Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 "What we've got here is a failure to communicate"

About dbfinch

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Having resisted buying FM16 until now, I stumbled across this challenge (I can't even remember what I was searching to find it!) and it inspired me to purchase 16 and give it a go. I completely missed FM15 as I tend to play one save game for many, many years, and on FM14 I'd turned Sheffield United into a superpower and couldn't bring myself to abandon the game. So in terms of longevity this challenge seems perfect for how I play FM. Hopefully not too much has changed since 14... At the moment the biggest challenge is getting San Marino promoted. Tried five times and not seen them come up yet, so now I'm simming through the second season and hoping they appear. If not I'll probably download Serie D and just start with them from there. Looking forward to the challenge, though!
  2. Sigh. 1. Like I said, two of them have played a total of four NHL games between them, and the other one is in his rookie year as a bottom pairing defenseman. The two UFAs are not veterans; they are 27 and 26 (again, I had already mentioned the age of one), which is basically entering the prime age for NHL forwards in terms of production. One is coming off winning the Rocket, Conn Smythe, finishing top three for the Art Ross and being runner-up for the Hart. The other has been listed as one of the top 10 centres in each of the last three seasons by the game itself. All stuff I've mentioned in this thread, some of it multiple times. It is not vital for the franchise to keep any of the three RFAs. One of them is a 22-year old in the AHL who has played no NHL games. Again, I mentioned that. Again, you went ahead and ignored all of that in your response in which you seem to just be making a reply based on points and perceptions that aren't at all relevant to the situation I've detailed in this thread. 2. Except that in this situation, my boss is giving me 34m to spend on three players. Half the salary cap. On three players. Two who are in the AHL and have played 4 NHL games between them. And when I said it was restrictive I didn't mean for me as GM in terms of what I could spend. I made it very clear that I was saying it was restrictive for the franchise because it makes those players impossible to call up from the AHL if the team is near the cap. Again, because you clearly haven't read my post properly you've incorrectly assumed that when I said it was restrictive, I was saying it restricted me in terms of what I could spend, and made a counterpoint based upon that assumption. 3. This is just the best, though. I made a whole post - complete with screenshots of every step! - in which I systematically documented how I could offer the first RFA a 10.3m contract, which he signed, and then, even with that contract signed, the board would still allow me to offer the second RFA a 13.8m contract. And once that second contract had been signed, the board would still allow me to go ahead and offer another 10m contract to the remaining RFA. Look at the game date in each screenshot! Yet in spite of that, you post: That post, and all those screenshots, have already shown that the board do not immediately lower the amount they will allow for the other one. I don't know how I could've made that any clearer? So honestly, if you're not going to actually look at what I post in any great detail - as you're clearly not because if you had, you wouldn't have written a whole paragraph for point #3 that I had already addressed before you even posted it! - then please do me a favour and stop posting in this thread.
  3. Way ahead of you! http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/446686-1-0-2-Crash-when-trying-to-view-transactions-gt-draft-picks No mention of either player. I assume it just comes down to the fact I'm already over the cap for next year (albeit only by 2m, but still over) which is fine, but if that is the case, surely my RFAs should be similarly limited. I certainly shouldn't be able to sign three RFAs to contracts totalling 34m if that is the case!
  4. Except one of them (Kristopher Moon) is on my roster and would count against the cap. He's played in all 41 games so far this year. So that argument falls flat. Not to mention that, with regards to the two who are still in the AHL, whilst it is technically true it's a very weak defence for what is clearly an issue in the game. Sure, if I leave those two in the AHL and there salaries don't count against the cap, but to say there is no reason for the board to limit such salaries is ridiculous. I can state three reasons just off the top of my head: 1) It is illogical. They aren't worth anywhere near that kind of money and the board signing off on such extensions would make no sense what so ever. 2) It is restrictive. If they have such a contract then it pretty much makes it impossible to call them up to the NHL if I'm anywhere near the cap. And while they would be getting a different salary in the AHL, if I did call them up then they would be getting the full amount. 3) It makes it (or at least it should) impossible to trade them. What other NHL team would take on a 22 year old with no NHL experience, who obviously isn't even that good, on a 10m contract? Even teams that needed to make the floor wouldn't as it would cost them far too much in actual dollars. I'm going to end up moving one of them (Malinsky) anyway because as I said, I'm absurdly deep at C. I already know I'm going to win the lottery (because I've got 28 of 30 picks, and the two I don't own are both going to make the playoffs) and the best guy in the draft looks to be the best draft-eligible prospect for a while. He might even make my team as an 18-year-old, and if not, other prospects will. Whether that'll allow me to re-sign the other UFA I don't know, as it won't make any difference to what salary I've committed to for next year, in which case I'll probably move another player to get Kielbratowski re-signed. But again, if I'm up against the cap to the extent that the board won't allow me to give either UFA a raise, why are they willing to pay an RFA on my NHL roster 13.8m? Pleased with my performance, financial status is extremely healthy, player salaries seem to be in good control.
