Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About forameuss

  • Rank

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Partick Thistle

Recent Profile Visitors

8,656 profile views
  1. I'm not really sure I ever did say that. I'm saying it's logical in the way the game is obviously coded. It's not particularly realistic, but then most saves are about as realistic after the first few months. Hence why I've said to raise it as a bug if people feel so strongly about it. There really isn't much point in solely bitching about it here. Nothing's going to get done that way, just a massive bun-fight.
  2. Because why actually argue a point with reasoned rebuttals when you can just revel in ignorance, eh? Champion.
  3. And how did that "capability" work out for them? FIFA Manager 19 was pure brilliant, wasn't it? Deary me...this is the hill you want to die on?
  4. Yeah, totally agree. Miles and the Collyers are a disgrace sitting on their gold-plated thrones while their staff tuck in to all that lobster. It's almost like this is a very niche product with a very limited audience that doesn't really yield the sort of profits that the misguided believe it does. It's actually amazing how much you've managed to get wrong using just 31 words. There hasn't been any realistic competition for SI for years, even when there were competing games in circulation (gee, I wonder why they disappeared...). This demonstrably and quite obviously isn't the same game as FM10. And "you have to spend money to make money" is just ridiculous cliche with absolutely nothing backing it up. Given you're agreeing with something similarly incorrect, that's 0 for 4 sentences. Good going.
  5. There's fairly obvious logic, that people have pointed out to you. You just disagree with it. This isn't real life. In real life, this happens, then Fiorentina probably still have massive reservations over selling. They'll absolutely accept less from a non-rival, probably around their original asking price, and add a good chunk on if any rivals ask. But if they were to come in with an astronomical offer, the human side would kick in, and human logic would dictate they'd likely accept. Fine. But when you're in game, you have to look at it differently. In real life, do you really think Juventus are going to want Chiesa so badly that they're willing to essentially double an asking price (or pay a hefty premium, which is maybe more likely)? Or would they go away and find a better target that would be cheaper? Is Chiesa a Fiorentina fan? Do the Juve fans care about the rivalry or is it more one way? Would he be a popular signing? All of these would come into the decision in real life, but in an FM sense... Read all of 1, and then realise that essentially none of that matters in FM. It's trying to model a real life transfer market using the very limited script of whatever SI can code into the AI. It is massively lacking in context, and sorely lacking in the sort of human common sense decisions that would be obvious in real life. It is (usually) incredibly easy to outmanoeuvre the AI in negotiations and get them to play to your tune. It's a very simplistic system, and this particular example is a very simplistic one. But essentially, none of the above really matters, because what you're seeing is a crutch that the users demanded was included. In previous code bases, Fiorentina would just say that he wasn't for sale to your bid. Users didn't like that, so it was changed that in these cases, they would demand a ridiculous amount to put people off. If people were willing to match that stupid amount, then fine, but it's essentially a binary decision. A no, right up until you trip the switch and it's a yes. So basically, this is behaving logically by the game's own rules. Fiorentina don't want to sell to you under any circumstances, but user feedback has meant that now means they'll accept an arbitrary and ridiculous amount. If you think it's ultimately wrong, raise it as a bug with supporting evidence and argue the point to SI. Nothing is "broken" here.
  6. And you're still Juventus? Did you read anything people have posted? The asking price is 64m, but they're going to want the Earth to sell to a bitter rival. They don't have such hang-ups about a team they're unlikely to ever face.
  7. I don't think it should be thought of as a per year thing. It's something that's quite difficult to model. FM is very regimented in terms of blocks of time. One "block" is one season, and each one can be considered standing on its own, but obviously the actions of one bleeds into the other. How do you then model something that is a result of a number of seasons work? I'm not sure there's anything in real life that you could model in FM by adding a couple of points to youth rating in a year. For me you'd have to be looking far further back. As a real-world example, say a non-fancied nation wins the next World Cup, one that doesn't necessarily have the best footballing reputation. For the purposes of FM, one that has Game Importance set somewhere in the middle, and a low youth rating. On winning the World Cup, football should explode in the country. All the kids want to play it, those players are a true inspiration. I'd say that's enough to get a fairly instant boost in Game Importance, but I don't think suddenly rising youth rating really models real life. The kids that are now playing football are years away from being ready to be "born" into the game. You're not going to suddenly get a 14 year old, just a couple of years from breaking into FM-age, have his potential raised as a result. It was already to late for them. For me, you'd need to have the game treating nations on decades-long rolling roads. Said nation that won the World Cup could squander all that success and go out in the group stages the next time - do their big plans from four years ago suddenly stop? Do those fickle children suddenly decide they can't be arsed anymore and move onto something else? FM has always struggled in that sense to draw context even across a few months, let alone years. And that's not even mentioning the cyclical nature of international football - how do you model that in as well?
