| Forum » Suggestions » Suggestions on curbing Inflation | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
1368 msgs.
International
|
kurush said: 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  Great point raised here. We have to be careful in separating teams based on division. I am in Div 3, but I am not rich; I am barely making it. That being said, it would not be fair to tax me and the manager on top of my league who is making millions of dollars per week. It should be on a net worth basis as kurush said. Start placing a high luxury tax on teams making over 40M a week and another tax on the reselling of players bought by hostile clause in the same season in which the player was bought. Also, the selling of 90 forecast players at 30M is ridiculous. I've seen culeatopee do this every single week and it is frustrating. Player's whose average is less than 20 should not be able to be sold for more than 10M no matter the forecast or progression. The maximum price could then be increased to 15M for 21-30 overall, and finally 20M for 31-40 overall. |
04/02/2012 05:05 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
There is a luxury tax, salary, stadium upkeep and accessories. My expenses are now 20m per week, barely under the 2 game to cover expense rule I live by. |
05/02/2012 04:31 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1368 msgs.
International
|
@rebsiot said: There is a luxury tax, salary, stadium upkeep and accessories. My expenses are now 20m per week, barely under the 2 game to cover expense rule I live by. What about the money sinks then? Such as the buying of skills as I read others propose. That seems like it would work really well. Or opening up some of the things that can only be bought with golden balls (things such as healing players, jerseys, etc.) to also be bought with money. Also, something needs to be done about the selling of FC90 at 30M when their average is 8. It's ridiculous. |
05/02/2012 04:38 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Oh, I agree, just saying that increasing mandatory costs might sink some teams that ride close to the edge. | 05/02/2012 05:15 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2737 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I'm a late jumping in this read, I've read the first few pages but havent read the rest so what I say might have been stated/discussed earlier: 1) A suggestion I've seen multiple times is capping the transfer amount of players depending on their average. This will be impossible to monitor unless the game itself does NOT allow you to sell higher than a certain price. Having a rule that says "dont sell a 50 avg player for more than 20M" or "dont sell a high FC that is 20 avg for more than 20M" will not help. It will add more to the complains fiscals are getting, and will increase the number of cheaters. 2) If you want to decrease inflation, it will only happen through sucking money out of the game, not moving money from rich to poor. Also note that the optimum place to suck money from is the rich so you essentially want to make everything more expensive for the rich with the poor left unaffected as much as possible. I agree with previous suggestions that were on the lines of: a)increasing player salary to release clause ratio (exponentially as was suggested) b) implementing taxes on savings (at different rates, maybe have lines at 10/100/1000M) rather than giving interest c) increase the running costs of schools, only the rich will think about investing in schools when they have lots of money and those who already do will either have to pay more or close them down (yea, im one of the most people who have schools but its still a great idea) d) increasing the salary of 90% staff (almost every single rich team has a full staff of 90%). 3) Higher taxes paid on player transfers as their prices increase, make tax a function of price of player. something like this might work : tax% = 5 + sqrt(price of player)/1000 4) Since this discussion is happening in public and no counter-part of it is happening between the @s, I would like to ask from the @ who will push the suggestions forward to inform everyone AT LEAST 1 season before the changes come into place if they are radical changes. We've been through this many times, and anything that will be implemented quickly without sufficient prior notice could break the game especially since the changes made will be mostly towards the rich teams who are pretty much holding the game together economically. |
05/02/2012 08:17 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5633 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
@solirocket said: a)increasing player salary to release clause ratio (exponentially as was suggested) b) implementing taxes on savings (at different rates, maybe have lines at 10/100/1000M) rather than giving interest 3) Higher taxes paid on player transfers as their prices increase, make tax a function of price of player. something like this might work : tax% = 5 + sqrt(price of player)/1000 a) Doesn't so much punish the rich as it does punish those in lower divisions who want to keep good players on their teams. b) Rather than taxing savings, an income tax would be more appropriate. Tax based on revenue after expenses. In real life, a reserve bank in a country (or the like) will raise or lower interest rates to encourage growth/prevent inflation. A tax could be created that changes depending on how much is left after expenses. c) Probably the best idea of the lot. Prevents players from selling for too higher price (at risk of paying outrageous sums of money in overhead), and so would prevent team making exorbitant amounts of money from player sales. I would suggest a mixture of B and C.  |
05/02/2012 08:27 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1382 msgs.
