| Forum » Suggestions » Suggestions on curbing Inflation | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@grantis45 said: 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 See my edit above. In response to this post, option number two completely removes the money spent on that player from the system, thereby decreasing the available money supply, and re-distributing the remaining money supply to lower division teams. |
03/02/2012 21:06 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2768 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Ok i guess we lack a direction here, let's discuss what to do and then how to do it Here is what i feel we must discuss 1. Way to encourage one who start this game new, i mean when i started playing this game i had nearly 3 50 or more avg players, i know it was luck but after some months when my brother started to play his team was very bad(it's so even now when compared to me, hehehee  ) there is no way in which a guy who can afford only an hour or less in a day for the game starting in division 7 to compete with higher divisions as a result dev's loose money n users loose competition, new blood always brings in new thoughts with it.2. Decide whether to control flow of money into to the game and/or flow of money in the game and ways to take money away from the game, it's not good to control flow of money into the game and would be really difficult as Div.1 is yet to form. 3. Frame all these in way that would not take much time for users to understand, fiscals to implement and does not result in any considerable time and money from developers, remember this game is still a free one n majority are free users Here are my suggestions at one place 1. Allow even the users under 8000 exp to forecast 2. Give them a better mix of 40 or more avg players with a age that they would start degrading and some decent 50 fc players in 30's 3. Form an interactive tutorial for the game like a video or so. 4.Increase the amount of Taxes on basis of hostile and non hostile trasfers, amount of sale, average of player and division, like which ever is more of these hostile a player pay 8%, buy a 60+ avg pay 10, 70 + 15 % 80+ 20% and 90+ 30%, division 4 8%, amount 20M+ 10% and so on 5.Add more accessories for div.2 and div.1 6.Setting high hostile clauses for 70+ or so avg players must cost more salary than a 60+ but make sure that it does not jump from 1M salary for 69 avg player to 10M for 70avg player 7.Lay down proper guide lines and maintain more transparency on pricing of players, do not make them too rigid allow flexibility. 8.Cap on in how many days a hostiled player can be sold, like i will not be allowed to sell a hostiled player for 7 days or 10 days but no more than that as that may effect essence of hostile rule. 9.Link interest rate of loans with deposits make it deposit rate + 5 % or so. so that i would discourage players form not repaying loansand leaving them until are fully paid off. 10. Take pressure off @'s, this would help in better planing from there part and communication to users, i feel already we have enough but if they are not enough take more, i can see them working here part time where they are supposed to play not work. that's it for now will add more if i get some thing into my mind |
03/02/2012 21:17 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
vijji said: 6.Setting high hostile clauses for 70+ or so avg players must cost more salary than a 60+ but make sure that it does not jump from 1M salary for 69 avg player to 10M for 70avg player This is a great suggestion... tie fidelity to average, so that as the average increases, the fidelity decreases, and teams will have to pay a lot more for a high release clause. Pulls money out of the system (salaries), but doesn't punish the little guys. Also, pretty realistic. |
03/02/2012 21:28 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
412 msgs.
First-team player
|
bunkr said: 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? Get rid of the 250GB speed up of stadiums. Part of the problem is you can build stadium too quickly and/or cheaply especially with usage of Gold Balls. Ultimately, Striker will always have strong inflation as long as they continue to use GB. Anytime you let out of game currency accelerate in game currency you will have hyper inflation. Most of the MMORPG's go to a monthly subscription model and eliminate any use of outside currency and they still have to find money sinks. |
03/02/2012 21:55 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
phaag said: @grantis45 said: 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 See my edit above. In response to this post, option number two completely removes the money spent on that player from the system, thereby decreasing the available money supply, and re-distributing the remaining money supply to lower division teams. Number 2 does indeed remove money from the system but also removes a player, net gain=higher inflation simply because money is rife and decent players are hard to come by. Think of it this way every stadium is creating money. It's not like in the real world where money has to come from somewhere, it's just created(yes I know if the real world it's created too, but not at the same speed). If you've heard of something called quantitative easing, that's what I'm suggesting, instead of creating money we would create better prog players. Inflation is high because decent players are in short supply. Inflation will always exist, even if you took players out of the game(with number 2) I could sit for 2 seasons and create 300m. It's about managing inflation. I |
03/02/2012 21:56 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@grantis, I see your point on the quantitative easing. I wonder if a potential second-order effect to worry about would then be player inflation (if everybody has high progression players, then they lose all value)? Still, you're right in that the monetary supply issue is the greater concern. After reading through the whole thread, I would vote for some combination of your quantitative easing, plus viiji's idea of tying fidelity to average. If the best teams in the game need to pay all of their income just to retain their players, they would be forced to develop their own, while the lower divisions could wheel-and-deal more freely. I would also advocate lowering the 8000 exp rule to 6000, and instituting a policy that you can only hostile down two divisions (makes it so that high progression juniors have to trickle up). Thoughts? |
03/02/2012 22:13 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
dneighbors said: bunkr said: 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? Get rid of the 250GB speed up of stadiums. Part of the problem is you can build stadium too quickly and/or cheaply especially with usage of Gold Balls. Ultimately, Striker will always have strong inflation as long as they continue to use GB. Anytime you let out of game currency accelerate in game currency you will have hyper inflation. Most of the MMORPG's go to a monthly subscription model and eliminate any use of outside currency and they still have to find money sinks. The idea of a money sinks gave me an idea. Increasing player stats with game money beyond forecast. Large amounts of cash to put 1% on a player say. |
03/02/2012 22:27 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
412 msgs.
First-team player
|
@grantis45 said: The idea of a money sinks gave me an idea. Increasing player stats with game money beyond forecast. Large amounts of cash to put 1% on a player say. I like the idea of maybe letting increase "skill" points for large sums. Maybe for a bump in skill for first ball in a skill its $1m, a bump in skill for second ball is $5m, a bump in skill for third ball is $10m etc.... Skills still progress normal way and have normal restrictions, but this allows someone to spend in game currency to improve players. This can be done in a way that it may help win games, but don't make skills searchable or visible to others and it doesn't inflate the "value" of the player on market (or hostile market) as these parameters are not searchable. This is probably best of all worlds. It gives value to player spending the money for a competitive advantage, but it doesn't really make sense to spend this money from "financial" advantage stand point. |
03/02/2012 22:38 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
dneighbors said: a bump in skill for second ball is $5m, a bump in skill for third ball is $10m etc.... 10mil for first ball, 50mil for second, 100 for 3rd... +1 on idea |
03/02/2012 22:45 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
phaag said: dneighbors said: a bump in skill for second ball is $5m, a bump in skill for third ball is $10m etc.... 10mil for first ball, 50mil for second, 100 for 3rd... +1 on idea Agree this could take large amounts of money out of the game, I was thinking stats but skills would be better. Thing is you could tune it each season depending on inflation 10m for this year, may need to be 50m next year. It's another tap where you can remove money based on inflation. turn it on or off as you like. |
03/02/2012 23:25 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
7
