Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ratboy

  1. 70 rated in the game Real world plays for Wolves, just called up by Wales national side Worth a punt
  2. Re: Munir El Haddadi Reported to be joining Arsenal in January....
  3. Re: merge custom game worlds!!! Maybe this could be extended to all game worlds where there are only a small number of managers. Logistical nightmare though
  4. Re: Clubs who have lost a manager There are other reasons why GWs are mainly empty.....this is just one of them
  5. Re: Custom Game World - Squad Limit Option With you all the way on this one but with a squad size limit of 60, maybe less
  6. Re: Mass edit of squad status, transfer status, others Good idea; it would solve the pain of say, recalling a whole load of loans players, as an example
  7. Re: Managers who ignore Transfer Bids First of all, perhaps you should calm down a little. I answered your points clearly. Random transfer requests are far from ludicrous; they would improve SM no end. Perhaps you should ask Southampton fans how they felt about half their players demanding transfers Please don't shout, bad internet form, old chap But as I said: you can't move onto other targets that easily for a number of reasons. Including not getting timely responses from managers. I assume the irony was lost on you when you said you can't get everyone to do what you say and then promptly, you told me what to do...ie stop..... A couple of other posters have made constructive input; why not join them? You take care now
  8. Re: Managers who ignore Transfer Bids Still not a single argument against my proposal that stands up to scrutiny. More importantly, not many counter proposals for discussion. My overarching intent was to find ways to improve SM and by that I mean finding new managers to join and stay in Game Worlds. It is very obvious that many new managers are put off from staying in a GW because they join, make bids and then are left hanging because they don't get a response. I want those managers to stay. All managers deserve to have a timely response to a bid. It takes seconds to respond.....click, select, drop down message, click. FAO 9Wolves: thanks for your constructive input. Actually, this was my original idea suggested months ago. Because I respond to constructive comments, I changed my original idea because a poster pointed out that a 14 day window would affect those managers who perhaps are away on holiday for a fortnight. This is why I amended the idea to register those obnoxious managers who log in and therefore who are wilfully being ignorant. Always happy to discuss further. Tebthereb: thanks also for your input, see where you are coming from: 1) agree that the use of "unavailable" is extremely childish. 2) not sure I agree about the time involved to reject or negotiate bids. 3 and 4) I got 320 messages earlier this week. Again, didn't take me long to deal with them but I acknowledge the issue about being receptive to other bids.
  9. Re: Getting rid of the 'unavailable' transfer status Go back and read again: this isn't just about every player having a price. It is about the fundamental principle of a free, active, transfer market. I make this point very clear. Simply people whinging and bleating about not wanting transfer bids is not a legitimate argument. SM has a transfer market. Fundamentally, it should have the ability to bid for any player. And SM should be receptive to changing any rule.
  10. Looking for a central defender but can only afford one. Most of the major known talents have been taken.... Isimat-Mirin or Mustafi Any thoughts about which one please? Or perhaps an alternative? Many thanks
  11. Re: Riferimento: Managers who ignore Transfer Bids There hasn't been a single decent reason against the 3 strikes etc etc. And clearly, my original suggestion was to provoke ideas. Feel free (anyone) to point one out. I am extremely interested in discussing this with others and open to different suggestions, ideas, alterations. Such as single bids you said. It is very clear that SM has a moribund transfer market; it wasn't me who originally pointed this out. But every time solutions are suggested, they are shouted down. Normally by those with a vested interest in maintaining the current system. And those who do so fail to offer any balanced, rational alternatives besides bleating how unfair change would be. It did make me smile at your belief that it is extreme to sell a player after 3 strikes........I am not sure how you would view "random transfer requests" which I would also advocate to improve SM Let me reiterate....the whole system needs reform, not wholesale perhaps....a series of measures that frees up transfers
  12. Re: Getting rid of the 'unavailable' transfer status And of course, PMs are ineffectual if other managers don't answer. Your valuation is subjective and another manager can only deal with your subjective valuation if he or she is getting a response. Let's rewind back to the beginning: SM is almost totally reliant on the transfer market to make it a playable game. That is the case and therefore, shutting off part of the transfer market by declaring players "unavailable" is not only silly but also undermines the very principle of a market. There is a very simple way of dealing with unwelcome bids and that is by using the feature that is available: reject the bid and explain why. It takes a matter of seconds. It is almost ridiculous to play a game dependent on the transfer market and throw a tantrum because you don't like receiving bids. This isn't just a matter of "everyone has a price"; rather, it is giving managers the right to attempt to bid for a player, no matter whether or not the other manager wants/intends to sell. Either remove this feature. Or if managers want to use it, ban them from making bids for other peoples' players. Sheer hypocrisy to make ones own players unavailable but continue to bid for other players. As I said previously, this is just part of the needed measures to reform the SM transfer market, which is general is completely stagnant.
