Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About grasu

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @Raulic OK I understand your logic but the club's own former president declared that Baptista's contract isn't 50000 per week. And even if it is going to be 50000 with the start of January, wouldn't it be better to just make it an average of those 2 wages? The problem is that, as it stands, using information based on speculation and hearsay he has 53000 net per week in game wages. Within 3 weeks in game my club is already in the red and my transfer income is reduced by 40%. By the time the contract is done I'm left with millions in transfer revenue from his contract and the ability to attract top European talent with my wage budget, which is simply not realistic. Within 2 in game seasons I can regularly offer 4, 5 or even 600 K salaries to players. I think it would be far more realistic to leave his salary either as Iuliu Muresan declared, or a similar value, and (if he's still a player for CFR Cluj in January) then he can get the raise just like it was in previous FMs where speculative deals and future unarranged transfers were not put in the DB until confirmed. Case and point.
  2. Hi Romanian research team. I'm having an issue with CFR Cluj's player contracts, especially the amount of money Julio Baptista is earning. Firstly Julio Baptista's contract is way above even the most adventurous estimates from the press. https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/liga-1/bani-de-seminte-ce-salariu-a-acceptat-julio-baptista-la-cfr-dupa-ce-a-primit-milioane-de-euro-de-la-marile-cluburi-ale-europei-17444994 According to the club's former president he's paid about 10000 per month. Currently he earns 90000 in game. Additionally, there's a clause in his contract that, should his contract be extended for another year he'll go from his current wage (estimated between 10-12000) to about 50000, but nowhere near 90000. https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/exclusiv-tensiuni-la-cfr-cluj-jucatorii-au-fost-pacaliti-de-conducere-detalii-din-interiorul-campioanei-urmeaza-un-nou-scandal-553133.html Currently his contract is 21000 p/w (90000 p/m) in wages with a duration of 2 years which is wrong. His contract should be about 12000 + tax / month with a 1 year extension option. Furthermore it seems that the entire wage pool for CFR, at least, is out of sync with what the press has reported. According to the press, and assuming a wage of 50000 p/m for Baptista, the club's budget in net wages is about 500,000. https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/bugetele-mari-de-la-cfr-si-fcsb-se-vad-si-pe-teren-doar-dinamo-face-exceptie-negoita-plateste-pentru-locul-4-dar-a-ajuns-pe-12-551961.html I understand that the taxation laws were changed and taxation is now handled differently, but it's handled differently on a personal level, not on a business level. The salary budget for football clubs should not be affected by this change. As it stands the club is spending almost 10 million euros per year in player wages alone in FM, whereas in reality the club's entire budget is between 10 to 12 million: https://www.fanatik.ro/bugetul-cfr-ului-pentru-sezonul-2018-2019-ardelenii-au-la-dispozitie-o-suma-uriasa-18481385
  3. There is one thing above all else that makes this game easy: squad building. On every level and from just about every perspective squad building can easily be abused by humans. It's much too easy to get players that are MILES above your league level for next to nothing or even for free. The AI is the main culprit here as it's simply not capable of retaining players nor does it realistically compete for free signings or players with 6 months left on the contract. Additionally , when a player isn't unsettled at their club and isn't one of the club's best players the AI doesn't even bother to try buying them, even if they would improve their squad. This is an issue when, for example, that player is loaned to you by a club that could use it, but you can continually keep renewing the loan until the player runs out of contract. This has happened to me on several occasions as I had players that I load in the 4th tier and that I kept with me all the way up to the 1st tier. No matter their form the AI never recalled them from loan and didn't even offer them a contract, despite the fact that they were leading stars in the Championship with huge potential. And this issue with potential leads me to another issue, a much bigger one which is unlikely to be easily fixed: the AI is not capable of appreciating potential. To elaborate, unless a player has gob loads of potential AND can be at