Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Some Guy!

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

About Some Guy!

  • Rank
    Semi Pro

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Having a similar issue. Not a huge deal as you only need to load once per session (so preferable to an issue with saving) but it's a big difference from the previous version. Saving doesn't take long though, and overall processing speed is improved in game. A bit of a tradeoff, but overall a patch despite this issue.
  2. Yeah, I know. Hell, I took a club that was relegation the previous season, to being Champions by ten points in the Premier League. The fans loved me, but then everything turned sour in the second season and we didn't start well, but not abysmally. I thought "well, I've got some faith in the bank", but no, I got sacked the season after winning the flipping Premier League with a mid table side. It's ridiculous sometimes.
  3. Only reputation impacts promotion prospects, and it's set to static due to the way non-active leagues work. The young players will get "fixtures" if they are in the team, but they won't impact the chances of promotion.
  4. There were actually a lot of pretty fundamental changes in this version, the problem is that most were under the hood. There were a lot of really positive things done with player negotiations, interactions and such though. Not to mention the vast improvement in the realism of match stats in the last few years, it wasn't long ago that there were playing making in excess of 15 tackles per game regularly. The game is still improving year on year as it's done for over a decade now. The thing is, people as they get older tend to become more hardened, and enjoy new games less. What this leads to is "all new games in my favourite series are terrible", followed closely by something linked to some newish concept that's been developed over a few iterations. You see it in the Civilization series where people complain about hexagonal tiles and one unit per tile still, and you see similar things in most series. For some people they can't separate their lack of enjoyment with a new release from the series getting worse. It's the old "kids these days" problem. I just hope as I age that I keep my mouth shut on such things and remember this.
  5. It's a bug. Australia doesn't get entered for some reason, and the game just brings another team.
  6. The thing is, the AI does have the ability to tell us if one of our clauses is making the negotiation difficult. They explicitly say things like "this negotiation would go much smoother if [clause] wasn't included". We don't even have that. This is why in previous years I'd described the AI even having the ability to make 100% non-negotiable clauses as taking a quality of life feature and making it an anti-quality of life one. The AI can't listen to the concerns the human has, having those locks offered human players the ability to let the AI know things that weren't acceptable in a way that could not be otherwise done, and where basically then made into the current system. Yeah, you can't in theory do this. If they start the negotiation with a red locked clause, that's it, there is literally nothing you can do about it from there. Again, this is blatantly false. If there's a red locked clause, you can't offer them anything as a replacement or to change a clause. Again, you can't do this. These are things that you could otherwise do when there's not red locked release clauses. Those three were all things I was suggesting could be offered as a replacement for a red locked clause, not things "that couldn't be done in the game". It's player loyalty that locks in release clauses for certain players, but again, I know how things work right now, I know it like the back of the hand, I could probably give a lecture on how these all work together. That's kind of the problem though, the agents are these neutered little creatures of the night that only really affect how rapidly they get annoyed at you trying to negotiate and the size of the fee they want.
  7. Again, I don't think you've really gotten the point of what I'm saying. The unrealistic part isn't that release clauses exist, or that they could be removed later, but rather that there is no sense of negotiation once a party has decided they want one of a particular value, even if this is greatly to their detriment, in a position where they have virtually zero bargaining power. You say "why should they risk trying themselves down so young", yet when they have 3 full years to run on their deal they are still tied down, and when their wage is arguably a 20th to a 50th of what they could be earning **right here, right now**, it's utterly bizarre that there is no ability to negotiate at all. That's the problem I have with it, there is room for some actual interesting gameplay choices, yet here it's just this weird, interaction with psycho robots. I am at literally zero risk of losing the player, I have literally all the cards, they are keeping themselves on a low wage for longer for no particularly good reason. So, what would my version of better systems look like? Well, I suggested above, but yourself have brought up some good ones: - Maybe given they have 3 years on their deal, I could negotiate a higher release clause, or even it's removal, but as a tradeoff they want to limit the length of the contract to a similar length to now, maybe one year extra on it - Maybe they want a much higher wage than they'd otherwise get - Maybe a release clause that activates if a minimum target doesn't get met Even just being able to click on the particular clause that I find bothersome and tell them: "this is why I'm walking away now", would be useful. Maybe they could turn around with a counter offer like above for it's removal. There's so much that could be done with this non-negotiable stuff, yet at the moment it's just so clunky. There would still be situations where it's basically "release clause or I won't ever agree", and that's fine, but at least having some options for some actual negotiation would be nice, particularly in some of this outright silly situations where some players are earning less than the guy that brings them their pizza after we keep a clean sheet.
