Jump to content

Hehj

Members
  • Posts

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hehj

  1. Re: Help With Deal(s) Thread... Is buying Hugo Lloris for £20m and René Adler a good deal for me? Consider that my side has well over £100m in the bank already.
  2. Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team. Why such an arbitrary figure? What's the significance of 25 managers and not 10? It's perfectly possible that the gameworld with 25 managers sees them rarely log in and take no real care for their teams' date=' yet the other gameworld could have 10 dedicated managers who have been there for years and log in every single day. You suggest that relocated managers could get elite teams, which indicates that you're in favour of creating a crazy number of new setups. This would do nothing but exacerbate the problems that already exist with setups having big teams managed and the rest empty shells, not to mention doing nothing to help loading times/results coming in (which I have to point out have not been a problem for at least six months now). To the guy championing a gameworld in the 8000 range - it may be wonderful right now, but give it a few years and it will be as empty as a six-year-old gameworld numbered 200-something. It's a process that happens to all gameworlds given enough time - certain clubs rise to the top thanks to dedicated managers (or being such a big name that they always find a new manager), and the rest fall away. The solution isn't to throw an endless stream of gameworlds at people, or to punish those who have stuck with it in the old gameworlds.
  3. Re: Lets have a maximum amount of players per team.
  4. Re: blocking bids from managers Good thread, I fully agree with the idea. I think being able to block a certain manager from bidding for your players (we could have the option to do so indefinitely or for a period of a month) would be greatly beneficial. I too hate the idea of making players unavailable, and never have done, because then I might miss out on a fantastic offer from a different manager. Having a block feature in the game would be a fantastic alternative.
  5. Re: New User Interface [beta] Spot on. Instead of devoting a load of time to a totally unnecessary aesthetic change, why can't they work on features that would actually improve the game such as this?
  6. Re: Attendance System Flawed? I'm in full agreement. The worst thing about the real-life attendance idea is that it wasn't in SM at the start, but was added maybe three years ago. Whoever decided it was a good idea got things seriously wrong. The idea of SM, to me at least, is that we take over an existing club and make it ours - bringing in our players, our tactics, our ideologies. The longer you manage a club, the more it moves away from being a real Barcelona or Walsall, and the more unique it becomes. Attendances are part of this, and should reflect your club's journey and position - the performance of the club in real life should have no bearing on things whatsoever.
  7. Re: New User Interface [beta] This. I tried out the new interface and opted for the old one, now I log on and find I'm forced to use the ugly new style anyway. Surely it can't be too difficult for SM to provide both as options. The new style is garish, blocky and very cumbersome in parts. Not a fan.
  8. Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help)
  9. Re: Help With Deal(s) Thread... I'd definitely stick with Hummels.
  10. Re: Player Concerns (please read the Online Help if looking for help) I've got one issue to take with the concerns. A Barcelona team in my setup had several key players, including Xavi, Valdes and Fabregas (yes, the very same) who were on level three concerns about their wage. However, as Valdes and Fabregas were on the final year of their contracts, they were handed automatic renewals by the computer at the end of the season, thus clearing their concerns away without any input by the manager. This really should change; a player's wage concern should only go down if the manager has actively handed them a new contract. As it is, managers' neglect is rewarded by the AI doing things for them.
  11. Re: Undisclosed fee should remain undisclosed. Not a bad idea, though fees must be disclosed after the transfer is complete. Imagine, say, Messi being sold for the absolute minimum between two clubs which are managed by the same person. With the bids being disclosed after they've gone through, it's possible for everyone to see whether there might have been foul play, and report accordingly. If the fee is never disclosed, it'll be easier for cheats to get away with bidding the bare minimum for a player, and to accept an offer of £50m over bids twice that value from other clubs.
  12. Re: Thomas Muller should stay 91 As am I - I guess neither of us are going to change our view. We should join forces to rail against SM's oft-bizarre ratings changes like the Wilshere case, perhaps wearing capes like a crime-fighting duo...