  13. Re: Getting rid of the 'unavailable' transfer status It's completely unrealistic and it undermines the principle of having a transfer market. So far, I have not seen one single robust argument in favour of it. Claiming it stops "rubbish transfer bids" is not a justification; it is only "rubbish" because that it is your subjective valuation, not the potential buyer. It takes seconds to reject a bid and there is a feature to inform the potential buyer that the bid is not high enough. And don't forget that PMs are sometimes not answered. This is a feature that must be removed. But it is only part of the changes that are needed to reform the SM transfer market
  14. Re: Getting rid of the 'unavailable' transfer status sirmarkhughes: you make a reasonable point but the logical conclusions one must draw is that there must be wholesale reform of the SM transfer system. I agree that someone like Chambers should be sold for a high value than £8 million. Nevertheless, simply slapping "unavailable" is not acceptable. Other game players should have the right to bid for any player; "Unavailable" is a cop out. If I wanted to buy Chambers from you, I should be allowed to keep bidding until we find an acceptable compromise. But equally, too many players are guilty of player hogging. They refuse to sell any player whatsoever, no matter what if offered. This needs to be addressed within the game ( squad size limits, random transfer, player concerns, players becoming unsettled). Example. I am managing a lower league team with little money and in a league which is almost full (which is good). I joined several seasons after the GW was created so I have had to scrabble around for players. Consequently, I only have one forward for my first team. Player hogging and huge squads are stopping me from signing another forward of sufficient quality. Managers are either refusing to respond to my bids (rudeness), have unavailable (rudeness again....at least give me an opportunity), ignoring PMs, demanding ridiculous deals or just rejecting them. Even managers with huge squads continue to sign up new talent as they appear, which prevents other managers from competing fairly. I will persevere but other managers won't. It is leaving game worlds near empty. This is SM's major failing
  15. I think we are all agreed that Player Concerns has been an excellent addition; however, the process is simply too slow to deliver the required effects. It is taking several game seasons to limp towards Unhappiness Level 5, at which point managers simply offer a new contract and the whole tedious process starts again (albeit faster, although that's difficult to gauge). I seem to recall that one of the SM Devs (Steven?) wanted to open up the moribund transfer market. The obvious next step would be random transfer requests but I suspect that would only attract squeals of protest. I would continue to advocate: a) Reduction down to three Unhappiness Levels with a transfer taking place at Level 3. Any unhappy player refuses to sign a new contract and runs their contract down so they can leave for free. However, I would also suggest that any unhappy player becomes prone to becoming unsettled by any transfer bid. Example: a player is Unhappy Level 2. Clearly, his agent has broadcasted this to interested clubs. Every time a bid comes in, the player has a random chance of demanding a move. To prevent one club making multiple bids to increase the chance, the rule would only take effect from one club once. So ten bids from ten clubs would increase the likelihood of a move. This is unrealistic, certainly more so than buying off an unhappy player with a new contract. The market in most worlds is moribund, static, stagnant etc. There are so many options available to release the fetters. Squad size limits being another obvious method. But in the meantime, let's explore making Player Concerns more efficient and effective
  16. Re: Riferimento: Managers who ignore Transfer Bids
  17. Re: Getting rid of the 'unavailable' transfer status Then what you are doing is potentially alienating those managers who are new and/or unfamiliar with SM and the relative value of players. You are preventing managers from learning how to adapt to SM and stopping them from getting accustomed with the peculiarities of the transfer market. It takes a matter of seconds to reject a bid. More importantly, the inability to bid for players is curtailing the freedom of the market.....why shouldn't a manager bid for any player, any time. The "unavailable" status is childish and very, very silly. It should be removed because there is no justification for it.
  18. Re: Getting rid of the 'unavailable' transfer status The "unavailable" tag is unrealistic and rude. It should be removed. However, if it is retained, then any manager who uses the "unavailable" status - thus preventing decent managers from bidding for their players - should be banned from bidding for any other player in the GW. The transfer market is fundamental to SM. It should not be constrained by some managers blocking it's freedom.
  19. Re: David Henen.... Youngster Manchester United are Interested In! Just joined Everton on loan from Olympiakos
  20. Re: Marcus Maddison Worth bumping this up. Maddison signed for Peterborough in League One. He is rated 70; perhaps a small rise beckons.
  21. Re: Getting rid of the 'unavailable' transfer status It's entirely a cop out and it is reflective of ignorant behaviour. It takes a matter of seconds to reject a bid. Most low bids come from new managers who don't understand. And those managers who slap unavailable on players are the sort of managers who refuse to answer PMs.....we all have evidence of that. "Unavailable" doesn't exist in the real world and it is just plain silly to retain it
  22. Re: Getting rid of the 'unavailable' transfer status Player concerns need to be tightened up, not done away with. The "backlash" is coming from those managers who are player hogging
  • Create New...