| Forum » Suggestions » Suggestions on curbing Inflation | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
illex said: The bottom line is that there are too few good players on the market, and the only viable long term solution seems to be releasing good quality players via system bot. Not only do you get some cash out of the game, you also give teams a better chance to improve. Now obviously just unleashing a bunch of players on the market is only going to mess the market up and either make money worthless, or make it so there isn't any competitive balance. But a slow trickle would presumably work to help the market. I don't like the idea of sysbot players released, it's all about training your own players. It just needs people to have access to good youth, 14 year old RDF's should not be going for 40m |
16/04/2012 20:22 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
Edited by super striker king 16-04-2012 21:05 |
16/04/2012 20:34 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
some clarifications fr the points: 1)along with it prohibit hostiling or selling of the player so "ping pongs" less in the market. ^_^ 2)div.4,3,2,1 have cumpulsory high,excellent,excellent+high,2excellent+2 high,4excellent schools respectively.. 3)reduction in rate of school =building cost of school.to encourage schools among low div. managers 4)and yeah do increase no. of good prog. players frm school |
16/04/2012 21:02 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@grantis45 said: illex said: The bottom line is that there are too few good players on the market, and the only viable long term solution seems to be releasing good quality players via system bot. Not only do you get some cash out of the game, you also give teams a better chance to improve. Now obviously just unleashing a bunch of players on the market is only going to mess the market up and either make money worthless, or make it so there isn't any competitive balance. But a slow trickle would presumably work to help the market. I don't like the idea of sysbot players released, it's all about training your own players. It just needs people to have access to good youth, 14 year old RDF's should not be going for 40m Fair enough, and I agree that it should be about training, as it's much more exciting to see a guy come through the ranks and become a star. However isn't part of the reason there are 14 year olds going for 40M is because there is something wrong with the training system? (yes it does have a lot to do with the fact that because there is enough money in the system that a 14 year old can be sold for that much). The big problem I see with the training system is that you can effectively game the system and send off your 80 forecast CF to a team that trains CF's so that your player will reach higher levels much more quickly than if the player stayed on their home team among a mixture of players that played various positions. As it stands now most of my youth players won't be reaching their maximum potential till the year 2016, which I can almost guarantee you that i won't be playing this game at that point, and there is a chance the game wouldn't even be around. The easiest fix would be to cap the amount of players at any one position on a team at 3. In real life, nobody ever really holds onto more than 3 players that play one position. This alone would stop some inflation as teams couldn't buy up a bunch of defenders for next to nothing, train the crap out of them, and then sell them off quickly for massive profits. This doesn't really solve the problem of inflation, as the money is still there, but it does help to start correcting the market and making the inflation problem easier to nail down. Another thought is if forecast was changed and there was only a "potential" ranking, a youth player could have a potential rank of 1-5, and you wouldn't really know what their forecast was until they were permanently promoted. Much like in real life, you wouldn't know how good a player is going to be at 15, but if the kid was a 5, he was probably going to be at least pretty good, and he might be really good, or he might be so-so. This almost immediately reduces people from paying $40M for a 15 year old. It certainly won't stop them from doing so, but it would reduce the chance of it happening only because you wouldn't pay that much based entirely on potential. Obviously this is a large change to the game, but it would be yet another change that would help correct the market even though it doesn't directly stop inflation. I've been playing (fairly casually) for almost a year at this point, and I only just found out about a lot of the intricacies of training juniors and forecasts. I didn't read any of the FAQ's or anything when I started, largely because I picked up the game fairly easily, but there were obviously still things that eluded me. Right now as it stands the game is sort of (unintentionally) set up to benefit a couple hundred managers, at the expense of the rest. Obviously the way the game makes it's money and is successful long term is to get more people playing at a level where they feel buying GB's and pack manager is a good investment, but I don't know if I just started the game today if i would ever even keep playing to the point where I would want to consider them. This all may sound rather negative, but I like this game and I want it to continue, just there are some flaws in it that need fixing. |
16/04/2012 22:39 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
simplest way to reduce inflation would b jst to decrease the amount rise in hostile clause with respect to salary....managers r forced to buy playrs at high prices bcause they hav no choice bt to buy good players frm market cause lately there hs been a rapid increase in clauses of players | 19/04/2012 13:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4993 msgs.
