| Forum » Suggestions » Suggestions on curbing Inflation | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
4257 msgs.
Best scorer
|
akleb said: No trolling this thread, it will be policed very strictly. Edited by @rebsiot 01-02-2012 05:22 dont remember what did i wrote ? Edited by akleb 02-02-2012 13:14 |
02/02/2012 13:14 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2108 msgs.
Best scorer
|
ABC DEFG said: Also, if it hasn't been mentioned, control the friggin sale of low avg high prog juniors. Right now there is an ad for an 88% prog avg and age 14 rdf with a min requested amount of 30 million (if I'm reading the topic right- something may be lost in translation). That is friggin insane and a prime example of a negative effect of having the spanish super inflation ideology forced on this server. By the time that avg 14 player is a viable squad player, nobody will be playing SM anymore. Sadly such market threads and issues are common nowadays. Although in general I agree, I understand the ideology behind these. You know how much they're going to be worth in a year or two, so you're not going to sell them for 100k, knowing quite well that the player has the potential to be worth millions. It'd be great if we could work together and come up with a set guideline for these especially, because it isn't average or age that is the defining power, it's the progression and forecast. ABC DEFG said: By the time that avg 14 player is a viable squad player, nobody will be playing SM anymore. I can guarantee you that I'll still be here. Super inflation or not. |
02/02/2012 14:16 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
72 msgs.
Rookie
|
I think ABC has a good point. High progression juniors shouldn't be sold at the same price as players 30 to 40 points higher than them. Yes, they can command more money for them. But we should cap it at 5 or 6 mil depending on the position. If managers are unwilling to train a good junior, they shouldn't be able to ask a price as if they had trained it for several seasons. 5 or 6 mil will cover the costs of the school and some profit, and that should be it. One way to help control inflation may be for the fiscals to come out with strict rules on how they judge market value and if a player is worth it or not. It may have consequences in that everyone will know exactly what the high end price is, but it may also provide a template for new managers to see how they should be judging player's worth. If they are shown right away how to judge a player's worth, then we can start preventing other manager's from buying a player at market value and then selling immediately for 5 million more to new managers who don't realize the price is too high. To help that along, the similar transactions feed needs to be fixed. Hostile clauses should not be shown, since those are usually paid for a different reason than the fact they were at market value. Sales that are unusually high (maybe due to high progression or forecast) should be weeded out too, since the similar transactions feed doesn't show the reason for the higher sale price and it gives the illusion that all players at that ability should cost that much. |
03/02/2012 16:34 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
848 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
i think it will continue to rise as the divisions increase every season. once we get a div 1 i belive it will stabilise | 03/02/2012 17:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
156 msgs.
Substitute
|
You know, everyone seems to be talking taxes this and taxes that. Why do we not attack the source of income. The main in-game revenue method is stadiums. How about make it real-life like... where the income from games just about allows you to meet your weekly expenses. Suddenly, all the players will have to plan their expenditures. You want to buy a player...sure. You can either save up money over 4-5 weeks and buy a player, or sell one of your players to make way for new one. This will put emphasis back on where a real football manger needs to work - tactics and managing his/her team from the available (limited) resources at hand. That cant be too bad, can it? |
03/02/2012 18:10 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
212 msgs.
