| Forum » Suggestions » The New Junior Resign | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Fiscal
4207 msgs.
Best scorer
|
DirkDiggler said: @vgates said: I'm in Div 3 and in what I think is probably the zone of the curve that will get hit the worst. I don't particularly like this update because if it is intended to remove money from the game, I don't think it does that quickly enough. It may make the market more active but I'm not so sure about that either. If it has a secondary effect of driving prices down, well that helps younger teams because it makes players more accessible - but that doesn't remove money from the game. Just the opposite, it keeps teams with billions keeping their more money. If the intent is to remove money from the game, there are better avenues to do that. Raise the tax rate on sales. Make it 50% for players over $500m. Rather than removing deposits entirely, leave it for lower teams or reduce based on the total amount of money the manager has. If you have $1b or more, 0% on deposits. Better yet, at beginning of each season, asses a tax on total assets based on a sliding scale. That will cause some market uptick. @vgates: + * whatever a 96/18 GK is worth!!! hahaha  Whatamidoinghere: + KEL123: + Boomboomboom: + @illex: Im in Div 3 & i can control my expenses Brezette: It shouldnt be easy to keep weeklies low. You have better players and make more money. Simple! But the way you explain your finances makes me question how you do business. Also what low Div X's has 5 players 93+ prog? If he was able to acquire these players he must have more than enough money. I dont know of any experienced managers that train (juniors) less than 5 players. @vgatesThis isnt the first time someone has brought this up. I BROUGHT THIS UP 3 SEASONS AGO!!! A progressive tax starting from high to lower divisions will definitely take money out of the game + it will make Higher div managers really think about spending on these high prog juniors. Increasing sales tax like you explained will def help. And deposit interest rates ranging from 0 to 5% ( Div 1 to 5) Not based on Div. There are some billionaires sitting in Div 5. That's why I said based on assets. |
25/03/2015 02:54 |
| FC need more holidays - Div4/Gr7 | ||
|
Fiscal
4207 msgs.
Best scorer
|
elfolksy said: There was no time that the max years of contract you can offer a player was place @ 2yrs. Currently, my strikers miss chunks of attempts on goals now more than ever. So they either make an atom weight of change to it or it is as it was still. Yes there was, it was a bug where you could only resign at 2yrs max. Dev's fixed it in about 2 days. |
25/03/2015 02:55 |
| FC need more holidays - Div4/Gr7 | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@vgates said: DirkDiggler said: @vgates said: I'm in Div 3 and in what I think is probably the zone of the curve that will get hit the worst. I don't particularly like this update because if it is intended to remove money from the game, I don't think it does that quickly enough. It may make the market more active but I'm not so sure about that either. If it has a secondary effect of driving prices down, well that helps younger teams because it makes players more accessible - but that doesn't remove money from the game. Just the opposite, it keeps teams with billions keeping their more money. If the intent is to remove money from the game, there are better avenues to do that. Raise the tax rate on sales. Make it 50% for players over $500m. Rather than removing deposits entirely, leave it for lower teams or reduce based on the total amount of money the manager has. If you have $1b or more, 0% on deposits. Better yet, at beginning of each season, asses a tax on total assets based on a sliding scale. That will cause some market uptick. @vgates: + * whatever a 96/18 GK is worth!!! hahaha Whatamidoinghere: + KEL123: + Boomboomboom: + @illex: Im in Div 3 & i can control my expenses Brezette: It shouldnt be easy to keep weeklies low. You have better players and make more money. Simple! But the way you explain your finances makes me question how you do business. Also what low Div X's has 5 players 93+ prog? If he was able to acquire these players he must have more than enough money. I dont know of any experienced managers that train (juniors) less than 5 players. @vgatesThis isnt the first time someone has brought this up. I BROUGHT THIS UP 3 SEASONS AGO!!! A progressive tax starting from high to lower divisions will definitely take money out of the game + it will make Higher div managers really think about spending on these high prog juniors. Increasing sales tax like you explained will def help. And deposit interest rates ranging from 0 to 5% ( Div 1 to 5) Not based on Div. There are some billionaires sitting in Div 5. That's why I said based on assets. You are right! I pointed that out before but yea it should be based on assests |
25/03/2015 02:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2186 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@vgates said: elfolksy said: There was no time that the max years of contract you can offer a player was place @ 2yrs. Currently, my strikers miss chunks of attempts on goals now more than ever. So they either make an atom weight of change to it or it is as it was still. Yes there was, it was a bug where you could only resign at 2yrs max. Dev's fixed it in about 2 days. Yes, a bug not an intended update. |
25/03/2015 06:26 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
