| Forum » General » FINE idea | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
what do u think?
|
||
|
1382 msgs.
International
|
This is a great venting thread but that's all were doing . We are shooting down each other's ideas getting nowhere. We started about fines which (as usual brings us into a pricing discussion) is tied to the pricing structure of the game. Simply put, the users of the game aren't happy about the way the game allows the buying and selling of certain players( @s are managers too) So is there any way to work together and change the current process or are people just out of luck? If we are out of luck and peoples hands are tied then lets just end this thread with, this is the way Uplay wants it and that's that. |
05/11/2013 17:50 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
1835 msgs.
International
|
Great comment cmccourt, I concur. We all care about this game and put a lot of time into playing it; why not work together to improve it so that we can continue to enjoy it as much going forward. With that, let's get down to ideas. Do people have any comments, positive or negative, regarding the Pricing Form method I suggested? I really think that it could help improve the process, making decision more transparent and pricing more accurate while also being less stressful for fiscals. |
05/11/2013 18:33 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1382 msgs.
International
|
I kind of agree with @Luci that a pricing forum could be used still to extort others and wiggle a way to selling a crap player to someone with more money. I have said it previously and in the past, if we have @fiscals then there job should be solely to just look at those transactions that are breaking the rules. But the rules are always changing because the prices are always changing. Today my player is worth X, but next season he is worth Y. Just set a price ceiling for all player purchases. (hostile purchases can be included or not) This allows for every user to know "this position, with this average and with this age" can maximally be allowed to sell no higher than X price. Values would still fluctuate and then @ fiscals can move the price ceiling higher or lower every season and inform us. It cuts down on emails and constantly asking each other for pricing and double or triple checking ourselves. So an example like my player: CDF 83/20 . Highest auction price ever was 465mil. Price ceiling is 485mil. So this player if I sell him can not be sold for more than the ceiling price. He can be sold for less money no problem but any higher is fined automatically. Price floor works just as well. Not insulting anyone's intelligence with the econ lesson, but for those not well informed about this model, there you go. Edited by cmccourt 05-11-2013 18:50 Edited by cmccourt 05-11-2013 18:51 |
05/11/2013 18:49 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
1835 msgs.
International
|
I am not sure where this pricing forum came from...I don't remember reading anything about it, but both you and Luci have talked about it so far. Perhaps I have been unclear; I suggested a FORM that managers fill out and send in to the fiscal team regarding a price they want. Maybe have another read and get back to me? As far as giving a "price ceiling" goes, I'm not sure it accomplishes what we want it to. Realistically, it doesn't afford us an appropriate range to sell a player for given our current circumstances and it still allows for exploitation on the low-end. The fiscals making an assessment are not the manager of the club, so they can't be expected to understand the decision-making factors that have led to such a price being used in an agreement. Personally, I think that fiscals do best to describe a generic value of the player. How much is Player A worth, given his age, average and postion. Beyond that, a manager can negotiate above or below this evaluation with the notion of additional factors privy to them. Things like progression, attributes, time of the season, league position, squad depth and financial status can all influence this price dramatically. There is no way a fiscal can account for all these things when they are removed from the situation and we can't expect them to. Furthermore, they have to be open to this notion as well; managers need to have the ability to manage their team based on how they analyze the conditions they are in. This is where we need to find a common ground. Let me illustrate an example: akleb was away on vacation for two weeks. During this time, his weekly expenses exceeded the profit he made from home games as he failed to recognize he was playing away from home for the entirety of the second week. He is now in the red, with a week remaining to solve his balance. akleb needs to sell a player, but unfortunately as we all know, nobody trains junior LW/RWs and LM/RMs. He cant find a buyer for any of them because they're still lower average and most teams have already filled their loans. He now only has two days left and he needs to sell a senior player to save his team. Being the #1 ranked team in SM, his players are not cheap and have a low pool of people who can pay full price. Based on a fiscal price, the RM "not Nani" is worth 1B (arbitrary) but nobody has that money on hand to his knowledge. He receives an offer of 750M and is forced to accept, to save his team. Should akleb be fined, because 750M is very, very cheap for this player? In my eyes, no he should not. The forces of the game created a situation with temporarily drove the price down and the manager had to make a judgement call to save his squad. Obviously this is an extreme example, but such adversity happens within every transaction, to some extent, and needs to be recognized. In my opinion, managers need to be given more opportunity to become involved in the pricing process so that they can help make the fiscal team aware of these pressures. With the FORM I proposed, the comment section would allow managers the space to put in details like "team in red, need to sell" or "beginning of the year, selling to make money for the star I created" that explain the priced they've agreed upon with a manager. Now, the fiscal is more educated and can come to a more informed decision. All in all, we're helping each other to get a more accurate picture of the situation, which leads to a more accurate price. Furthermore, I think fiscal evaluations need to be more of a "yes/no" than a "100M." It's the job of a manager to evaluate their own players, their own circumstances and the market as to come to a price that is beneficial to the advancement of their team. It is then their job to find other managers who would be interested in such a deal and negotiate for this price. In my eyes, none of this is the fiscals responsibility as it is not their team; it's a fiscals job to ensure deals that ARE done ARE justified. Right now, we're basically asking the fiscals to do all of this by giving us a price up front. We're making them do more work and then we're hanging them out to dry because they haven't been given all the information necessary to provide this judgment. But putting the responsibility back into the managers hands we can avoid all of this. Submitting a form with a suggested price, and getting a "yes" or a "no + suggestion" seems much more appropriate to me. Thank you for your time Oyewale  Edited by Heidstra 05-11-2013 19:26 |
05/11/2013 19:13 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
21587 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
@practicesquad said: Thank you for you time guys,dont forget to add this at the end of your long post...Heid and Cm,please take note.thanks  |
05/11/2013 19:22 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
4211 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I'm still confused. If no one asks an @, then there is no price set and thus no fine for exceeding? Is that correct? And yes Oye, thanks all for their time |
05/11/2013 19:35 |
| FC need more holidays - Div3/Gr9 | ||
|
Fiscal
1835 msgs.
