| Sales going through, I reckon that is not much. And consider how many deals are closed for those on a negative rating. How are they going to get to 0?
What is happening is that people are inventing ways around it. Oldies listed for peanuts with MTR -10 will go their rounds. People can sell forwards and backwards some times to blow up their rating. Easily done, the cost will be transfer fee only.
Do we want a game where fiddling around is rewarded? | |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Carax
What happens here is that experienced users adapt to it. Newcomers will always try out different things while learning the game, they are unsure of it. The user above on -7 won't be alone.
After an initial surge on the market, it will slow down. Everyone are already trying to offload their poor players, it is hard to sell. So gaining on selling will be hard. With normal transfer activity, it will take seasons to recover from -7. Probably one season to recover from -3.
The users this hit are exactly the ones we need to stay, the newcomers. The game is already low on managers despite the reload. It won't do much good disabling most of a slow transfer market for those who get punished this way.
Blind bidding has already addressed the problem this harsh punishment was meant to hit. This will only push newcomers away from playing.
+1
Losing 3 rating is far too harsh if it was a legitimate reason for withdrawal. And most would consider refusing a player that will only sign for 1 season quite a good reason for not buying.
The game needs to make a distinction between "legitimate" withdrawals and managers simply changing their mind.
As it stands the Manager Transfer Rating is not fit for purpose. | |
|
| Agree the penalty's do seem harsh but im not sure how you think the game could decide what you stated here.
"The game needs to make a distinction between ?legitimate? withdrawals and managers simply changing their mind."
Think if your bidding on an older player thats one of the risks you take that he may only sign a 1 year contract,with that risk there has to be a consequence.
The penalty may need an adjustment but i think there needs to be one,if the seller cant cancel a listing then im sorry but a buyer who pulls out for what ever reason should be penalized. | |
|
| I don't think the issue is penalty or not, but punishing people so harsh for withdrawing from 1 negotiation will only harm the game.
There are plenty of other games around where you are able to use the transfer market normally. IAG is shooting itself in the foot. That is, if you don't fiddle around like I wrote. That is the only logical way to get around it.
| |
|
| Agreed.
Quote: Originally posted by PH3NIX
Agree the penalty's do seem harsh but im not sure how you think the game could decide what you stated here. Anything is possible, it just takes extra coding.
One way, for example, would be that any potential buyer makes a conditional offer, such as subject to a minimum 3 year contract.
As well as the selling manager setting the manager transfer rating he could also stipulate whether or not to accept conditional offers.
Ultimately the objective of MTR is to penalise managers who are abusing the system not to prevent legitimate negotiation.
The best approach would be to try and emulate what happens in real life... | |
|
| Surly it has to be bug though rather than the way its meant to be working as i cant see any other explanation for my rating. | |
|
| If your taking the risk of buying an older players i dont think you should be able to specify the length of the contract.One of the reasons for being able to sell older players cheaper was so that they would sell,we have that so as i stated you take the risk they wont sign long term. | |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by PH3NIX
If your taking the risk of buying an older players i dont think you should be able to specify the length of the contract.One of the reasons for being able to sell older players cheaper was so that they would sell,we have that so as i stated you take the risk they wont sign long term.
Yea I concur, but u have a brighter chance to sign a 30yr player and he will give u five years, signing 32 gives 2years. 33yrs gives u one | |
|
| That is not the issue either, being hit with a punishment which locks you out of most of the TM for a long time is.
A punishment which isn't even clear. How do you think newbees react to this? I guess the one with -7 in rating has withdrawn twice. How will he or she make up for that?
And new managers are most likely to be the ones who withdraw, they are unsure how things work. | |
|
| A 33yr old midfielder will give a year, but a goalie of 33yrs u might be lucky to get a three year deal or 5yrs in your wildest imagination. Anything is possible | |
|
| Anything is possible, a 29 year old might even want just 1 season. One thing to be aware of as well is that players start to drop in skill once near their retirement. | |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Carax
Anything is possible, a 29 year old might even want just 1 season. One thing to be aware of as well is that players start to drop in skill once near their retirement.
I have seen a 24yr old not wanting long term commitment. Also depends on ur club rating. | |
|
| If u want to sign a player that's in a better club than yours, irrespective of the age. The player might not want to give u a long term commitment, it's what I have seen in the game on many occasions. | |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by PH3NIX
Surly it has to be bug though rather than the way its meant to be working as i cant see any other explanation for my rating. Are you sure the player didn't agree to your terms at the same time the sale went through?
Or else it is lazy coding, giving everyone in negos a plus as long as the sale goes through without the board stepping in.
| |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Carax
Or else it is lazy coding, giving everyone in negos a plus as long as the sale goes through without the board stepping in.
My guess is that is what happens. Don't think that's "lazy coding" though. There's a much bigger issue to fix.
In real life any club paying a transfer fee for an aging player will be concerned how long they will want to play on for, you don't agree the fee until you have some idea.
Imagine Man Utd agreeing to pay 50 million (say) to re-sign Ronaldo. Then during player negotiations he demands a 1 year contract and won't sign anything longer.
Who should get the bad press when Man Utd withdraw from the deal? Ronaldo, Man Utd, Real Madrid or no-one? | |
|
| What I don't understand is why it isn't transparent? Why not place in the help files what the rewards and punishments are and then no matter how harsh someone may find the penalty they can't then complain if they suffer from it.
Transfer completed +0.75
Withdraw bid -2
etc etc
(The above figures were completely made up by the way, not accurate) | |
|
| Well, lazy coding was probably out of line.
I agree that the hidden terms is a problem. At least contract length expectations should be viewable. You don't know what you are going into when bidding, and then slap you are banned from most of the market if you don't want his terms.
EDIT: Yes, the punishment must be open, no idea why they hide it?  | |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by CaraxWell, lazy coding was probably out of line.
I agree that the hidden terms is a problem. At least contract length expectations should be viewable. You don't know what you are going into when bidding, and then slap you are banned from most of the market if you don't want his terms.
EDIT: Yes, the punishment must be open, no idea why they hide it?
I agree, also, many managers want to offload older players, thats understandable. What's not understandable is that any managers wishing to buy these players still have to negotiate as if he is a 21 yr old Ronaldo. I mean, they want one year contract and much more wages than they are currently on. Give the buyers an incentive to help out the sellers, have older players see sense and ask for the same, if not less, wages than they are on. Ultimately they will get nothing when nobody signs them and the club they are at just let's them go so why not give them a chance to see out their career playing first team football for a another team?
To do so they realistically have to lower their wage expectations, stop them asking for 1600 a week when its better 800 a week rather than nothing? | |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by mitchell
What I don't understand is why it isn't transparent? Why not place in the help files what the rewards and punishments are and then no matter how harsh someone may find the penalty they can't then complain if they suffer from it.
Transfer completed +0.75
Withdraw bid -2
etc etc
(The above figures were completely made up by the way, not accurate)
I agree. It should have been well published | |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Carax
Are you sure the player didn't agree to your terms at the same time the sale went through?
Or else it is lazy coding, giving everyone in negos a plus as long as the sale goes through without the board stepping in.
Yes got to notes that day one saying negotiation hadnt been accepted other said he had been sold to xyz club. | |
|
|