  8. Again, I think this is missing the point entirely. You can do things to get around issues in a save, but the situations that can occur, and rather frequently, are neither realistic, nor are they even fun gameplay wise. There should be more substance to this kind of negotiations, not something just forced on the game in an awkward manner. I shouldn't be thinking as much about gaming the system in regard to it, but more about negotiating something with the player with mid to long term impacts in the game.
  9. No, I did not use "treat club as a stepping stone" at any point. I can see the logic why they'd want them, what I can't see is the logic in there being no options or gameplay associated with. Exactly as put above, yes, I can just walk away, but it's not even gameplay at that point. That isn't changing their mind, and it's not even telling them what I didn't like about the deal. At the end of the day this player should be earning a good 30-40 times more than they are per week at the very least, and they're being hampered by trying to negotiate in a clause from an extremely weak bargaining position. If you think I'm "approaching contracts wrongly" here, I'd suggest you reread what I wrote, as you'd have missed the point of what I'm saying. I don't need to offer the player a new contract, it's not gotten to the point of anything. I was kind enough to offer them a new contract when there's still 3 years to go, yet they'll only accept more money for themselves in exchange for something I find untenable. They're only hurting themselves, and from a business perspective I am better off with them earning a pittance for another year then selling them for more than the release clause they're demanding (which is exactly what I'm going to do). That isn't realistic however, I mean it could happen, but in the contract negotiations with Mr Super Defender living in a flat with 5 other people, he sure isn't going to turn down a new contract that'll make him a millionaire because I wanted him to have a slightly higher release clause. This isn't out of frustration of something going wrong in my save, I have enough experience with football manager games to deal with such things pretty easily, it's just really jarring, takes away from the experience and is bafflingly unrealistic. This chap will, judging by what's happening in my game right now, leave at the end of the season for about the £55-60 million mark, all parties happy (I always intended to move him on anyhow as he's a bit red card happy;; even if I don't, I could even at that point just stick him in the U19s for another 24 months before he could leave), but it's just baffling that I couldn't offer a new contract in that instance, and it's the same story repeated across the gameworld. There's a chance for some seriously interesting gameplay here, yet it falls by the wayside for a really caricatured "WE WANT EXACTLY THIS RELEASE CLAUSE".
  10. One thing that's stuck out for a sore thumb in football manager games in recent times is negotiations with players and agents about release clauses. It's clearly something that SI feel very strongly about for one reason or another, no other clause quite gets the AI as passionate. What's odd though is how few options that we as the manager have to maneuver, how little of an actual game football manager is in this regard. The actions come across as rigid, and at times, jarring and completely bizarre; no context is seemingly taken into account with demands in this area. Now, what do I mean by this? Well, in recent years I've posted somewhat of a similar complaint each year in different ways. The one from last year appeared to hit a chord of some sort as there actually has been some change, the inclusion of a softer version non-negotiable in this game which is quite often used for release clauses. This feature however looks like it got a bit big for its boots at some point in development, and was taken out back to be "taught a lesson" however, and what we've got is somewhat neutered and largely irrelevant, in many cases it goes something like this: Agent: We're willing to negotiate a bit on the size of the release clause, but it must be there Manager: Okay then. I personally think that increasing the wage offered here a bit is worth that extra size in th... Agent: HOW DARE YOU TOUCH THE RELEASE CLAUSE VALUE, IT IS NOW ABSOLUTELY NON-NEGOTIABLE!!! Agent Again: Also, we want that extra wage you offered as well... Ironically, when I was suggesting such a feature it was because of the lack of ability for the human player to communicate when things are starting to break down, and how the AI has at least got some options using such a system. What ended up being done is that they actually gave the AI more options to communicate, such as directly saying "things would go smoother if [clause] wasn't a requirement", and ultimately options for the human player stayed almost exactly the same. Now, at this point it's worth considering what is reasonable in a negotiation. Personally, if I were actually in such a negotiation, one option I would consider is just telling them, point blank: "No, I'm not accepting that clause, nothing else in this contract is ever going to make it viable; if you want a new contract come back to the table with some wiggle room there". Yet, I don't have such options in the game. Maybe being able to highlight a red lock in negotiations when walking away from negotiations, with some chance that the other party will reconsider it then and there, or at a later date, would allow such tactics to be usable, but right now there is no game in this kind of negotiation, there is no fun, it's not even a vaguely realistic negotiation. I get why it's there, most human players wouldn't ever let a release clause in a negotiation if we could just get