Create New...