If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
I am playing a network game with friends and we are Chelsea (me), Arsenal and Man United.
We were all competing to get the best player and I successfully signed Kaka!
The weird thing is this. I had £41 million transfer budget and I knew that Kaka would only go for more, so I big £41m, 50% sell on clause and Carlo Cudicini and Makelele. Instead, AC came back with the offer, negotiated, wanting simply £41 million. No clauses, no extras players, just £41m.
I suppose they didn't have any need for the players offered.I often refuse such deals and only go for the money.I have no use for someone to just get paid while rotting in my reserves and constantly whining about not getting his chance to play.It's another thing about the 50% sell on clause though.I have no comment on that one.Just stupid.
You and I, might, but the computer is going to be evaluating things by giving each component a weight, and summing the weights. In the case of my example - and keep in mind, I just made those numbers up! I have no idea what it does for real! - its basically equating the "50% sell-on" clause as the "price" for taking on the contracts of Cudicini and Makelele.
Its not a horribly unreasonable conclusion, either, when you think that:
1. Cudicini is 34 and not getting any younger; he certainly won't be re-sellable at his current value.
2. Makelele is 34 and not getting any younger; he certainly won't be re-sellable at his current value.
3. The purchasing club is unlikely to turn Kaka around immediately; they may even keep him under contract through retirement. Its doubtful he'll fetch £41M on a second transfer.
Amaroq, I don't know how the AI would decide/know that the OP offered the two players just to screw it over. From what I understand, you are saying that the AI decided to decline on the two unneeded players, but in order not to scare the bidder away it also decided to erase the 50% from the deal. If that's the case then the game is far more sofisticated than I actually thought it was
I suspect this is the same reason why sometimes you can't sell a player for *zero* - if the AI's evaluation of a player comes out as a negative (considering his salary), then "0" really is overpaying for him.
I actually do think the game is that sophisticated, I just think it does a poor job of explaining the sophistication to the end-user.
I mean, the counter-offer could have included a text string explaining the changes they wanted, and why they wanted them.
"Who are you kidding? You're not planning to sell Kaka anytime soon, and we're not willing to take Cudicini and Makelele's salaries off your hands. How about this instead?"
happened to me loads of times. i once bid 25 M + some player(dont recall) for Pato. but milan just asked for the money. didnt get Pato though, he rejected me
Originally posted by Amaroq:
I suspect this is the same reason why sometimes you can't sell a player for *zero* - if the AI's evaluation of a player comes out as a negative (considering his salary), then "0" really is overpaying for him.
I actually do think the game is that sophisticated, I just think it does a poor job of explaining the sophistication to the end-user.
I mean, the counter-offer could have included a text string explaining the changes they wanted, and why they wanted them.
"Who are you kidding? You're not planning to sell Kaka anytime soon, and we're not willing to take Cudicini and Makelele's salaries off your hands. How about this instead?"
As much as I want to share your opinion on the game sofistication, the AI transfer issues raised in this thread make me skeptical.
Nah its ok, we just want £41m. 
Linear Mode
