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 don't see why SI should fix it. Like I said if it wasn't for the flawed rating system we wouldn't have had some of the fanatstic bargains we have had over the years. It would ruin that sense of goodness when talking to our mates about this cracking player from Peru that has abig future that noone else knows about and looking like a football guru. To emphasise this i'm going to start a gems of CM/FM past and present lol.
Originally posted by bod1035:
If u have nothing constructive to say dont say anything at all.
Constructive criticism means that you are hoping someone will hear it and benefit by it. SI has never benefited from almost anything you people "constructively" post (I have done the same for years). So, in reality, what you are doing can not be constructive since it brings no results. What you people are doing is over analyzing ridiculously simple mistakes to make them sound complicated, when the truth is that they are mistakes, just that, and that they need fixing. SI wants you to over analyze because this is a way of making even the most clear cut mistakes seem something else. The thing is that poor SI really has no idea what is going on in their game, and in essence has the greatest development team (us idiots) figuring out this game for them.
So, constructive would be to actually do something, like NOT buying this broken game for a change, and not talking all the time without doing anything that has benefited the game. All these contstructive posts all these years and what have you got? A game with the same bugs and mistakes every year.
You are not constructive because you have actually managed **** all these years. I have been unable to play the game I love because of all these issues (I don't mind the odd bug here and there) from October. You must understand how much I love this game in order to say all these things. It doesn't change the fact though that SI have become as broken as their game.
A den of liars and incompetent designers that can't implement even the simplest 'football things' right.
Fair enough that alot of them might be caused because the players are valued too highly, but that doesn't change the fact that there are currently about 2 or 3 times more 10m+ transfers being done in the game than in reality.
There is simply too much money for every average top tier team.
Celtic, for example, have spent a net total of 30m over the last two seasons,
Aston Villa 60m
Everton 19m
West Ham 30m
Bolton 27m
Sunderland 35m
Fulham 23m
Reading 30m
Rangers (me) 4m
Whereas:
Man Utd -3m
Arsenal 50m
Liverpool -17m
Tottenham -4m
Chelsea 60m
This is after taking off income from selling players into account.
Is this realistic?
Personally I would say my transfer dealings are the most realistic out of any of those, Arsenal would never splash out that amount of cash, as for Liverpool and Man U, don't know what's going on there?
Originally posted by Lyvean:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by bod1035:
If u have nothing constructive to say dont say anything at all.
Constructive criticism means that you are hoping someone will hear it and benefit by it. SI has never benefited from almost anything you people "constructively" post (I have done the same for years). So, in reality, what you are doing can not be constructive since it brings no results. What you people are doing is over analyzing ridiculously simple mistakes to make them sound complicated, when the truth is that they are mistakes, just that, and that they need fixing. SI wants you to over analyze because this is a way of making even the most clear cut mistakes seem something else. The thing is that poor SI really has no idea what is going on in their game, and in essence has the greatest development team (us idiots) figuring out this game for them.
So, constructive would be to actually do something, like NOT buying this broken game for a change, and not talking all the time without doing anything that has benefited the game. All these contstructive posts all these years and what have you got? A game with the same bugs and mistakes every year.
You are not constructive because you have actually managed **** all these years. I have been unable to play the game I love because of all these issues (I don't mind the odd bug here and there) from October. You must understand how much I love this game in order to say all these things. It doesn't change the fact though that SI have become as broken as their game.
A den of liars and incompetent designers that can't implement even the simplest 'football things' right. </BLOCKQUOTE>
You have your opinions and i have mine. While i accept there a bugs in the game i personally have not come across one that stops my enjoyment of the game or makes it unplayable. i am not for one moment saying there are no major bugs that have stoppeed other poeple playing just that i have not come across these myself, but you interupting a constuctive debate to tell me not to buy the game on your experiences is plain ignorent.
Originally posted by exacerbating:
Fair enough that alot of them might be caused because the players are valued too highly, but that doesn't change the fact that there are currently about 2 or 3 times more 10m+ transfers being done in the game than in reality.
There is simply too much money for every average top tier team.
Celtic, for example, have spent a net total of 30m over the last two seasons,
Aston Villa 60m
Everton 19m
West Ham 30m
Bolton 27m
Sunderland 35m
Fulham 23m
Reading 30m
Rangers (me) 4m
Whereas:
Man Utd -3m
Arsenal 50m
Liverpool -17m
Tottenham -4m
Chelsea 60m
This is after taking off income from selling players into account.
Is this realistic?
Personally I would say my transfer dealings are the most realistic out of any of those, Arsenal would never splash out that amount of cash, as for Liverpool and Man U, don't know what's going on there?
I'd say that was accurate.
IRL (This Season):
Fulham - £20Mill +
Sunderland - £20Mill +
West Ham - £20Mill +
Liverpool - £40Mill +
Man City - £20Mill +
Man Utd - £50Mill +
Newcastle - £20Mill +
Pompey - £20Mill +
Spurs - £30Mill +
Well firstly, you're not offsetting transfer income. Fulham received around 10m, West Ham 15m+, Liverpool 10m+, Pompey 10m+, added to the fact this is the first time Fulham have invested in a few years, Man City have just had a takeover and Sunderland have just been promoted which sparked a need for investment.
In the in-game ones I showed I was taking away the transfer income.
Secondly, those figures would be added to the in game transfers, as they're effectively transfers occuring in the transfer window at the start of the game.
Thirdly, this season in real life was the odd one out in terms of spending, there was alot more spending than in previous seasons.
Nuri Sahin (Dortmund to Celta), £36 million
Anderson (Roma to Barcelona), £55 million
The former is bizarre to me. Sahin at this stage is playing 4 points off his potential ability (166).
The latter is amusing because Anderson isn't starting for Barcelona. Barcelona have spent a lot of money in my game these past few years - their balance is down to £101 million, although the club are still (just) worth over £400 million.
Ronaldinho is upset in my game, too, yet my scout thinks I'll be able to sign him for £40-50 million. And he's 31 now...
Don't ask me where Celta got the cash from. They did finish 4th in La Liga once and did handsomely in the UEFA Cup, but I have no idea where a transfer budget of £36 million comes from.
Don't ask me where Celta got the cash from. They did finish 4th in La Liga once and did handsomely in the UEFA Cup, but I have no idea where a transfer budget of £36 million comes from.
Check their transfers, maybee they sold one of their players for a packet
Linear Mode
