| Forum » Suggestions » Suggestions on curbing Inflation | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
2768 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I second the way AB has put in, there is no meaning of paying 10's of millions just because they are 90+ FC, a player who is 14/14 no matter what position he is must not be valued so high. The tax rates for every hostile and direct purchases must be increased for Div.3 or above to 30% or above n tax rate on normal purchases must be doubled. Div 6 and 7 shall be given lower tax rates and higher divisions must be taxed more. It's simple tax the persons who can pay more tax. Link the loan interest rate with the deposit interest rate, make it floating interest rate like deposit interest rate + 5%, at present i can take loan when the interest rate is 5% and keep repaying it for 25 weeks n deposit the money i get latter in deposits at higher rate, it might not appear to be a major measure but it will definitely take away money from the game as i no longer may not be willing to pay 15% int. on loan i take while i get only 5% on a deposit so i may repay the loan immediately taking money away from me or i may tend to spend it to get higher rate income on stadium or school which in turn takes away money from game. The next thing is over dependence on a single position like CF, i hope this is sorted out in the latest update and updates to come. Add a new accessory to Div.3 and above so as to add more cost to their tally, impose the maximum number of purchases or sales to div.3 and above after hostile clause protection is lifted at season start, like 5 players or whose total sale or purchase price 200M.( yeah i know 200M is silly for some bulls(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_trend#Bull_market) Fix the number of times a manager can improve his stadium during a season once he is in higher divisions and also increase the starting price according to the improvements intended to be carried out, it's just like if i want to to make 10 stands i have to pay advance for the material required for those 10 stands not a single one. I am against any policy which will cap the amount of money flow into the game but yes reduce the flow of money, at present when i see a good player and ask for price, i am told 20M n by the time i save money that player is becoming 30M in 2 weeks After doing all this please make sure that this will not result in stagnation of market where a lower division manager can not find a player to buy or not able to sell a player. |
01/02/2012 06:59 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
394 msgs.
First-team player
|
+1 to above post. Edited by @bluegene 02-02-2012 07:54 |
01/02/2012 07:08 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
No fix is guaranteed, or promised. I have opened a dialogue and now it is our job to suggest useful solution. There is obviously inflation, even a 40 CF is worth millions more than it was 6 months ago. If it were just the top players, no problem, but the inflation is across the board, what we want is to give the beginning player a chance, before his team is blown apart and he can only afford the salaries of crap players. |
01/02/2012 07:12 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
270 msgs.
First-team player
|
Please not that if drastically curbing of inflation is measured, those top teams who have recently sold out their whole squads might be an insurmountable advantage enabling the completely dominate this game. I feel pessimistic about this whole history as I think it has already gone too far and I agree with the person who stated this is due to lack of vision from the developers. If something is to be done, it must, on one hand unfairly, include retroactive taxing so that those with big fortunes and those who will sell their whole squads as soon as measures are announced will see their fortunes decrease to a reasonable level. Fortune tax need to be implemented as well so that you have to pay, for example 3% of your fortune over 1 billion, 2% over 0,5 billion, 1% over 0,1 billion, in tax every week. And, salaries should be significantly higher for top players. Like an exponential increase. |
01/02/2012 08:15 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Yeah That idea would keep player prices down while not needing to decrease the flow of money into the game. Make the player release clauses exponential. You want to keep that Ave 90 CF, sure, he'll cost you 8m a week. You then wouldn't be able to have the best players in the world in every position, you'd have to build a team based on what you can afford. Even the top stadiums aren't bringing in more than 10-12m per game. | 01/02/2012 13:24 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2897 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Pansarmyran said: And, salaries should be significantly higher for top players. Like an exponential increase. I agree on salaries, actually for all players. A top player in SM, even if paid $1 million per week, is only paid $13 million for a season that could cover 38 league games, up to 26 private league games, striker cup games and friendlies. A manager could have almost 40 home games in a season but be paying salaries seemingly low salaries. Top players in real life make about $1 million per week (or per league game) and teams don't have private league games. Yes they have CL games, but the players surely get paid extra for those games. Since salaries would have to increase to fix this, they might implement a system that players in divisions 6 and 7 can't be hostiled so those managers can get a financial foothold without worrying about losing their best players because they can't afford them. |
01/02/2012 14:09 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2897 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Also, the number of friendlies in a season should be limited. Teams are having friendlies every Tuesday and Thursday, giving them games every day of the week, creating more cash in the game. Or, as the number of friendlies increases, the revenue from those games should drop each time as fans would get bored of watching friendlies and not go to the games. | 01/02/2012 14:17 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1394 msgs.
