| Forum » Suggestions » Suggestions on curbing Inflation | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
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. Agree. Also, it fits the goal of helping out new managers, because buying skills really only matters in divisions where everybody's teams are otherwise statistically matched... |
03/02/2012 23:46 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2897 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Another thought that has possibly already been mentioned, but stadiums are WAAYYYY too big. Max seats, by my calc, are 156,000. The largest football stadium in Europe is Camp Nou, at 99,000 (96,000 for FIFA matches). These huge stadiums are giving Div 2 teams practically unlimited funds. On the topic of stadiums, what if accessory maintenance increased with accessory level...for example, each accessory weekly cost would be: Level 1 - 100,000 Level 2 - 300,000 Level 3 - 600,000 Level 4 - 1,000,000 Level 5 - 1,500,000 It seems we're mostly interested in getting money out of the game, so things have to be more expensive, though you must be careful not to bankrupt lower level teams. Edited by sabrefan62 04-02-2012 01:50 Edited by sabrefan62 04-02-2012 01:51 |
04/02/2012 01:39 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
530 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
1. Taxes to stay in a particular division. 2. Taxes for high rated players 3. The rate to own a school changing by division, but Excellent schools in Div 1 gives better players than Excellent schools in Div 7, but Div 1 costs higher. (higher division=better resources&higher costs-->better players) Edited by sgand 04-02-2012 02:17 |
04/02/2012 02:17 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4993 msgs.
Best scorer
|
there's alot of good ideas in this thread. hope i haven't repeated too much, only read up to page 3  anyway, here's my 2 penneth. - exponential tax on salaries, tied to release clause. at 1bn release clause <at least> half the salary paid again weekly in tax. penalizes high release clauses. gives a manager a choice between risking hostiles & throwing money away. - lump sum tax attached to re-signing, tax=x*(salary/x), where x = player rating will stop market tracking r.e. release clause & creeping up of value (links to tax above). sucks money out of game. - exponential sales tax paid by buyer tied to player rating. 90 rated players taxed at 100% on top of fee, players rated 30 & under 0% tax. needs no explanation. think of it like agents fees. - as previously suggested, use the money sinks. easiest is increasing weekly fee on stadium upgrades. exponential increase as you rise through the divs. - (i'm sure this is being discussed at the moment) tax attached to junior transfers applied exponentially to prog% / age. school players trained & promoted are tax free, high prog school players groomed & auctioned off taxed heavily. hope we can fix this. player value is almost quadrupling every 3 months. (clarity edit) Edited by aleph44 04-02-2012 03:23 |
04/02/2012 02:25 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4993 msgs.
Best scorer
|
FCSuperstars said: if i had joined to a division 7 team with a team avg of 25 and and average player age of 30+ i would have never logged back into this game. not to mention even the few young players that are given to those new teams likely have little to no progression so training will do them no good. at the rate inflation is going, the only divisions with ACTIVE managers will be 1 and 2 by the end of this year. Edited by FCSuperstars 01-02-2012 18:35 yeah, the key is to make is easy for talented/savvy new managers to progress. |
04/02/2012 02:45 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4993 msgs.
Best scorer
|
speakers said: 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. how are we going to auction these players if the salary is capped, by lottery? won't work. high prog players are worth alot, because, they're worth alot. the only way to have the game capitalise on their transfers is to attach tax to prog with young juniors. speakers said: 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. <snip> this is already the case - check before selling/buying high value players, or risk a fine. |
04/02/2012 03:04 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2108 msgs.
Best scorer
|
aleph44 said: speakers said: 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. how are we going to auction these players if the salary is capped, by lottery? won't work. high prog players are worth alot, because, they're worth alot. the only way to have the game capitalise on their transfers is to attach tax to prog with young juniors. But then couldn't one find a high prog junior by going through a team and hitting hire? Not saying anyone would do it by hand, but someone could develop a program that looks for high prog juniors based on tax. |
04/02/2012 03:29 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
777 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
There are lot of managers who make many Hostile Purchases, they do that not to keep that player, but just to resell them for a higher price. This has a direct effect on increasing cost. Thinking that your player will be hostiled, managers will pay them more, and that causes financial problems for them. But, Hostile clause is a very important function in SM, no way it can be taken out. So, why don't a restricting be made on number of hostile clause that can be done for a season. may be something like 30. once a manger has done 30 HC for a season, he will only be permitted to do it next season. |
04/02/2012 04:04 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
153 msgs.
Substitute
|
Inflation is simply "too many dollars chasing too few goods". We must tackle both the problem of too many dollars and too few goods. 1) Make interest rates for loans extremely high. Don't allow cheap cash to be given to people. At the same time, let interest for deposits be lower. 2) Flood the market with decent / good players (increase the number of goods in the economy). 3) Luxury tax based on net worth. For example, if the value of your schools, stadiums and players is above a certain threshold (let's say for example $1B), you must pay additional taxes and fees. There are some other great ideas in this thread. To the admins, please do your best to do something about this. I've been playing this game for approx half a year now, and I love the game, but I can't hope to ever be a competitive team unless something changes. I'm too far behind, and this is a situation that is seriously causing income and wealth inequality. I am the 99%. LOL  |
04/02/2012 04:14 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
153 msgs.
Substitute
|
Sreek said: There are lot of managers who make many Hostile Purchases, they do that not to keep that player, but just to resell them for a higher price. This has a direct effect on increasing cost. Thinking that your player will be hostiled, managers will pay them more, and that causes financial problems for them. But, Hostile clause is a very important function in SM, no way it can be taken out. So, why don't a restricting be made on number of hostile clause that can be done for a season. may be something like 30. once a manger has done 30 HC for a season, he will only be permitted to do it next season. Or instead like was mentioned earlier, there should be a huge tax on reselling players that you bought with a hostile clause in the same season. Stick a 200% of the cost tax on it or something. For example, manager A hostiles a player for $5,000,000 and immediately puts him on the market for $10,000,000. If bought, the manager must pay a tax of 10,000,000. Rudimentary idea but it can be explored. Perhaps simply banning reselling of a player that was bought with a hostile during the same season would be better. |
04/02/2012 04:18 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
8