Best scorer
|
super striker king said: simplest way to reduce inflation would b jst to decrease the amount rise in hostile clause with respect to salary....managers r forced to buy playrs at high prices bcause they hav no choice bt to buy good players frm market cause lately there hs been a rapid increase in clauses of players sorry, i think you have this the wrong way round. managers increase clauses in line with the market value. the market value rises due to a lack of supply at the top of the market and the increasing amount of money in the game. |
19/04/2012 15:13 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
i think market follows individual player trend...player sellers seeing upward rise in clauses tend to increase initial cost in an auction to make profit cause they kno many managers have no choise bt to buy players at high cost bcause of inabilty to hostile due to high clause of players...There r less good players available in auction because managers on finding a good player increase his hostile clause so high tht he cnt b hostiled and don't sell him for atleast 3-4 season.another player who wants to buy same player cn not hostile him and can't buy him in auction either cause the manager jst won't sell the player...if manager 2 is even able to find such a player then he will increase player's clause sky high and wont sell him too...if he auctions tht player all managers will probabily try to buy him and hence hello inflation. | 19/04/2012 18:20 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Your idea is right, in that making salary go up more for hostile costs as it gets teams to spend more to keep players and thus removes money from the game. However your reasoning is a bit off. Lower hostile clauses won't do anything really because the market is inflated because of demand and the fact that there is too much cash in the game. Most hostile clauses don't really follow the market, they far exceed the market so that you can secure your player. They're entirely mutually exclusive. If you lowered every hostile clause by half, you would see a mad scramble for all the players, and then their hostile clauses would go back up. You would see a day or two of the market dropping down, but it would shortly return to normal. If hostile clauses had a cap on them, all you would see is a ton of player movement via the hostile market, doing nothing to curb inflation and just making money circulate more. For example if you and two of your friends each have a dollar and an apple each, and you keep buying and selling the apples to each other for a dollar, but never eating them or selling them to someone else, all you're doing is swapping apples and dollars, you're not losing anything or really gaining anything other than a different apple than your other one. However you're on to something. Raising the cost of keeping better players is how you easily handle the market. If you make it so cost prohibitive to own a 75 avg./16 year old, you are going to lower his cost. If it costs 1 million a week to keep that player at his hostile cost of X, you're going to have to figure out a way to make an extra 1 million to keep him, risk him getting hostiled, or sell off one of your other players. This causes more money to go away (via paying weekly salary), lowers market prices very slowly, and distributes wealth better, since teams could only afford to keep 6-8 good players and would have to get rid of the rest since they're not pulling in enough money. To make it somewhat fair, especially for new players, you would have to have a curve that looked a little like this ( ) Say you wanted a hostile clause between 1-5 million, you would only have to pay 1-5 thousand a week for him, but if you wanted to bump it up to 6 million, you're looking at something like 10 grand. Then if you want his hostile clause to be 10 million, you're looking at 20 grand. It is sort of like that now it seems, but I think it needs to be bumped up more. This would be hard though because it would create so much volatility and there would be players going all over the place for a couple of weeks till the market subsides. |
19/04/2012 18:50 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
you r probabily right bt my suggestion ws in addition to my earlier suggestion that after hostiling a player his further hostiling should be prohibited frm sometime ...if both suggestions r followed together then it might just do the trick cause due to high weekly expenditure resulting frm high salary fr maintaining hostile clause,managers won't have the luxury of keeping 24 players which mean more good players in market and hence more supply.the demand will also decrease as managers will hav to manage their finances more tightly as player salary expenditure will increase which means less futile buys and hostiles...as a result a player which used to change 10 teams during a season will now jst change 2 and hence demand supply gap will diminish,as a result stopping inflation BY THE WAY WHERE R THE @s? are they even listening to our suggestions fr finding which we r scratching r brains out? |
19/04/2012 19:26 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
yuhoo..@s..?now no @ reads suggestions of poor manager like me..  Edited by super striker king 20-04-2012 13:06 |
20/04/2012 13:04 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
15