International
|
As some of u may remember i tried to tell the story of Football manager live - a Sega game sim to this using the Sports Interactives Football manager Series Match Engine, skins and general data. Was epic but failed  for many varied reasons that will not effect Striker Manager.One of their main issues was inflation and the resultant difficulty new users would have just getting started. As a result the game seemed to die due to lack of managers after 30 or so seasons. They did a few restarts to no avail and canned it last April. Some of the ,measures they took: I Early Sale Tax - u had to keep a player 1 season b4 u could sell. This did stop the mega inflation but if anything made harder for new managers II Massive wage increases linked to team rep - so the better managers would pay higher wage for the same player than a new manger would. III Stadium caps - capped both stadium size and max income IV Tweaked player progression - Over a few seasons they dumbed down progression which in turn devalued players Now obviously all this didnt work else i would be there still playing not here lol imo we should leave game economy to itself but respond to the needs of new managers- which will be cash !!! loans at cheap rates / subsidise them somehow for set period of time. From my football manager live exp i know u cant keep everyone happy all the time but by constant tweaks and changes - many tweaks have dramatic effect on old managers with thier long term stratergies = they left game. One change i would be in favour of is Massive wage increases - players selling for 100m should be asking for wage of 20m a season and linking this to manager exp no bad thing As a new manager here i dont want it easy to get to top - just barely possible is enough  Edited by wiveliscombe afc 01-02-2012 14:49 |
01/02/2012 14:46 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1835 msgs.
International
|
There is some good discussion. Someone mentioned a holding period for acquired players. Id like to expand on that. Another option is to include a Long-term and/or Short- term capital gains tax. For those not familiar, go google long term and short term capital gains. The Striker Manager world could operate in such a way that a manager who buys and sells players purely for profit pays a tax on the sale price, say 10% of the sale price if the player is sold within the same season when the player was acquired. If sold after. The season, no tax. So if I buy a player today for 2 million (+ the 5% tax of 100,000), sell him on Saturday for 5 million, I am taxed 500,000. So my net profit is 2.4 million instead of 2.9 million. 5 mill - 500k - 2 mill - 100k. I would exempt school juniors from this tax. |
01/02/2012 15:25 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1798 msgs.
International
|
Also i've said this many times before, but this would simplify things: remove one 0 from all numbers.. we don't need billions if we can have 100million instead.. those numbers are just too big and unneeded. Also if all numbers were brought down by one 0, if new players still started with same figures they start these days, they would stand a chance to spend those 3mill on protecting their squad/increasing salaries etc. 3mill for starters was a big money 1 year ago when i started, but today that is NOTHING. You can't buy a single decent player with that money, you can't do nothing with it. if (for example) stadium upgrades costed 1,8mill for VIP, 600k for pro etc. - they would actually STAND a chance to catch up in some relatively managable time as their starting money would be enough for a proper start). They would also get a chance to buy 2-3 semi-decent players that would boost their squads. Now i know we could just give starters 30mill now instead, but really.. why do we even need those huge numbers? :s they are just confusing and soon we'll be watching billions everything.. 6x 0 is a lot more eye-friendly than 9x 0. And more according to real world too. Also maybe devs should considering reverting back to times when low div teams were given 40~ avg players instead of 20-30? because really... watching avg 20 guys playing a game is more painful than watching a text simulation most of manager games have.. but that would also bring a lot more "decent" players to game, so supply would at least slightly start matching the demand. jayu said: salary cap? +1  Edited by @Horath 01-02-2012 17:13 |
01/02/2012 17:03 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
3