  5. I'm not arguing that the board don't (or shouldn't) have the power to limit what I can spend. Nowhere have I implied that the board should let me spend what I want. And for the record I don't even mind moving the two pending UFAs if there is no money to re-sign them. But what I am suggesting is a bug is the fact that they're willing to let me spend literally tens of millions on RFAs who haven't cracked my NHL roster, yet limiting what I can spend on UFAs who are actually key members of my roster. I've actually saved my game and simmed through a bit just to highlight this point: Pending UFA - and reigning Rocket/King Clancy/Conn Smythe winner - William Kielbratowski, who the board won't let me offer more than his current 1.5m salary. RFA Reg Cousins, who has played precisely 0 NHL games, who the board will allow me to offer up to 10.3m a year. This screenshot is taken on the same day they're limiting me to 1.5m on Kielbratowski. Reg Cousins signs a three-year deal worth 10.3m a year. With Cousins signing a 10.3m extension, I then approached another pending RFA, Kristopher Moon. Yet as you can see, the board is willing to pay him up to the NHL maximum 13.8m a year. Which, of course, he signs. So that's 23m a year signed off on two RFAs, one playing on my bottom D pairing and the other who isn't even in the NHL. Yet the board still won't let me pay the two pending UFAs more than 2.2m or 1.5m. And just to drive my point home, here's my other remaining RFA. He's played 4 NHL games. The board will again let me give him up to 10.3m a year. He signs that one-year extension. So to recap: the board is limiting me to 2.2m and 1.5m respectively for my two remaining UFAs, yet doesn't think twice about letting me sign three RFAs - two of which aren't even on my NHL roster - to contracts equating to nearly 50% of the salary cap (34.1m). Perhaps I'm wrong to refer to it as a bug, but even if that's the case, there can be no argument that it is completely illogical and something that absolutely needs to be looked at. The board should not be allowing me to offer such ridiculous money to those three RFAs as it is, yet not only are they doing so, but they are doing so whilst simultaneously limiting what I can offer to the two UFAs. Again, to reiterate, I've no problem with them limiting what I can offer to pending UFAs (or, indeed, pending RFAs). Part of the game is about managing the budget and if the money isn't there, the money isn't there. But in this situation it makes zero sense at all.
  6. Like I said very clearly, this isn't just the board isn't limiting salary to what they think the players are worth. They're allowing me to offer over 10 million to RFAs who haven't even played a single NHL game - well over their value. The only two players they are limiting the salary on are the two pending UFAs. One of them (Kielbratowski) is coming off a season where he won the Rocket, King Clancy and Conn Smythe trophies, was Hart trophy runner-up and finished third for the Pearson and Art Ross trophies. Posted 87 points (47 goals) and was a mainstay in my top two lines, and is only 27 years old. The other (Malinsky) is a guy who has been listed in the 'top 10 centres' news item at the start of the last three seasons, albeit he's down my depth chart a bit because I'm absurdly deep in that regard. So within the game he is thought of highly, and my assumption would be that that would extend to the board themselves, seeing as they can only go off the same information in that sense. My current player breakdown is just 6 key players, including Kielbratowski, 7 core players, 1 depth and 21 prospects. Financially we've a balance of 46m, a 36m profit on the year so far, a player budget of 83m and 71m in salaries currently allocated for the following season. What you're suggesting might make sense if they weren't allowing me to offer pretty meh RFAs, who at 22 have both failed to get anywhere near my NHL roster and are well down my depth charts, 10+ million each.
