| Forum » General » -20% avg Rule Poll | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Do you agree with the -20%avg rule for free-gained players during inter-season?
|
||
|
Username
133 msgs.
Substitute
|
Koppington said: Seems unlikely that the game can be rewound back 3 days, a lot has happened in that time. The 20% hit isn't that bad. 50 down to 40, 60 down to 48, and 70 down to 56. Considering the players were signed on a free, then managers haven't lost out that much, and it isn't that unfair. I can understand that some managers have been hit unfairly. If they bought one of the players from a manager that signed him for free, then they are the real losers in all this. This has been an admin mistake/bug, so I can understand some of the anger, but some of the comments are over the top. No no no no no. I fired some high lvl 40's because i was getting high 40's low 50's. now i have 30's and low 40's. I got royally fucked |
20/06/2011 21:09 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
51 msgs.
Rookie
|
@ brezzette We are not looking at the problem from one side. Many of us have not gained much in the free for all that went on. I myself was inactive on Friday and Saturday when all the mayhem seems to have taken place. The point is there have always been some free players in the market. (Yes, I agree the average on the last few days was much higher than normal.) So if anyone is picking up free players it is no fault of his. It is simply logical, marketing decision. You cannot be called a crook and be penalised for that. It is a matter of principle in the first place. We all agree that normally a 10M player won't be available for free in the market. But the situation was not normal in the first place. There was an abundance of players which would not happen in a game situation. There are times when you would not find a good player in the market even if you are ready to spend the bucks for him. So even if someone actually spent money to buy a player, he was in an advantageous position. The thing has been all messed up. The only solution, according to me is to set the clock backwards. Let everyone have the money and players they had at the end of the season and let things start afresh. |
20/06/2011 21:09 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2960 msgs.
Best scorer
|
maybe one of the solution is to make this players younger 1 or 2 years so we can have them at same avg coz we pay them high salary and get -20% i think if this possible will be ok make players transfered for $0 younger 1-2 years |
20/06/2011 21:19 |
| Mr. Q17 - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
Username
715 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
That would be a great solution. -20% and 2 years younger so we'll be committed to paying their contracts. Or maybe a contract payoff plan where you have a percentage the player's value added to your debt. Seriously, if the league continues as it is, I'm hosed for this season. Good bye sponsorships, etc... Sux cause my team did so well last year before I cleaned house to make room for new players (I wanted an Asian team... cause I love Korean football, but my roster is/was all American) |
20/06/2011 21:23 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
772 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
goaldfndr said: Koppington said: Seems unlikely that the game can be rewound back 3 days, a lot has happened in that time. The 20% hit isn't that bad. 50 down to 40, 60 down to 48, and 70 down to 56. Considering the players were signed on a free, then managers haven't lost out that much, and it isn't that unfair. I can understand that some managers have been hit unfairly. If they bought one of the players from a manager that signed him for free, then they are the real losers in all this. This has been an admin mistake/bug, so I can understand some of the anger, but some of the comments are over the top. No no no no no. I fired some high lvl 40's because i was getting high 40's low 50's. now i have 30's and low 40's. I got royally fucked Just checked your transfers. You got greedy man. Firing so many players! You have suffered on this when it wasn't your fault (I don't think there was enough communication from the admins). And there should be a weighted drop in average as others have suggested. |
20/06/2011 21:29 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5569 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
95% of the players transferred for $0 were low progression players. All of the high progression players were taken. By chopping 20% off of the top, they also chopped 20% off the potential...all of the forecasts went down just the same So that 125M player, i'm paying $100,000/week? He now forecasts to 55!! He 71 forecast to 82 before. That will increase a little because of his stamina, but his progression curve didn't change. They lowered his salary/escape by 20% it looks like, but really, I'm looking at paying 120k/week for a 56/20 RDF w/ 65 FC and low progression. He wouldn't be on my roster at all. Part of the fix was to lower the abilities and value by the same %, assuming a direct proportion. The relationship between the two is more exponential, and gets steeper with each point of avg/progression/FC. And since all of the players impacted were high avg, the expense gap is greater and the cut is deeper. and it will keep bleeding for quite some time. There is no good way out right now. Some teams are going to lose out no matter what happens. Whatever solution is implemented will have to be well thought out and more logical than "We thought..." and "How is it not logical?" Here's a few ways that glitches like this have been handled by some of the better companies on the net http://www.bgr.com/2011/03/24/netflix-issues-apology-service-credit-for-instant-downtime/ - http://www.ryanhealy.com/netflix-preemptive-apology/ http://www.iptvconnection.com/index.php?/topic/244-amazon-issues-credit-for-high-definition-online-content/ Here's how not to do it: http://www.wbur.org/npr/135575238/bp-a-textbook-example-of-how-not-to-handle-pr BP is exceptional in that they can throw a lot of money at the government and make mistakes like that disappear... but the handling was atrocious. |
20/06/2011 21:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
921 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@shengli said: You can't compare what happened at the first season with this. At that moment, these players were SOLD, and everybody spent his money. Now players have been signed FOR FREE. The difference is huge, in my opinion. I think you'll find that there were plenty of spare free players floating around at the end of that season, that weren't sold and were picked up by hostile clause FOR FREE (example http://uk.strikermanager.com/inicio.php?accion=/jugador.php%3Fid_jugador%3D217020). Strange that all those with the top teams who benefited last time around are keeping quiet, they have their incredibly good teams, from freebies and the schools that produced 80+ average forecast players all the time. Striker manager is now a closed shop, if you were in in the beginning, you'll win. If you weren't, you have a huge disadvantage and the admins will make sure you stay down in the bottom. |
20/06/2011 22:02 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
715 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
I hope uk.strikermanager.com does not end up on that list... | 20/06/2011 22:05 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Admin
275 msgs.
First-team player
|
brezzette said: maybe one of the solution is to make this players younger 1 or 2 years so we can have them at same avg coz we pay them high salary and get -20% i think if this possible will be ok make players transfered for $0 younger 1-2 years We lowered salaries 20% yet. If most of you agree that 2 years younger players would be a decent solution, we can lower that easily. |
20/06/2011 22:06 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
133 msgs.
Substitute
|
Koppington said: goaldfndr said: Koppington said: Seems unlikely that the game can be rewound back 3 days, a lot has happened in that time. The 20% hit isn't that bad. 50 down to 40, 60 down to 48, and 70 down to 56. Considering the players were signed on a free, then managers haven't lost out that much, and it isn't that unfair. I can understand that some managers have been hit unfairly. If they bought one of the players from a manager that signed him for free, then they are the real losers in all this. This has been an admin mistake/bug, so I can understand some of the anger, but some of the comments are over the top. No no no no no. I fired some high lvl 40's because i was getting high 40's low 50's. now i have 30's and low 40's. I got royally fucked Just checked your transfers. You got greedy man. Firing so many players! You have suffered on this when it wasn't your fault (I don't think there was enough communication from the admins). And there should be a weighted drop in average as others have suggested. So what if I got greedy? that's not the point. The point is that I was being a smart manager trying to put my club in the best situation to win and i get boned for it. Believe me, not matter how much a club loves it's players if better players are available within cost range they'll cut ties with them. |
20/06/2011 22:07 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
22
