| Forum » Suggestions » Suggestions on curbing Inflation | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
48 msgs.
Child's coach
|
sorry if this has been said before but I haven't had a chance to read every post, this is turning into a novel haha surely there is a problem in the fact that we allow hostile clauses in the first place. Therefore the following changes I suggest are large ones but ones I think would help the game dramatically... Remove hostile clauses. Clauses should be allowed within a contract and decided by the manager who signs them; not immediately and automatically made up in relation to the salary. The implementation of a Board of Directors. - There are many directions that you could take with Directors and I'm not entirely sure which one would be most suited to the game but it is worth some consideration considering the game is entitled "Manager" not owner. Since when are owners fired (and for that matter managers are rarely in charge of stadium extensions). Salaries would not have to be capped as transfer deals would take place at the managers discretion and there would be no ridiculous need to hyperinflate (raise above/ahead of inflation) a players release cause/salary. As for taking money out of the game. Everyone could restart with a stadium of appropriately scaled sizes relative to the income/balance they had the previous season. This game is currently more about trading football players as stocks as it is managing, making the millions necessary to buy quality players is ridiculous. I also believe the game would benefit from making agreements with smaller clubs. i.e. I make an agreement with a team 3 divisions below me to send my youth goalkeeper on loan to them or to train specifically some of my players. Frankly though the training could do with an overhaul by allowing the rich to buy greater facilities and thus specialised coaches rather than the stupid farming we have. EDIT: new thought, if you make the manager entirely independent of the team he manages, ie you sign a contract (think FIFA manager) and then you would be able to earn money to buy your own division 7 team or whatever and then you could control incomes etc. Then instead of being offered to take the team slot of a higher team you would be offered to sign over a system bot in a higher (or lower league). (However, this would need to be implemented so you only get offers that are 1-3 week(s) old max, so that the players do not deteriorate.) Anyway, any constructive criticism of these ideas would be appreciated. Edited by free2bejc 21-05-2012 21:52 Edited by free2bejc 21-05-2012 21:53 |
21/05/2012 21:48 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
1. Removing hostile clauses causes salaries to go down (since clauses are directly related to salary, no incentive to raise salary = no need to have a high salary = more money in your pocket = more inflation) this then causes the auction market to continue to rise, and you've created more inflation, especially since there isn't the opportunity to hostile more managers are going to be looking to the more limited market to buy players, thus pushing prices higher. 2. I have no idea what you're talking about with "Board of Directors" and what it would do. Are they real people? an element of the game? 3. At the moment the game's simulator isn't all that great, so you're not going to have some great tactical battles and you are going to have a game that mostly deals on buying and selling players. In time as the simulator gets better, you're going to see tactics take a bigger role. Tactics are also more important in the higher leagues as you get more even teams facing each other. 4. There is a loan market. The problem is that a lot of managers in lower levels aren't very experienced in the game and don't understand training, so you end up loaning a player to a team and he gets trained like 4 times. I put my junior forward on the loan market and got all sorts of requests to train him, any time I messaged someone about how often they'd train the player they got all confused. The guy I sent him to has trained him like 5 times, even though he said he'd train him at least 3 times a week. Even though I don't train forwards, I'm certain I could have trained the guy more than this guy has. So there is little incentive to loan off players like that. But nothing regarding the loan market would help inflation. |
21/05/2012 23:14 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2186 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@grantis45 said: Jesus 500m for div 2, do you know how few managers have that amount of money. I certainly would have been penalized in every division and I was considered rich by everyone else in the ninja's. It is just a suggestion, the dev can fix amount they deem fit for every division. Just to keep managers busy trying to meet up with that amount. |
22/05/2012 02:38 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
elfolksy said: @grantis45 said: Jesus 500m for div 2, do you know how few managers have that amount of money. I certainly would have been penalized in every division and I was considered rich by everyone else in the ninja's. It is just a suggestion, the dev can fix amount they deem fit for every division. Just to keep managers busy trying to meet up with that amount. Are you saying a player must have X amount of money in the bank to get into a division? or that they would pay that amount of money to start the season? If it's the former that literally does nothing to stop inflation, just ensures that people have money in the bank. The latter helps stop inflation, but is incredibly caustic. You'd make it even harder for a team from a lower division to be competitive in a league it's promoted to because the player wouldn't be used to the higher tax. Flat taxing players isn't going to keep the game functional since there is such disparity from player to player and $10 million may be pocket change to one person, but may be a significant amount of money to another. To reduce inflation it's better to add taxes to money spent or earned, expecting players to be at around the same level is too much to ask, and could cause a lot of people to quit the game. |
22/05/2012 14:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
48 msgs.
