Assistant Manager -How to manipulate his offers

[Der_Ryan_M]

Today same player but we got a FT as offer. 95% almost 66M is very good!

@Tactician - I don't want to discuss with you, you can believe whatever you want. I just want to help the community, who is still playing the game by giving useful information. And therefor I said your "theory" is wrong, which it apparently is, no doubt about it. This was not to criticize you as a person, but more to be correct on a feature in Top Eleven.

As you edit your post above every minute, one more thing maybe - instead of feeling personally offended in every discussion here on forum, you should maybe accept, that other players have also made a lot of testing with certain features of the game and just maybe know as much or more than you about them. I also read many things not being correct here on forum by new players. Most of the times I refuse to discuss with them, because why should I care when they make mistakes? But I thought when I put something right (right being still the term in my opinion here, because even when I try to stay relatively objective on a topic, it doesn't necessarily mean it is right in everyones mind) I can help some players here and also convince people like you from my standpoint. At the end everyone can do their own testing, and figure out what fits for them, it is maybe the best choice. In that sense, again, nothing personal here against you, but I have bought many recommended player, set up many possible scenarios with dummy players in the past, did a lot of testing regarding their speed of training, which on my main account L69 I have to do, because market values are crap there. I just couldn't show you everything here and offered you and others a small example, which was enough in my opinion.

[Tactician]

Today same player but we got a FT as offer. 95% almost 66M is very good!

@Tactician - I don't want to discuss with you, you can believe whatever you want. I just want to help the community, who is still playing the game by giving useful information. And therefor I said your "theory" is wrong, which it apparently is, no doubt about it. This was not to criticize you as a person, but more to be correct on a feature in Top Eleven.

As you edit your post above every minute, one more thing maybe - instead of feeling personally offended in every discussion here on forum, you should maybe accept, that other players have also made a lot of testing with certain features of the game and just maybe know as much or more than you about them. I also read many things not being correct here on forum by new players. Most of the times I refuse to discuss with them, because why should I care when they make mistakes? But I thought when I put something right (right being still the term in my opinion here, because even when I try to stay relatively objective on a topic, it doesn't necessarily mean it is right in everyones mind) I can help some players here and also convince people like you from my standpoint. At the end everyone can do their own testing, and figure out what fits for them, it is maybe the best choice. In that sense, again, nothing personal here against you, but I have bought many recommended player, set up many possible scenarios with dummy players in the past, did a lot of testing regarding their speed of training, which on my main account L69 I have to do, because market values are crap there. I just couldn't show you everything here and offered you and others a small example, which was enough in my opinion.

I told you that I based my argument on those 4 players that I bought in a season some months ago and I just said based on what I observed. The thing is that I no longer play this game and thus I cannot verify further. I did not claim that I should be absolutely right and that I cannot be wrong. I expected that you have a better level of understanding compared to certain users on this forum that only post to argue or provok or post and throw likes here and there that only make matters worst and that you are not the kind of person to provok, to cause arguments or things like that on the forum, but your second reply to me brought things to another tone. My point was that you should have at least bought the player concerned (the DC/DMC) and made tests to show that the player is indeed not to the same type of trainer the older DC is but came based on randomness but you still argued based only on the market value. What if that DC/DMC had a lower wage, which means that the training factor (lower value but also lower wage) will be near the same as that of what a player having near the same progress capacity as that DC should have? Then it would be near the same type of trainer. What you showed in that first reply did not prove much to what you said. The 3rd post which you did later improve things. I did not intend to mislead users here, and you also unlikely intended to mislead users.

I did not see that you posted a third reply as I was still finishing with the reply which I was still editing based on your previous reply and why you saw the edits. One thing for sure is that I did not edit to mislead others or to give the impression that I said something else, to what I initially intended, unlike what some did on this forum including a moderator that edited one of my post in another thread to included something that I did not say at all and do not reflect to what I did in the game; basically he edited and put a false thing in my post so that the post say something that would suit him but that I have not said or did, and I even made a screenshot of this just in case, and I suppose forum admins can see detailed edits made by moderators on users posts. What this moderator did is wrong, should be unacceptable and should be against the rules, but I can understand why he did so, and thus I did not make a fuss about this case.