  8. While it's a nice idea, it would surely have to move at a glacial pace, so much so that most users would never see it. If an event were to happen that changed the quality of youth coming through - whether that be a tournament win, or a structural change - then even if said change was going to take effect on day 1, you're still looking at at least a decade to see any fruit. Perhaps even longer. It becomes a bit more muddied in FM, because the real formative years where this kind of stuff takes effect are well before a player would even be generated. Still valid though. Fine with it being dynamic, but making it too changable sees it become far too arcadey, and probably very prone to abuse.
  9. There isn't really anything that's going to make a huge difference. The speed of the game is going to be inversely proportional to how much you're asking it to process. The better your specs, the better it'll process, but it's still fairly linear. There's no real shortcuts to that.
  10. I like making things up too. It's well fun. You'd probably have gotten away with it too if SI hadn't made this very thing absolutely customisable. I dare say there's a lot less licensing around baseball than there is football. Of course football leagues are far stricter - you aren't even allowed to use the correct fixture lists for a lot of leagues without paying for it. I expect there will be degrees of licensing in any sport, but I don't think MLB are going to be demanding the sort of ridiculously exorbitant amounts that people in football do.
  11. They absolutely did. Scheduling has always been a problem in all of the CM/FM games, and it's never taken much to push it off. In FM you can be successful in all competitions in a fairly "unrealistic" sense. It's rare in real life you will see a team go hell-for-leather in all competitions. This season Liverpool got papped out of the FA Cup fairly early, and there was always talk of them "prioritising" one over the other (which they clearly didn't in the end). City dropped at the quarter finals of the Champions League. It's very rare that you get into a situation in real life where you end up with a backlog of games. If there ends up being one, then you can have human input into the situation to end things sensibly. So this happens in FM...there's no-one there to give human input to solve things sensibly, and the AI has to schedule games around the rules it has. This leads to odd things like this happening. It's a bug, obviously, but let's not pretend it's something new. It would be interesting to see your full season's fixtures. Did you have a number of FA Cup replays? Presumably went deep in most cup competitions? Probably because it isn't even remotely easy to fix? It's been a problem for years, and it's easy to see why. The cases that cause it would also probably not happen in real life, but don't let that get in the way.
  12. Except you absolutely can. You're saying something's wrong with something, and in that case it's obvious that the party fixing it would be better served being in possession of the thing that's actually breaking. Can you really not see that it would be quite useful for SI to have a specific, reproducible case with which to investigate with?
  13. Of course you're not. But if you don't report it, you can't really then complain that it isn't getting fixed. SI don't just want examples and decent reports, they need them. Otherwise, what do they have to go on? How are they supposed to go about fixing it? If your phone breaks, would you expect someone to even be able to tell you what's wrong just by you describing it and not having the broken unit itself? If so, then you're wrong. This is showing a massive misunderstanding of what it actually takes to test, fix and then release code. The "oh you just need to turn on the game" stuff I imagine will be the most maddening comment someone can make to a dev. While in some cases it might be true, it's not really helpful. Any fix they then produce might not fit your particular case. And then I suppose it'll be their fault when it doesn't Don't let your complete ignorance of what they're actually doing cloud the issue. You want to have a better game, you can actually help do that. Or you could haughtily throw up your hands and say it isn't your job. And just to add, holding my hands up, I haven't been known to raise bugs. I've done a few, as they were completely stopping me from playing a few editions ago, but aside from that, I really don't want to spend my leisure time doing something I'll be doing a lot of in my work time. But I'm fine with taking that stance because I'm not going to go out and complain about something I've made no attempt to fix. That would be incredibly hypocritical. It's the main reason they don't anymore. Apparently they used to be quite involved, but aren't now for obvious reasons. Why would you? Why would you put yourself in a situation to be bellowed at by someone who is showing clear ignorance as to your occupation?
  • Create New...