least on rotation the AI won't bother bidding for them. This leaves me with an ENORMOUS amount of high quality players to choose from. Since FM favors young players with potential, this means that I can end up with a squad of 120 CA / 150+ PA world beaters within the first 2-3 seasons. It's pretty much the patented way of playing the game that basically every streamer and Youtuber uses. The AI doesn't properly "see" nor can it develop youths so this pretty much gives you free reign over something that should be one of the most contested areas of the game. Let's not forget that there are clubs who send their scouts to U17 tournaments and that, by U19, most of the youths from major nations are already signed with big name clubs. In FM you can still find massively good prospects with poor clubs even in their early 20s! Finally the AI simply doesn't spend enough money. In a journeyman career about 1 or 2 FMs back I ended up with Bayern Munchen after about 11 seasons. I DISTINCTLY remember this because it shocked me: Bayern hadn't won the Bundesliga in 4-5 seasons but was sitting on a MASSIVE 1 billion (that's billion!) euros in the bank and another 300 million in transfer money. And I actually went about testing this at multiple levels and found out about the same thing: teams have huge cash stashes that they don't spend. This leads to squads aging rapidly and top teams falling out of form, therefore making the game easier. It seems that unless a club has a sugar daddy they simply don't spend enough money. All of this, in my opinion, makes it very easy to overachieve. Which, in turn, makes the game very easy. So long as you don't gimp yourself and continue to buy the recommended youth players that you've scouted, you're pretty much guaranteed to start winning silverware in 3-4 seasons or less, depending on your team of choice.
  4. OK, so if the relatively simple solution of difficulty levels is such a bad thing, then what is the solution to make the game harder? And I don't mean "change your team harder" but actually harder, where I can't take a mid-table Championship squad and make them a Top 4 side in 5 seasons?
  5. There aren't "multiple ways" you can make the game harder. There is ONE way you can make the game harder for the duration of the 1st season: setting your reputation much lower than what the recommended reputation is. This effect disappears almost completely after 1 season when you get a massive boost in respect just because you spent 1 year at the club. Choosing different teams, gimping yourself by signing only one type of player or doing anything else that's a user created challenge is separate from difficulty. I just want to play the game, as intended, and I want the game to work with against me as the developers intended. Since one of the major issues for this game is squad building AI, which is a much MUCH more complex thing to fix, then at best we can be given an alternative. And the relevance of FM Classic vs full-fat FM balancing cannot be overstated in this case. SI is, in effect, balancing 2 modes even if they're using the same DB so adding a few options to mix things up cannot, by any measurement, be harder or take more time.
  6. Them adding more options would be the end? I'm curious how that works. Why would adding more options be an issue? This question of "it would take them more to balance" is irrelevant. Every year they release a new UI. This balancing doesn't come from one year to another, this feature is developed over years of development and only released when the developers consider it ready. And it doesn't take NEARLY anywhere as much as rebuilding or redesigning the UI every year (for example). The vast majority of FM is simplified so that people can get their mojo on an not complain that they can't make whatever backwater village in England champions in 10 years. Every long term career is pretty much dead after the first 5 seasons with anything resembling a top 4 team and the game poses little to no challenge anymore, outside of Europe. So, again, I'm not exactly sure why giving you more options to make the game harder and less casual, or easier and more casual, is such a bad idea. Si have already implemented FM Classic for more casual players, do you reckon creating 2 more settings that makes some things harder or easier would be so much more work than a new mode entirely? I highly doubt it.
  7. That pretty much contradicts your first statement. So implementing a difficulty level IS possible. i'm not suggesting they should just let you win, but maybe give you a set of options you can check off or on. Stuff like realistic transfers, realistic team management, realistic injuries, etc.