elfolksy said: @vgates said: elfolksy said: There was no time that the max years of contract you can offer a player was place @ 2yrs. Currently, my strikers miss chunks of attempts on goals now more than ever. So they either make an atom weight of change to it or it is as it was still. Yes there was, it was a bug where you could only resign at 2yrs max. Dev's fixed it in about 2 days. Yes, a bug not an intended update. there was a stupid strikers update too to make scorelines realistic.pretty sure they improved the strikers again marginally after almost everyone was against it. |
25/03/2015 07:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
DirkDiggler said: Hahaha Yes we have spoke about this before. You are probably right about if you just came in the game you shouldnt be training 90 prog players but you act like everyone in Div 4 & 5 just started last season. Half of these managers are unaware that they have great talent & are unable to capitalize on their potential either monetarily or development wise. There are PLENTY of experienced managers in lower Div already losing good/great talent to more financial potent teams (+ GB users) so yes it skews it a bit more towards HIgher Div teams. I dont really understand what you mean buy ramp it up? Ramp it up how? From reading some of these forum stuff, from the looks of it it seems like its hard to get new managers to join let alone get them to stick with this game for an extended period of time. So making it more difficult for lower divisions to COMPETE by cutting them off from the knees doesnt make ANY sense. by ramp up I mean as you get better at the game and move up divisions, you should be buying better players. Should a div 5 player spend his 500m of savings on a 97 prog DFM? Not at all. You have to build your whole team up before you can do that. There is a lull in people joining the game, but that's a whole other story for another day. If someone walked into the game today I'm not even sure they'd fully understand this update until they were well into the game and R's were long gone. Yes generally speaking 85-90 avg 14 yr old go from 25M to 55M each. YES! Now when it comes to clauses 90+avg progression players need higher than 100M bc the (R) defends not only GB users but high paying high div teams from simply plucking these players for cents off the dollar/euro/pound. They are not only protecting the players talent but what he will develop to. Example 1: a Div 4 team with a 92 progression player has a 100M clause (he is aware of the players potential), if a manager is able to identify this talent he can decide whether or not to hostile him. Now how many fit into this category? (in order of monetary power) DIv 1, 2, 3 & maybe even 4. Div 1-3 can buy this player on a whim if they want to. Now you are telling me that a player 0-75 shouldnt be higher than the 100M clause. You act as if this game isnt predicated on FC future talents. My math may be a little off and simplistic, but I stand by it. The 16-17 year old market with good prog players has always been awkward and low (as an @ I see a lot of weird price checks for things like 67/16 93 prog players, they're very hard to price. A 75/17 is only worth about 100m if he's got really good prog, but that same player as an 85/19 is worth 3x that if not more. A lot of the market is based on FC/Prog, but people are smart enough to not spend above value on a player, and if they're not, then you've made money. Example 2: I have a pair of DF's 14 & 15 yrs of age. The 14 yr old is 82 prog 15 yr old is 90. just bc they reach 70 % avg at different times (16-17 yrs old) doesnt mean they cost the same. You would always pay more for a 90 prog. The market value is not the same & you've probably benefited from the fact that paying a 3M clause then selling him for 300M is always possible when dealing with certain positions. That is a FACT! Your estimation of player salaries is undervalued. That probably only exist with managers that are fiscally responsible. That is what i spent when i was in Div 4&5 when i started. Not now. I dont think my idea is a terrible one. (R) for 14 & 15 yr olds for protection until they are somewhat developed seems more than fair. After 16 a complete blood bath!!!!!! MUUUUAAAHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yes market value for one player to the next is totally different, and my math was incredibly simple here, there are complexities for every player that I'm not going to get into here. http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=17888700 I had this guy on the market twice at 150 and didn't get any bids (he was 87 prog before he lost a prog to the red P) that means I didn't need him to have a clause greater than that through his jr career, which ends up pretty cheap though his life. Even the very best teams only have 4-5 really good juniors with really high prog, it's not really possible to have a jr team of 95 prog players (there are exceptions to this) at the end of the day I don't think this update will do that much to teams. |