International
|
1. Lower the amount of skill a player is gaining during training for one day. 2. Charge an in game income for an extra training session ( so if you want to have your player work and train more again the same day to gain more skill points) I.E 2 or more training's a day that cost money. Call it training maintenance. An extra session would lower the fitness levels and should lower the stamina which means a better staff would have to be acquired to maintain the levels. As stated by other users, It seems players are progressing way to fast. In two seasond a player can go from 32 to 65 and be only 17 yrs o which makes him worth like 50-100mil for only paying what a 2mil salary as long as the player is a junior and is resigned he is untouchable. Progression is nice but their should be a price to pay. Managers should be paying more to train that specific position and player who has a high progress. This way the manager will start to get what they paid for when they sell the player or managers will be less likely to sell a player they have spent so much training for. This is fair for all divisions. Just like we have a stadium maintenance requirement, so too should each division so this way lower level divisions will not be fined too much since they have very little income. again, their are too many highly averaged players being ballooned which is why you have such inflation problems. This kills two birds with one stone. Higher level players will actually be worth something and are less likely to be bought and sold and bought again for managers to make three to four times profit on one player. Thats devaluing your in game currency all buy itself. Adding in any other tax would kill the competitiveness of the game. Keep adding fees that aren't controlling the main problem and you will continue to fight the same issue. ITs like a band-aid. It fixes the problem temporarily but if you don't heal the wound, blood will keep on pouring out. Edited by cmccourt 08-02-2012 15:01 |
08/02/2012 14:54 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1382 msgs.
International
|
dneighbors said: 1. Raise interest rates. 2. Increase taxes. Likely in some scaled way to not hurt teams in lower divisions. (Add luxury taxes on stadiums, coaches, salaries.) 3. Lower loan limits. 4. Allow people to spend in game money instead of Gold Balls for things. (move to a subscription model for devs to get paid) 5. Create entry fees for tournaments, cups, etc.. (make cup for 6-7, 4-5, 1-3 with different entry fee for each) 6. Decrease revenue from private leagues 7. Money Sinks (really the only way).. Create things that cost money but don't make money.. (see item 4) 8. Stop adding new currency to the game. Cap currency in system and make all elements variable based on market demand. Very good ideas. +1 Also, charge for training like in my above post. I think part of the problem isn't always just money but a combination of wanting to be greedy and a shift in focus. Let me explain. Take out the greed and put in the need. More in game rewards not awards. The awards right now are too hard to find and their not able to be won and held onto for long periods. Take a look at in game achievements of popular sites and video games. Everyone is doing it because it draws the user into taking part of something other than the traditional game content. You want your users to be on this site more training players, spending money not figuring out how to "jip" the system and get ahead. People like nothing but being rewarded and right now the only rewards are striker cup tourney,1st place in your division and buying a player for 3mil and selling him for 10mil(example). Yes you have awards, you have best shot and best player and best season, best game streak, but it has to be accessed through the user menu which unless you have won an award; you don't go and check out especially as a first time user. Everyone wants to brag about something. Your awards section is too inaccessible. not making fun, but its like the off brand soup at the end of the grocery isle. Campbell s is up front and proudly displayed whereas off brands are put up high were no one looks. Make the awards more view-able maybe put Little trophies under the user names. Something to get people wanting to spend more time,effort and money. Edited by cmccourt 08-02-2012 15:50 |
08/02/2012 15:37 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
4993 msgs.
Best scorer
|
cmccourt said: As stated by other users, It seems players are progressing way to fast. In two seasond a player can go from 32 to 65 and be only 17 yrs o which makes him worth like 50-100mil for only paying what a 2mil salary as long as the player is a junior and is resigned he is untouchable. players increasing too fast? at the start of last season prog was massively reduced. this had Zero effect on inflation. player rating doesn't dictate value. market forces dicate value. as people have more money to spend, so fees increase. 65 rated players were costing <20m a few months ago. if anything there are too few high average players, driving the price up. cmccourt said: Progression is nice but their should be a price to pay. have you seen the cost of 90+ prog juniors lately? also, there is a direct fee in school fees (which could be increased, taking money out of the game). cmccourt said: Managers should be paying more to train that specific position and player who has a high progress. This way the manager will start to get what they paid for when they sell the player or managers will be less likely to sell a player they have spent so much training for. you're suggesting for a major game change here. training/progression and hostile clause are corner stones of sm. cmccourt said: This kills two birds with one stone. Higher level players will actually be worth something and are less likely to be bought and sold and bought again for managers to make three to four times profit on one player. Thats devaluing your in game currency all buy itself. people will still buy and sell players to improve. individual managers making money doesn't cause inflation, it's caused by the total amount of money in the game is increasing. not the same thing. cmccourt said: Adding in any other tax would kill the competitiveness of the game. Keep adding fees that aren't controlling the main problem and you will continue to fight the same issue. ITs like a band-aid. It fixes the problem temporarily but if you don't heal the wound, blood will keep on pouring out. hmm. alot of people posting here seem to think tax/fees are the answer. I'm thinking extreme levels of tax, introduced over time. if you take money out of the game, you should reduce or at least slow inflation. I don't see how limiting quality players would have any effect at all. the top 5-10% of players would still be worth whatever price the top clubs can afford. |
08/02/2012 15:50 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1382 msgs.