  13. Re: Thomas Muller should stay 91 This is not how it works for Christ's sake! Yes, Gomez had a great season, but he was rated 93 to begin with. That is probably high enough for him as a player, overall. Did he play like a 93 in 2009/10? No, he didn't, and in some respects he was lucky to hold on to that rating at the start of this campaign. Logically, if Müller and Gomez played "just as well" as each other for the same team then they should be moved closer together in rating, which is what has happened with the gap between them now standing at just one. Giving them both rises would've simply continued a great disparity (of 2 rating points) between two apparently closely matched players. As for the Hernandez thing, obviously he did play well and he earned his rise. An 89 was clearly too low for him now, so he's moved up to a 90 after a fantastic debut season in the big time, and should he carry on his form next season he'll rise again. There's a parallel there with someone else...
  14. Re: Thomas Muller should stay 91 That paragraph in bold sounds like you should be arguing my corner. If you say that there is "no difference between these two this season" and imply that they're both in vital roles for their team, then a rating difference of only one between them makes sense. Clearly you don't understand how the ratings system works. It isn't there to automatically hand rises to players who play well. Changes are in the game so that a player's rating can more accurately reflect their ability and position in the sport. The biggest mistake you're making is that you are ignoring the current rating a player has, and simply thinking that a good season guarantees them a rise. Before these ratings Gomez was a 93, and Müller a 91. The reason for that is that they're at different stages in their careers - Gomez has been playing first-team football for a good few years longer. As you rightly say they're both important players for Bayern and Germany (now that Gomez has finally figured out how to score for the national side), so with good personal form (which they both have this season) they're worthy of being in the 92 + bracket. Gomez was already there, and now Müller has joined him.
  15. Re: Thomas Muller should stay 91 I think it's pretty clear that ratings don't work like that - players don't automatically receive a +1 every time they have a good season. Gomez could have got a 94 (and I would not have complained if he had) but ultimately paid the price' date=' I suspect, for having had such a comparitively poor season in 2009/10. He may have performed on the level of a 94 in 2010/11 but that wasn't enough in isolation. Müller, by contrast, generally picked up where he left off from the 2009/10 season. His stats were similar, his performances likewise. A 91 became too low for a key first-teamer for Bayern, who had been played in every league match for two years and been an integral part of a team that had made the Champions' League final. While his team did not enjoy a season as good as that next time round, he was continuing to perform at a level which showed he was worthy of keeping company with messrs. Schweinsteiger, Robben and Lahm. Throw in his international appearances (for the third best team in the world) and I really find it mystifying that anyone could doubt his credentials as a 92. Conjecture. Just as Ribery could have added more goals/assists, he could have failed to produce a single one in an extra ten games. What he could have done in those matches makes no difference to his rating, or an evaluation of his season. I do agree that Wilshere was very unfortunate and deserved to move to 90.
  16. Re: Thomas Muller should stay 91 Müller got his rise to a 92 today, and rightly so.
  17. Re: Thomas Muller should stay 91 Bayern had a terrible season by their standards but that doesn't mean that none of their players can rise. Müller was a tiny bit below his form of 2009/10 but still impressed - he played every league game again and scored nineteen in all competitions. He has now been a regular for two years at one of the biggest clubs in the world (in what is officially the third best league in Europe), and is an integral part of the German national side. That strikes me as deserving of a 92 any day. According to the official Bundesliga website... Ribery this season (Bundesliga only) - 7 goals' date=' 11 assists [18 total'] Müller this season (Bundesliga only) - 12 goals, 11 assists [23 total] So, if Ribery's goal/assist tally is enough to keep him at a 95, then Müller's more impressive goal/assist tally should be enough to give him a raise of one, right?
  18. Re: Fixing up the counter offer system Fully agreed. It shouldn't be too difficult for SM to tweak, either. It'll stop situations where you're countered something just out of reach (and presumably lead to more deals when the manager is actually interested in negotiating) and will remove the oh-so hilarious trend of people countering something like £100m, Higuain and Pedro for a 92 rated player.
  19. Re: Help With Deal(s) Thread... I wouldn't do that.
×
×
  • Create New...