25/03/2015 13:30 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@illex said: by ramp up I mean as you get better at the game and move up divisions, you should be buying better players. Should a div 5 player spend his 500m of savings on a 97 prog DFM? Not at all. You have to build your whole team up before you can do that. There is a lull in people joining the game, but that's a whole other story for another day. If someone walked into the game today I'm not even sure they'd fully understand this update until they were well into the game and R's were long gone. I know that you have to build a team before investing in very good talent but i dont know of any managers that has 500M to spend unless you are those sneaky billionaires hiding & training to sell while avoiding high weeklies. My math may be a little off and simplistic, but I stand by it. The 16-17 year old market with good prog players has always been awkward and low (as an @ I see a lot of weird price checks for things like 67/16 93 prog players, they're very hard to price. A 75/17 is only worth about 100m if he's got really good prog, but that same player as an 85/19 is worth 3x that if not more. A lot of the market is based on FC/Prog, but people are smart enough to not spend above value on a player, and if they're not, then you've made money. Your math is off a bit bc i train DF and if you havent been paying attention high avg players like 85/17 18 & 19 are not going for 3 times as much. There has been a devaluation off most DF unless they are 93+ prog. CDF are excluded. i just sold 3 85+avg DF under 19 for just over 120M sooo no not 3x times the amount. You know that the market determines the player. And the market for under 85 is becoming very crowds bc of 90+ trainer & mid prog DF flooding the game. Yes market value for one player to the next is totally different, and my math was incredibly simple here, there are complexities for every player that I'm not going to get into here. http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=17888700 I had this guy on the market twice at 150 and didn't get any bids (he was 87 prog before he lost a prog to the red P) that means I didn't need him to have a clause greater than that through his jr career, which ends up pretty cheap though his life. Even the very best teams only have 4-5 really good juniors with really high prog, it's not really possible to have a jr team of 95 prog players (there are exceptions to this) at the end of the day I don't think this update will do that much to teams. I know the complexities of the game & of player valuation but that still doesnt really address the main reason this update will be implemented. You are trying to take money out of the game. @vgate is right, it doesnt do it fast enough. The only thing that is being affected is the transactions from lower to higher divisions. Some div 1 juniors mightl be picked off by other teams bc of protection but they will continue to produce the same amount of revenue. Lower division will not receive the same amount of compensation bc the value of these players will be relatively unknown & therefore the players release clause will not reflect what the "market value" really is. Edited by DirkDiggler 25-03-2015 15:25 |
25/03/2015 15:21 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
DirkDiggler said: I know the complexities of the game & of player valuation but that still doesn't really address the main reason this update will be implemented. You are trying to take money out of the game. @vgate is right, it doesn't do it fast enough. The only thing that is being affected is the transactions from lower to higher divisions. Some div 1 juniors might be picked off by other teams bc of protection but they will continue to produce the same amount of revenue. Lower division will not receive the same amount of compensation bc the value of these players will be relatively unknown & therefore the players release clause will not reflect what the "market value" really is. Just to confirm, @'s had no say, influence, or even advance knowledge of this update. I'm just here supporting this because I want to address any concerns users have. If I didn't think this update was ok, I wouldn't be saying this. The main reason it's being implemented is to take money from the game. Right now I can pay a jr squad of 15 80+ average players about 4k each, meanwhile the guy who's just starting out and only has some 45 average 75-80 prog RM/LM is paying them 1k each. The disparity in terms of value/cost ratio is huge. It is a tax on the wealthy teams, because if I want to create a bunch of guys who will be 90 average by the time they become seniors, I need to pay for that privilege. Yes it is perhaps somewhat hampering to midrange teams because the greater cost output associated, but as I showed earlier in this thread, keeping a juniors salary above 100m is about 2-4m a season, and as you said your 85 average players only sold for about 120m, so you really don't have to push a salary above 120m until a player is 85 average. Now if the player is super high prog, this goes out the window a little, but if you got a 95 prog player from your school, wouldn't you be willing to protect him with a 1b+ clause throughout his time in your team? |
25/03/2015 20:07 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
Keeping your good players with yourself would not become as difficult as believe.This game works on simple concept-to get most out of your resources.So if anyone keeps a release clause high enough to get a good enough profit in case of hostile then it would be better than paying hefty pay just to keep him for keeping sake.Yes your besr players would be hostile able but play it well enough and profits could be made easily.You simplify everything by saying rich managers will rule junior market with this update.Arent you rich for a div 5 guy?So even if someone is in div 1 there will always be richer sharks.Even i have seen some div 5 guy spend almost a billion in star auction.Also higher you go up more is the weekly wage.It will increase even more higher up now.Currently its unfair that you can pay 5k to a 92prog player and keep it,the same you pay to a 70 prog. | 26/03/2015 05:01 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
5