Do not worry about the matter as I am not the sort of person that will stick to one thing even if that thing is wrong. If I am wrong, or was wrong, I will accept it instead of hiding, finding excuses or still pretend otherwise unlike some users. Also, things change with time; they do not stay the same and thus someone can even turn out to be wrong at a later time because things are simply no longer the same. If in the case here I was wrong for whatever reasons - wrong irrespective to how things were in whatever period or wrong because things changed or wrong because I based myself on the 4 players that I bought and a few other things - my apologies, and if really you turn out to be right, then thanks because I appreciate the effort made and I like to know what is right or correct.

I also try to be as much right as possible but the behavior of certain users (definitely not you) pissed me off in the past. They start to bring all sorts of others things into the discussion and try attack the user personally instead of properly defending what is relevant to the discussion upto the point of insulting him indrectly or directly just because they did not like what the user posted.

Well, that is what I said - that anyone concerned can make their own research, tests and so on when they have doubts on something, and they can make their own conclusions. After all, they are the managers and they are the ones still playing the game.

[Der_Ryan_M]

I told you that I based my argument on those 4 players that I bought in a season some months ago and I just said based on what I observed. The thing is that I no longer play this game and thus I cannot verify further. I did not claim that I should be absolutely right and that I cannot be wrong. I expected that you have a better level of understanding compared to certain users on this forum that only post to argue or provok or post and throw likes here and there that only make matters worst and that you are not the kind of person to provok, to cause arguments or things like that on the forum, but your second reply to me brought things to another tone. My point was that you should have at least bought the player concerned (the DC/DMC) and made tests to show that the player is indeed not to the same type of trainer the older DC is but came based on randomness but you still argued based only on the market value. What if that DC/DMC had a lower wage, which means that the training factor (lower value but also lower wage) will be near the same as that of what a player having near the same progress capacity as that DC should have? Then it would be near the same type of trainer. What you showed in that first reply did not prove much to what you said. The 3rd post which you did later improve things. I did not intend to mislead users here, and you also unlikely intended to mislead users.

I did not see that you posted a third reply as I was still finishing with the reply which I was still editing based on your previous reply and why you saw the edits. One thing for sure is that I did not edit to mislead others or to give the impression that I said something else, to what I initially intended, unlike what some did on this forum including a moderator that edited one of my post in another thread to included something that I did not say at all and do not reflect to what I did in the game; basically he edited and put a false thing in my post so that the post say something that would suit him but that I have not said or did, and I even made a screenshot of this just in case, and I suppose forum admins can see detailed edits made by moderators on users posts. What this moderator is wrong, should be unacceptable and should be against the rules, but I can understand why he did so, and thus I did not make a fuss about this case.

Do not worry about the matter as I am not the sort of person that will stick to one thing even if that thing is wrong. If I am wrong, or was wrong, I will accept it instead of hiding, finding excuses or still pretend otherwise unlike some users. Also, things change with time; they do not stay the same and thus someone can even turn out to be wrong at a later time because things are simply no longer the same. If in the case here I was wrong for whatever reasons - wrong irrespective to how things were in whatever period or wrong because things changed or wrong because I based myself on the 4 players that I bought and a few other things - my apologies, and if really you turn out to be right, then thanks because I appreciate the effort made and I like to know what is right or correct.

I also try to be as much right as possible but the behavior of certain users (definitely not you) pissed me off in the past. They start to bring all sorts of others things into the discussion and try attack the user personally instead of properly defending what is relevant to the discussion upto the point of insulting him indrectly or directly just because they did not like what the user posted.

Well, that is what I said - that anyone concerned can make their own research, tests and so on when they have doubts on something, and they can make their own conclusions. After all, they are the managers and they are the ones still playing the game.

I think at the end we are pretty similar - we both are not accepting opinions from other persons, when they can't proof something and we think we have other experiences. We question things, that's good. How often do I read statements from new players here, claiming to know something which they don't and they don't listen to advice from other people... I'm a very pragmatic person, I base my style of playing the game around facts and numbers. And I think you also do - that's why we spend so much time and effort to test things like the recommended players.

My intention was not to denounce you or anything. I just wanted to share my experiences, which were, in this case, not the same as yours and maybe convince you also from my standpoint. For me, it was always clear that market value is the best indicator to tell if someone is a fast trainer. And I was kind of shocked that you didn't know, maybe I put my first sentence in my second post a bit wrong, sorry for that. But so I don't need to buy the player and test, because for years I select my players from the market value and many people do as well. It looked a bit like you couldn't accept it, that my observation could be right and you brought things up like "buy and test the player", which isn't necessary because I know how the game works and how you can tell fast trainers.

Again, a lot was written here for basically nothing. People can read this thread and form an opinion themselves or even better, test and get their own experiences.