International
|
aleph44 said: cmccourt said: As stated by other users, It seems players are progressing way to fast. In two seasond a player can go from 32 to 65 and be only 17 yrs o which makes him worth like 50-100mil for only paying what a 2mil salary as long as the player is a junior and is resigned he is untouchable. players increasing too fast? at the start of last season prog was massively reduced. this had Zero effect on inflation. player rating doesn't dictate value. market forces dicate value. as people have more money to spend, so fees increase. 65 rated players were costing <20m a few months ago. if anything there are too few high average players, driving the price up. cmccourt said: Progression is nice but their should be a price to pay. have you seen the cost of 90+ prog juniors lately? also, there is a direct fee in school fees (which could be increased, taking money out of the game). cmccourt said: Managers should be paying more to train that specific position and player who has a high progress. This way the manager will start to get what they paid for when they sell the player or managers will be less likely to sell a player they have spent so much training for. you're suggesting for a major game change here. training/progression and hostile clause are corner stones of sm. cmccourt said: This kills two birds with one stone. Higher level players will actually be worth something and are less likely to be bought and sold and bought again for managers to make three to four times profit on one player. Thats devaluing your in game currency all buy itself. people will still buy and sell players to improve. individual managers making money doesn't cause inflation, it's caused by the total amount of money in the game is increasing. not the same thing. cmccourt said: Adding in any other tax would kill the competitiveness of the game. Keep adding fees that aren't controlling the main problem and you will continue to fight the same issue. ITs like a band-aid. It fixes the problem temporarily but if you don't heal the wound, blood will keep on pouring out. hmm. alot of people posting here seem to think tax/fees are the answer. I'm thinking extreme levels of tax, introduced over time. if you take money out of the game, you should reduce or at least slow inflation. I don't see how limiting quality players would have any effect at all. the top 5-10% of players would still be worth whatever price the top clubs can afford. Not looking for a flame battle here but since you picked apart my post i'll just add this. I will attempt to enlighten just one of the many responses. If i had all day and felt up to it I would give you the time of day but I will just look at one aspect to clarfiy for yourself and any other user who might think the same If you think that managers hos-tiling and making a profit is not messing up the currency of the game then you are surely mistaken and you may need a class in macro-economics. When a player is worth well over its actual cost their is a problem. Have you not noticed that when a manager goes to auction a player and puts in a direct purchase that the price listed automatically reflects the SM suggest retail value.. but hey lets throw an example shall we.. lets look past that suggested direct purchase amount and bump it to 10 mil.. sure i bought the player for 3mil hes a 52 average.. dumby shoulda put a higher hostile clause.. oh well sell off got my 6 mil profit.. Its called Economic profit vs opportunism Here I googled the definition for you... please take a look. The difference between the revenue received from the sale of an output and the opportunity cost of the inputs used. This can be used as another name for "economic value added" (EVA). Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicprofit.asp#ixzz1lno1vAeo and here is a yahoo question to save you some trouble of asking on the forum again.. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071128214914AAwIdil This game runs off a virtual economy its the same as real life only virtual friend. I could pick apart your reply but im not going to because well one, i stated I happened to know what im talking about when it comes to a game and economic policies. Two, this is a friendly forum chat so take it for what you will but i wont feed into your juvenile attempt of trying to make me sound of tilt. If you didn't mean to offend then you should have stated that because they way you posted was in excusable and next time be frank but be polite. |
08/02/2012 16:05 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
9