  7. This is a new one to me, at least in terms of how the bug itself is showing up. I've two pending UFAs who, upon trying to negotiate a new contract, I'm finding the board is limiting what I can offer them to the salary they're currently receiving. It doesn't matter if I change their team status or try and offer them more or less years, I can't go above what they're already receiving. Now I thought this might be because I'm 2.2m over the cap for next year - and perhaps it is, although I'm still under my player budget - but once I reached December 31st and got the 'expiring contracts' news item, I found that I can actually approach any of my pending RFAs and offer them anything up to at least 10.3m, and in some cases, 13.8m. So for some reason the board are limiting me on the two UFAs but not any of the RFAs, which seems like a pretty big (and rather annoying!) bug. Save file is uploaded (Stars_crash_2.sav) and here are two screenshots with one each of the UFA and RFAs:
  8. Just got to the end of the current season and been presented with three news items, all of which are incorrect. 1) 'Highest Stars save percentage' - told me my starting goalie had a .955 save percentage (I wish!) when he only had a .933 in the regular season and a .934 in the playoffs. 2) 'Lowest ever number of regular season wins' - told me I'd only won seven games, which is 67 below the 74 wins we actually had. 3) 'Least league points ever' - same as #2 - said we'd only earned 14 points when the actual total was 149. You can probably use the same save I uploaded yesterday ('Stars_crash_1' and just holiday through to June 29th, which is when those news items appeared.
  9. Over the seasons I've been playing my save I've been gradually building up the number of first round picks I've got, to the point where I began the 31-32 season with all 30 first round picks*. When I go to the transactions page from my roster and try to view the draft picks page, EHM crashes. I suspect the issue is related to the fact that I have that many draft picks, not just in the forthcoming draft but the subsequent four, too. Anyway, I'm uploading my save game now (Stars_crash_1) so you can have a look. * - incidentally, this is a major flaw in the game itself; AI GMs remain too willing to move their first rounders, particularly in draft-day trades where they will flip say, two future firsts for a first and a second in the current draft. If you look back over my trades you'll see I make a ridiculous amount of trades come draft-day, and generally come away from it with more first-round picks than I had before. Again, I'm not really sure how that would be fixed; perhaps it just needs to be better balanced? More value added to draft picks in the drafts four/five seasons from the game date?
  10. Great news - thanks, Riz. Is there any scope to improve the way the game deals with a rejected contract offer? We've touched upon it in this thread but you didn't address it in your response. I have noticed if you approach an unsigned RFA and he rejects your offer, you get a 'negotiate' option that retains your most recent offer as the starting point for that next offer. But obviously that doesn't happen at all when you're simply negotiating a contract extension; is that something that could be easily modified so it mirrors what happens with the RFAs?
  11. Then that information needs to be conveyed on-screen, not hidden away in the manual or one of the hints. On-screen all it says is that the player is not interested in negotiating a new contract, and anything above and beyond that is interpretation. If they are merely suggestions by an assistant or whoever, it should say, "(player) does not wish to negotiate a new contract at this time, but (staff member) believes that an offer such as below would tempt him to re-sign". I personally don't think that's the case, and the numbers we see are provided by the players, but I'll concede that it is hard to be certain about that.
  12. We're going round in circles so I'll say this one more time: it shouldn't be open to interpretation. Displaying the same message in different circumstances (both when a player will sign a new contract and when he won't) just presents confusion. It isn't the biggest issue with the contract system, which as a whole needs an overhaul - ideally implementing many of the points both you and I have made - but simply having different messages for the different circumstances shouldn't be too much to ask.
  13. Perhaps that offers some explanation for it, but it doesn't detract from the fact that the "does not wish to negotiate a new contract at this time" message is displayed both on occasions when a player is willing to sign a new contract and occasions when you can offer him the world and he still won't sign a new deal. It needs some kind of variation to suit the two different situations.
  14. Agree with everything not bolded, some of which I've already touched upon myself in terms of what I'd like to see. With regards to the bit in bold, I do agree that it's a mix of all those things, which is half the problem. While I haven't done extensive research on it, off the top of my head I don't recall an occasion where what appeared to be a specific amount was listed and, when offered, the player did not accept that. And if the player is willing to accept that offer, surely that indicates he is willing to negotiate a new contract, and the feedback from the game suggesting otherwise is false and misleading. At the very least it should say something like: "(player) is not really interested in negotiating a new contract, but (staff member) believes an offer such as below could change his mind". It's the fact that the same message is displayed regardless of the situation that needs addressing. In addition to everything else you and I have touched upon, obviously.
  15. I'm uploading a save to the FTP now, Riz, called 'Stars_crash_1_2031.01.21.sav'. Both Biryukov and Jesse Puljujarvi are displaying the above issue of telling me they don't want to negotiate a new contract but giving me a term/$$$ that they will actually accept.
  • Create New...