rid of them all, but as someone who plays the game largely for the fun of the negotiations and the deals these days, it's difficult when there's no options available, and even more difficult when there exist no context to these negotiations. This is probably best exemplified by cases such as one of my key players right now. I signed them 2 years back from a small club on the West Coast of Africa, and they've gone from strength to strength. They are now putting in starring performance after starring performance at Champions League level, they understandable want a raise on their original £250 per week contract. You know what though, they've got 3 odd years left on their deal, and this is what happen when I talk to their agent: Agent: I would like one of absolutely everything, a huge fee for myself, and a release clause of £38 million thanks Manager: He's got three years left on his current deal, and the only reason I'm considering offering a new one is to allow him a wage closer to his teammates, surely you should take that into account rather than negotiating them out of this with that silly release clause Agent: Nah, release clause isn't negotiable mate Manager: Cool, see you in a year or so then Now, what they're requesting is probably about 2/3rds of what I'd accept from them, and I got an offer for them in the summer in that range. At the current time, I could maximise any potential profit on them by sticking to my guns on this one. The thing is, there's no options, there's no game here. What I've love to have the chance of doing is playing the risk of losing this player on a free rather than any free by pushing back the negotiations; they may decide later they don't want to stay and wait out their contract. The thing is, there's no risk reward here, there's just a psycho demanding a release clause, there's no context to it, there's no game to it. It's completely missed the point of negotiations. As an aside, I find it funny to see a player sack their agent, then come back with identical demands. Surely changing agents should have more of a difference to the flavour of negotiations than the size of the agents fee and how quickly they get stroppy. Surely things like demanding release clauses, and types of them should be something tied to the agents, not just the players. Another possible solution of course is adding some more indepth negotiations about release clauses. Maybe allow some wiggle room for how they're triggered, for example replace a general release clause with a "failed to make the Champions League release clause" or something. Maybe even put requiring a release clause in the promises part of negotiations rather than the contract part, and chat about it there. That would allow it to become a discussion about the clubs goals, with changes and such, rather than it being about a big red lock that offers no gameplay value as it does now. I don't know, I just think that there really should be more of an actual negotiation going on with these kinds of things, yet at the moment the desire to make it so players get lumbered with release clauses seems to outweight any point about realism in such negotiations, and in particular, actual gameplay in them.
  11. To my understanding this is a known bug where Australia can't compete in the 2019 Asian Cup for some reason, and are replaced. Most of the time Australia are replaced by an Asian nation, so many players don't notice.
  12. Except they do model some level of players wanting to move to certain clubs, and this information that is readily available when you get offers for your own players (i.e. Mr Player's agent has indicated that he would like to discuss terms with this club). Do you have examples of clubs rejecting £10 million up front for compensation when the amount they eventually got was only £3 million compensation (usually there are other clauses that go with this for compensation)? Would be interesting to see. I think the problem is that a lot of these stories are relayed, and generally fairly exaggerated, but when it comes right down to it, the cases of bugs are fairly rare. Most cases of "I bid £50 billion for this player, they rejected, then moved to Arsenal for £5 million the next day" boil down to them offering £10 million, them asking for £25+ million, the player getting stroppy at the rejected bid and Arsenal swooping in while the human player was off whinging. SI readily accept and look into cases uploaded for them to look at and use this to improve the transfer engine in the future, but the problem is a lot of these threads do nothing that could help them fix that. Even assuming that they were reporting real problems, it's about as helpful as having feedback at work or school simply saying "Just do better damnit!!".
  13. Again, there's more to it than them just getting a bit stroppy, you can see it when you get an offer and it's noted that "the agent has indicated that the player would like to move to this club" (or words to that effect). The AI isn't playing by different rules. It really all depends on the player, the situation and the club, as well as the league, your reputation, your clubs reputation, etc. Even the city has an impact. You say you're Milan, not everyone wants to move to somewhere like that, and may prefer to move somewhere nicer.
  14. Well, the player did turn you down. Maybe they only accepted because there was pressure from the player/agent to accept the offer (something that appears to the human players in this version), and the concern about making the player unhappy. If they aren't interested (i.e. they've told you no), then there's no such pressure anymore. Could have been differently structured bids, the player may have wanted to go to Benfica, could have been that things changed between your bid and theirs.
  • Create New...