Substitute
|
I have noticed an anomaly in this game and it funny because it is nearly impossible for it to occur in the real world. Namely, to borrow and save money at the same interest rate. This basically allows people to offset their borrowings today against future income. I think there should be a minimum spread between the loan interest rate and deposit interest rate (I'd argue there should be at least 5% difference). Yes, currently costs do not increase nearly as fast as income. I have managed to keep my costs down, whilst building up my stadium and now I'm making a healthy surplus. All profits should be taxed. So every year, if you have profits or savings, it should be taxed at say 30%. All player sales and purchases, should be subject to agent fee's and VAT tax. In additional to 50% tax on any profit made on player dealings. All in all, there should be a tax regime much like there is in real life. After all of that, I'm in massive amount of debt, so please don't implement all this until I sort my life out  Ghost out! |
03/02/2012 20:12 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
My 2 cents: 1. Decrease frequency of juniors from all schools, but keep cost of schools similar or higher (would cost more to find a good player from a school). Or, this could be scaled by division (lower division players get juniors more frequently and/or higher quality). Fidelity on high progression juniors should be increased, so that new managers (many who don't still fully understand the system) whose players are hostiled will receive a higher value for the hostile. Overall effect would be to help lower division managers use schools as a revenue generator. 2. I've proposed this before, but I think there should be very infrequent career-ending injuries. This would be realistic, and would remove developed players (and the money spent for them) from the system. It stands to reason that players playing more aggressively and at a higher level are more likely to hurt themselves drastically, so it could be weighted disproportionately against higher division teams. Additionally, this could be tied to the quality of team doctor (currently an almost useless position). Higher quality doctor = fewer career ending injuries, forcing people to pay more money for a quality staff. Edited by phaag 03-02-2012 20:25 |
03/02/2012 20:24 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
phaag said: My 2 cents: 1. Decrease frequency of juniors from all schools, but keep cost of schools similar or higher (would cost more to find a good player from a school). Or, this could be scaled by division (lower division players get juniors more frequently and/or higher quality). Fidelity on high progression juniors should be increased, so that new managers (many who don't still fully understand the system) whose players are hostiled will receive a higher value for the hostile. Overall effect would be to help lower division managers use schools as a revenue generator. 2. I've proposed this before, but I think there should be very infrequent career-ending injuries. This would be realistic, and would remove developed players (and the money spent for them) from the system. It stands to reason that players playing more aggressively and at a higher level are more likely to hurt themselves drastically, so it could be weighted disproportionately against higher division teams. Additionally, this could be tied to the quality of team doctor (currently an almost useless position). Higher quality doctor = fewer career ending injuries, forcing people to pay more money for a quality staff. Edited by phaag 03-02-2012 20:25 I'm sorry phaag, but both of those ideas would increase inflation. |
03/02/2012 20:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@grantis45 said: phaag said: My 2 cents: 1. Decrease frequency of juniors from all schools, but keep cost of schools similar or higher (would cost more to find a good player from a school). Or, this could be scaled by division (lower division players get juniors more frequently and/or higher quality). Fidelity on high progression juniors should be increased, so that new managers (many who don't still fully understand the system) whose players are hostiled will receive a higher value for the hostile. Overall effect would be to help lower division managers use schools as a revenue generator. 2. I've proposed this before, but I think there should be very infrequent career-ending injuries. This would be realistic, and would remove developed players (and the money spent for them) from the system. It stands to reason that players playing more aggressively and at a higher level are more likely to hurt themselves drastically, so it could be weighted disproportionately against higher division teams. Additionally, this could be tied to the quality of team doctor (currently an almost useless position). Higher quality doctor = fewer career ending injuries, forcing people to pay more money for a quality staff. Edited by phaag 03-02-2012 20:25 I'm sorry phaag, but both of those ideas would increase inflation. As long as the overall money supply in the game increases, there will be inflation. I think what most suggestions on here are trying to do is find a way to disproportionately favor the lower division teams (similarities to the "occupy" movement acknowledged). Without a fully balanced monetary supply, some form of socialism is the best the system can do. If we could figure out what the gold standard in the game could be, or if it was possible to fix the money supply and have everyone competing for the same pot, that would actually fix inflation. In the meantime, my suggestions would help spread the wealth. Edited by phaag 03-02-2012 21:03 |
03/02/2012 20:55 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Number 1 decreases the supply of decent forecast juniors. The biggest upward pressure on inflation is the lack of high forecast players brought about by the 8k xp rule - lack of Supply. Number 2 removes high not only juniors but seniors. If an average 95 CF gets removed by an injury, then that person needs to replace with an average 94 from another team, this pushes prices down the chain higher - Demand There are too many people joining the game to decrease the flow of money and any change to the money flow will have a negative impact on fun. We need to increase supply to reduce demand, it won't stop average 90 players from being worth Billions in the short term, but in the long term if average 90 players are easier to come by then they will be worth less. Edited by @grantis45 03-02-2012 21:02 |
03/02/2012 21:02 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
6