Child's coach
|
The board of directors would essentially control the money, facilities etc and you'd ask them to raise the stadium income etc, although the implementation of this would require a major restructuring it would make the managers role more lifelike, essentially the manager can be capable of playing a part in the direction of the club. They would be controlled by the game. I understand your point about lower salaries meaning even more money left spare to inflate transfers but the directors would ultimately control this rather than the managers. A sort of player engine would work whereby a player who has say been in your team since the youth team may be loyal to your club. Or if a higher league team chooses to tell the player they are "interested" then they may be wowed by the opportunity to move clubs to a higher reputation team etc. (Essentially like reality) Being able to hire a scouting team (or a medical team or a coaching team or even an advertising team) rather than one scout and diversifying the staff roles. I think there should be more staff and an expansion of the facilities, ie you have to plough money into a youth academy in order to be able to hire a good youth coach etc. (although this fails to help small teams) but then in reality you rarely see a team climb from non league to the premier league (sometimes but it is easily 1/1000 promoted teams or something akin to that). I also don't see why fan numbers appear to be limitless regardless of your division. Basically all my suggests surmount to making it more like reality and more like other commercial manager games eg FM or FifaM. Now the problem comes that you can reduce inflation, but it also reduces the chance that other teams will be able to progress as quickly as they have done so far. It could take you 3 seasons to be promoted because you've built a team and improved other areas or been granted greater transfer fund because the board now trusts you. All of this requires time, something sparse in online games. |
22/05/2012 16:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2186 msgs.
Best scorer
|
illex said: Are you saying a player must have X amount of money in the bank to get into a division? or that they would pay that amount of money to start the season? If it's the former that literally does nothing to stop inflation, just ensures that people have money in the bank. The latter helps stop inflation, but is incredibly caustic. You'd make it even harder for a team from a lower division to be competitive in a league it's promoted to because the player wouldn't be used to the higher tax. Flat taxing players isn't going to keep the game functional since there is such disparity from player to player and $10 million may be pocket change to one person, but may be a significant amount of money to another. To reduce inflation it's better to add taxes to money spent or earned, expecting players to be at around the same level is too much to ask, and could cause a lot of people to quit the game. Managers will have to pay that specific amount to SM, thereby taking away such monies from the game. The amount will be considerable that the managers will have to pay every season. This will bring down the prizes of players in market, because managess will work towards meeting up that amount to be paid, so there won't be much money to be spent in buying players. It will also reduce hostile clause of players to its minimal. Increase in taxes as you suggested will also help in curbing the inflation. |
22/05/2012 19:42 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
elfolksy said: Managers will have to pay that specific amount to SM, thereby taking away such monies from the game. The amount will be considerable that the managers will have to pay every season. This will bring down the prizes of players in market, because managers will work towards meeting up that amount to be paid, so there won't be much money to be spent in buying players. It will also reduce hostile clause of players to its minimal. Increase in taxes as you suggested will also help in curbing the inflation. What would happen if you introduced a flat tax based upon division is that it would either be too low so that it wouldn't matter to most teams, or so high that it would severely harm most teams except the rich teams. Let's say you just joined Division 4 and you pay a 20 million dollar start of season tax, but you only make 2 million per game from your stadium as you're still building it up. Meanwhile the guy who finished 3rd in the division last season makes 5 million a game. He can pay off his tax in the first 8 games of the season (assuming he plays 4 home games in that time) meanwhile it's going to take you 20 games to pay off your tax (assuming you get 10 home games in that time) so after he's climbed out of that debt, you're still trying to pay it off, he's able to buy players and get stronger while you're still trying to pay off your entry tax. While you are correct that it does lessen inflation since everyone has less money, it's also probably going to cause you to quit the game since you're barely scraping by and you had to sell all your good players. Basically flat taxes are bad in SM as much as they are in real life. You're still going to have the richer upper class that is able to take advantage of the system. Yes it reduces the amount of inflation (say a 60/18 CF now goes for $20 million instead of $40 million, that $20 million is still just as hard to pay as the $40 million is now. |
22/05/2012 20:50 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2186 msgs.
