Jump to content

forameuss

Members+
  • Content Count

    12,294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

forameuss last won the day on October 9 2018

forameuss had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,637 "That'll do Pig, that'll do"

About forameuss

  • Rank
    Reserves

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Partick Thistle

Recent Profile Visitors

9,885 profile views
  1. Yeah, apart from the massively expensive licensing deals, the fact that the studio doesn't run on magic beans, and the fact that it's based entirely around a sport with a similarly yearly cycle, there's no reasons at all for it to be released yearly.
  2. See, for me the answer is simple. "Nothing". The problem is that it's the wrong question. Whatever limitations the system may or may not have aren't down to PA being fixed, they are potentially down to the journey towards that fixed amount. So the question should be "How can we better model CA changes?" Exactly. People get way too hung up on the ceiling and forget about everything below it. Having a fixed number for PA is not the issue. It never has been. Every player should just have a different journey towards that PA. Maybe some charge towards the value by the time
  3. But it's a known 100% fact that the only unrealistic things in FM are the things that are against you. It's science.
  4. And what is bad about that? The taker can't touch the ball until someone else does. You hit the post.
  5. If you could point out where I said that anyone should "shut up and accept" anything, then that'd be nice. Before, after or during throwing your toys out because someone disagreed with you, I don't mind. My point was, and will always be, that practices aren't going to change while people continue to buy the product. If you care strongly about the way a company is doing something, continuing to support them with a weak-willed, "Well, shucks, I guess I've got no choice" (and I'm the "normalizer"...jeezo) is stupid. I'm literally telling you the complete opposite of shutting up and accept
  6. Still struggling to find a comparable example then, I see? So far you've gone from a software product that doesn't follow the same cycles (but I suppose at least it's still software) to a car. Doesn't really strengthen the argument, does it? If we really want to stretch that tortured analogy, that would be like a single company, with a small team, releasing a car every single year like clockwork. You also rely on this cycle of income for your continued operation. So on that release day, they expect 95% of their business to leave the old car in the driveway and buy their new one. The old
  7. But every period of time, do you build a completely new product intended to replace the previous one, and then continue to support the previous one? I work for a major investment bank, and every few weeks there's another application jumping onto the old NEW STUFF/this is good/isn't there something new out there?/out-of-support/decommission
  8. Maybe because people continue to buy the next one regardless? And this is by far an "OH NO BIG BAD EA" problem. Every single game - even outwith sports - with a similar cycle will have the same treatment. It's industry wide. Hell, any game that has a sequel outside of long sprawling epics will have the problem. You think CDPR are going to be doing much to the Witcher 3 now? Rockstar still looking up those GTAIV bugs? People get so hysterical about this stuff it's hard to take seriously, but if you really want to make a difference, see above. Stop buying the products that "continue
  9. You know, using language like "scandal" and "victims" doesn't really make your argument much stronger. No, there won't be a final update. There's never been any updates outside of minor licensing fixes once the next release is out. Why would there be?
  10. People don't seem to get that there is massive potential within the current structure for PA for any kind of eventuality. The problem is likely that these don't happen, or at least aren't as obvious when they do. Just because there's one fixed ceiling for potential ability (which there should be, and has to be) doesn't mean there aren't a million journeys towards that point. It is if you're boiling it down to "lots of people talk about it, must be something in it". People like marmite, Justin Bieber and going out dressed as anthropomorphic animals. People can't be trusted.
  11. Multiple people have brought up scripting being a thing. That's not really a reliable metric.
  12. Almost like they're putting some arbitrary ceiling or value on where they believe the player will develop to and making a judgement based on that. Seems like a good idea, someone should try taht.
  13. ...do you actually understand what a script is?
  14. In a weird way, it kind of seems "realistic" to me. The truth is, if English football could channel all the resources and opportunities it has in a focused way, then this should be the level of dominance they have. Of course, FM often fails to simulate those little intangible things that mean it doesn't ever happen that way.
  15. Unfortunately it's quite easy to rinse the AI like that. Last year I managed to pick up Eddie Salcedo for a ridiculous fee after a successful loan, then ended up selling for around £80m to somewhere in the Premier League. He barely played, got farmed out on loan the second season. Third I got him back on loan, fourth I got him back permanently for around £15m.
×
×
  • Create New...