  8. Of course I'm looking at it from a customer's point of view. How else should I look at it? This is a forum about the game not a sprint planning meeting. SI have shown in the past that they can do a lot in one release, having release FM Classic + Dynamic Reputations + a new UI in one release! I understand that something like this takes a lot of effort and won't come next year, but games now-a-days are all about player choice. And this would be a major boon in terms of player choice. Besides, imagine how much time could be spared answering topics like "tish gaem suzck ! just cant beat barcelona wth <insert crappy team here>".
  9. What exactly isn't practical about it? Some people like to speed their way though the game while others like to spend hours tinkering with their tactics. The fact of the matter is that it's extremely easy to win trophies even with mid-table teams, let alone top teams. The only thing that remains remotely challenging in the long run is the Champions League but even that you can win every other year as a top level team. Basically giving people the choice between an unaltered game (normal) an easier game (easy) and a more realistic game (harder) would solve a large amount of complaints. Instead of answering every "but they asked 100 billion for a 2 star striker" topic with an obscure explanation, let people who want to buy everything for next to nothing just play on easy.
  10. I don't understand why SI refuses to add difficulty levels to FM. Some people enjoy winning everything and some teams are really OP, especially when it comes to their internal competitions. So why not just add an easy/medium/hard difficulty setting? Make the difficulty settings like in other TBS games, where on normal everything stays the same and everyone is on equal footing. On easy the AI is gimped and the player gets advantages (say a higher transfer budget, quicker gelling of players, less fatigue per match, etc.) and then, on hard, just make the game realistic: lots of injuries (like IRL), hard/very hard to sign players with 4 years left on their contract, transferred players more likely to underperform, etc.
  11. So is this it for features? The topic says "more to come in the weeks before launch" but what exactly is "more"? Honestly this set of features is one of the most underwhelming since I've been playing FM for nearly 15 years now. Nothing about scouting, nothing about the AI, nothing major in general. The new tactics overhaul looks nice but the training overhaul looks to be more busy work and pointless interaction. Anyway, hopefully more stuff is announced in the coming weeks but so far this looks like a bargain bin purchase come February - March.
  12. Any news on when we'll get a list of new features for FM 19?
  13. My recommendation level is set to the minimum of 50. The lowest player he found was a 65.
  14. I did, I'm just pointing out where my frustration is coming from. This was admittedly touched upon since release, when you wouldn't even get THAT many scout reports, but I still find it absurd. What's the point of country knowledge anymore? What's the point of country specific assignments? How about adaptability?
  15. Sorry for the delay, here's the story with pictures. I set my scout, Pierre Aubame, to scout France for 2 months. Here's his profile. His adaptability might be low, but he's a dual French national with perfect knowledge of France. https://gyazo.com/2edb762525ea171fed74b3ff0b5f71bd His assignment was EXTREMELY broad, the only criteria was that he should scout players under the age of 33. https://gyazo.com/35a91b151026014e809ceaeda2d95599 Scouting package was Europe. https://gyazo.com/ec9c4302b0c34abccd7c83271e256585 After 1 month, he found 6 players, despite the fact that we had plenty of money left and his criteria was extremely broad. https://gyazo.com/b63c6f23203d55d7f591a631be2a115f Money was still fine https://gyazo.com/129cbff3446221b4ec2c7428a7948798 After 2 months he added another 4 players, despite the fact that scouting budget was still fine. Reports: https://gyazo.com/adfd46a63364e326de38b17bc507c1e0 Money: https://gyazo.com/d53156340b1bd9064317b4a084ff782a France is loaded up to Ligue 2, and between it and Ligue 1 there were 23 games played since the beginning of PIerre's scouting assignment between the two leagues. This doesn't include any home games in the European cups or any cup games. Admittedly 10 is a lot more than 4, but that's probably because this time I specifically picked him to scout France and didn't leave it up to the automatic assignment allocation. Even 10 reports though is completely absurd. All of these players are just broadly scouted, not fully scouted, and, at 10 players in 2 months, it comes out to less than a player PER MATCH DAY as there were 13 Match days in total in Ligue 2 alone!
  • Create New...