International
|
vgates said: I'm still confused. If no one asks an @, then there is no price set and thus no fine for exceeding? Is that correct? If you are asking me, then you're a bit off track. The fiscals will absolutely be involved. In a perfect world nobody would exploit loopholes in the game and abuse other managers to gain advancement. Unfortunately, it happens here regularly so it is necessary for a governing body to be involved. What I am suggesting is that fiscals are involved in the pricing very much, just not as totalitarian as it currently is. I'm suggesting more of a give-and-take between them and general users which makes their job less cumbersome rather than less existent. |
05/11/2013 19:39 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1382 msgs.
International
|
Only read the last two pages before last post so my apologies. I thought you were talking about a forum page. I see where you are going with the FORM page, but even that too is a bit much. Not to say the idea is not worth looking into, but it does draw the same problems as before were a manager could find an exploit. What if akleb was also selling his LM and now both LM and RM are sold below fiscal price. But he filled out the form saying he was in the red or whatever and needed the money. You see, so one could accidentally (and not intentionally) sell more players then needed. But, as long as its not abused, the FORM will work. @fiscals approve it and akleb goes and sells his player cheap so he can cover the cost. But this only works for akleb situation where he needs money now. But then whats the point? whats the point of negotiating and getting the best deal? whats the point of joining a PL and moving school juniors to up and coming members because the market is too slow of a turn around? So this could solve aklbe's situation, but we haven't solved the issue of being able to freely decide prices because we run the risk of being fined. Nowadays, we ask for a price because we don't want to be fined. Is this really the way we want to continue to keep things? In this current SM situation, prices are fluctuating down because of the way we do things. Prices for 90+prog,90fc and 90avg players are allowed to climb higher and higher. All players that fall below those guideline have seen there prices reduced dramatically. So we have to ask rather than judge for ourselves or make deals to get money to buy more players or build more schools etc etc.. we could debate more but, thats all I got for now, cant contribute too much more time to SM atm. |
05/11/2013 19:46 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
1835 msgs.
International
|
I'm not sure if I communicated my suggestion clearly enough, because I'm not sure how any of these issues wouldn't be solved or, at the very least, greatly improved. If akleb submits a form for both his LM and RM stating the same reason, the fiscals will see that and be able to respond that any of the additional sales beyond the extend of the debt with punishment. They will also be able to notify akleb of this, which is something that is rarely done. Obviously this is just one example, but I urge you or others to present more to "test" this theory. The FORM is designed to return the negotiating to the game. We can't entirely eliminate cheating at this point, so we have to develop methods to account for it while also allowing the honest members to play the game to it's fullest capacity. By giving Yes/No answers we are forcing managers to analyze the game and make their own decisions, not have fiscals run their teams for them. As it is, fiscals ensure everyone gets the same deal. To me, good and bad deals should exist. If akleb can talk a manager into paying a higher price because his player is Lebanese and Lebanese player's are rare, all the power to him. If akleb doesn't do his homework and pays too much for a player, it's his loss. Obviously this isn't cut and dry, but managers need to have the freedom to manage their transactions and fiscals must be given the ability to witness and understand these decisions in order to account for it. This is the aim of the FORM. |
05/11/2013 20:13 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5633 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Another idea is just to start an auction from 0 or agreed market value. Tell two or more people about the player you have, and see what happens. |
05/11/2013 23:54 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
5