[Tactician]

I think at the end we are pretty similar - we both are not accepting opinions from other persons, when they can't proof something and we think we have other experiences. We question things, that's good. How often do I read statements from new players here, claiming to know something which they don't and they don't listen to advice from other people... I'm a very pragmatic person, I base my style of playing the game around facts and numbers. And I think you also do - that's why we spend so much time and effort to test things like the recommended players.

My intention was not to denounce you or anything. I just wanted to share my experiences, which were, in this case, not the same as yours and maybe convince you also from my standpoint. For me, it was always clear that market value is the best indicator to tell if someone is a fast trainer. And I was kind of shocked that you didn't know, maybe I put my first sentence in my second post a bit wrong, sorry for that. But so I don't need to buy the player and test, because for years I select my players from the market value and many people do as well. It looked a bit like you couldn't accept it, that my observation could be right and you brought things up like "buy and test the player", which isn't necessary because I know how the game works and how you can tell fast trainers.

Again, a lot was written here for basically nothing. People can read this thread and form an opinion themselves or even better, test and get their own experiences.

I knew that market value is the indicator and I never denied that, but I also used the ratio of market value to wage value when required, for example to destinguish who among two non-bought players is the fastest trainer when those two players had near same market value. This is how I narrowed down the list for selection when finding fast trainers from auctions. The problem is for the daily player thing. I had a different experience from yours. Like I said, I bought 4 players from there in the past and those players turn out to be matching in terms of the type of trainer to the players that they were recommended as improvements for. Briefly, for those 4 players, it was like the following.

Player In Squad | Daily Offered Player
GK, 19 y.o, medium trainer, no S.A | GK, 18 y.o, medium trainer, no S.A
MC, 19 y.o, medium-fast trainer no S.A | MC, 18 y.o, medium-fast trainer, with S.A
MC 19 y.o medium-fast trainer, with S.A | MC, 18 y.o, medium-fast trainer, with S.A
ST, 18 y.o, fast trainer, no S.A | ST, 18 y.o, fast trainer, with S.A

As you can see from above, two relations can be deduced - one with the age and the second is with the trainer type. Based on other players that I got as daily offers but that I did not buy, their market values seemed to matched for what was expected going by this relation. I did not notice abnormal values like for example the two you posted where two offered players as improvement for the same player in the squad had a big difference in market values - such a big difference that it can be said that the relation that was suspected due to previous observations might be wrong. What you showed in your third reply in addition to what you already showed in your first reply made the difference. Had you showed all those before in that first reply, I would not even have gone so far with this discussion.

This is why I argued to defend my case. Look at the above yourself. I am sure you would have made the same sort of deductions too if you got those observations. How did I even get offered those 4 players (not 1, not 2... but 4) that matched closely in terms type of trainer with what the specific players they were suggested as improvement for if there was no such relation but more like based on randomness? Assuming that there were no changes made in this area of the game recently, there can only be one explanation left: a coincidence (which mislead me).

I hope that after reading this you will understand what happened.

As for the edits, you can see that I did not change anything as such to all my posts here so that the posts are opposite to what I posted with the first clicks. Keep into consideration that I have been replying using a phone tablet and some were done at odd times, for example, in some cases, like 2-6 AM for me and also in periods that I was not well enough or in certain bad state of mind, where my replies contained errors, were not finished or not as desired, and thus I came back to edit where required. If ever later a moderator here edit my post for whatever reasons and worst even put something that I never said or intended to say, then you and other users will see his forum user name as the the last user that editted the post, and the user can send me a private message to ask me to check the post if ever all in there is what I posted before replying further; this applies to any other post I made elsewhere in the forum too.

And lastly, my apologies for any disturbance I caused to you.

[Tactician]

Post removed because was a double post.

[Dikesh Prajapati]

Basically, you want a 18 aged with acceptable % and positions? just set a low 18 aged player in the position you wanna receive a good offer, and thats it.

39T for a 18 aged 3 positions scout leveled, is a great offer.

Let me try this today. I need a good ST, so will try with low 18 yrs ST who already has one-on-one scorer SA. Let's see what I will get.

[Dikesh Prajapati]

Yeah !! I got the striker that I wanted, with SA and age 18. Hope he will play well !!

[khris]

Yeah !! I got the striker that I wanted, with SA and age 18. Hope he will play well !!

Well done

[K1k1n0]

I like khris' point about diversity and specialists. Cant win with 4 zlatans, or can you?

[khris]

Thread closed.