Best scorer
|
illex said: Basically flat taxes are bad in SM as much as they are in real life. You're still going to have the richer upper class that is able to take advantage of the system. Yes it reduces the amount of inflation (say a 60/18 CF now goes for $20 million instead of $40 million, that $20 million is still just as hard to pay as the $40 million is now. I undstand that we are trying to lure new user into the game. I still think that flat taxes will go along away to reduce the inflation. Lets say the only way to reduce the inflation is by increasing tax in every aspect of the game possible. A new entrant with low capacity stadium will still find it dificult to meet up, because the tax will be seemingly too high, whereby the rich managers wouldn't mind. But with the flat rate, the new manager knows what is ahead of him to progress, so he got to work hard for it. A team average of 40+ to start with, will help the new manager. Though, you guys got to the what you think best for the game considering other factors. If i got other idea of how to tackle this inflation, i shall pop in hear. |
23/05/2012 04:35 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
elfolksy said: I undstand that we are trying to lure new user into the game. I still think that flat taxes will go along away to reduce the inflation. Lets say the only way to reduce the inflation is by increasing tax in every aspect of the game possible. A new entrant with low capacity stadium will still find it dificult to meet up, because the tax will be seemingly too high, whereby the rich managers wouldn't mind. But with the flat rate, the new manager knows what is ahead of him to progress, so he got to work hard for it. A team average of 40+ to start with, will help the new manager. Though, you guys got to the what you think best for the game considering other factors. If i got other idea of how to tackle this inflation, i shall pop in hear. I don't think you're understanding. If you have 100 million dollars and I have 10 million dollars, and the flat rate for next season and the price for next season is $20 million dollars, then you have 80 million and I have negative 10 million. So you can spend freely, and probably buy some of my players cheaply because you have greater purchasing power, and I need money. This isn't reducing inflation at all, it's just creating a bigger wealth gap. But if you do it with a percentage tax (and that percentage is 20%), you now have 80 million dollars, and I have 8 million, we both have less purchasing power, but neither one of us is harmed more than the other. It's going to be much easier for a new player to get into the game if there isn't a flat tax but higher actual taxes. They don't know there are higher taxes, because they only just joined. If they know they have to have 10 million dollars in the bank to get further in the game, and they're having a hard time earning money, they might just give up on the game. However, with a tax rate, whatever the rate may be, you're technically never losing money, because you never really had it. Regardless of this all, just implementing more taxes into the game across the board isn't going to really fix anything. |
23/05/2012 21:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
27 msgs.
Child's coach
|
i still believe that we need higher taxes, lower interest rates on saving money in the bank and higher interest rates on borrowing from the bank. just as in real life players should be able to reduce taxes by agreeing to sponsor various charities. Or instead of paying taxes it could be made compulsory that a team sponsor a charity every season. the amount will vary on the division a team plays. i think it will make the game a bit more realistic since charities are a big part of football clubs social responsibility. if you do not want taxes, give to charity  |
24/05/2012 04:03 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
17
