| Forum » General » Updates from ES server | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Fiscal
4207 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@eamwilson said: Imo same amount of high average players will be made, if anything it will be the richer teams that keep them all. This is exactly what will happen. I'm not sure what their intent is - is it to remove money from the game? Reduce the concentration of higher avg players? Increase players in the market? In any event, none of those things will happen in the aggregate with this change. In this game juniors = $$$. This change will only serve to put more $$$ in the hands of managers who already have $$$. It will put less players in the market because what will happen is this: managers who can afford to have high clauses on their players will do so and train them. Managers who cannot afford to keep those players will have them hostiled and re-hostiled etc. Lower managers will not train properly - 4 seasons? It takes a new manager 2 seasons to figure out what they are doing. By the time they do, hostile, and then train - the players have lost 2 good seasons of training. So now worse players are on the market. The wealthier managers who can afford to train juniors at high clauses? If they factor in the carrying cost of the clauses and decide they will not make money, then we will simply see certain PL's and PL groups organize training. Managers will train specific juniors and when they are 18, swap them at the same price. This will lead to teams with the exact same players. It will make the server have teams that look more alike than the es server. I have said this before and said it before the SM2 was announced - juniors are $$$, if you want to end that, get rid of the ability to hostile juniors completely AND allow people to train every position. |
19/01/2015 20:09 |
| FC need more holidays - Div4/Gr7 | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@vgates said: @eamwilson said: Imo same amount of high average players will be made, if anything it will be the richer teams that keep them all. This is exactly what will happen. I'm not sure what their intent is - is it to remove money from the game? Reduce the concentration of higher avg players? Increase players in the market? In any event, none of those things will happen in the aggregate with this change. In this game juniors = $$$. This change will only serve to put more $$$ in the hands of managers who already have $$$. It will put less players in the market because what will happen is this: managers who can afford to have high clauses on their players will do so and train them. Managers who cannot afford to keep those players will have them hostiled and re-hostiled etc. Lower managers will not train properly - 4 seasons? It takes a new manager 2 seasons to figure out what they are doing. By the time they do, hostile, and then train - the players have lost 2 good seasons of training. So now worse players are on the market. The wealthier managers who can afford to train juniors at high clauses? If they factor in the carrying cost of the clauses and decide they will not make money, then we will simply see certain PL's and PL groups organize training. Managers will train specific juniors and when they are 18, swap them at the same price. This will lead to teams with the exact same players. It will make the server have teams that look more alike than the es server. I have said this before and said it before the SM2 was announced - juniors are $$$, if you want to end that, get rid of the ability to hostile juniors completely AND allow people to train every position. While I do think this hurts lower level teams a little, I think it hurts the teams with higher value jr's more (so typically the richer teams). If I buy a 97 prog 14 year old, I'm probably paying 500-600m on the current market. At 30 average, I need to already give him a clause of about 1b to protect my investment, which is 500k-1m at least. But an 89 prog 14 year old is about 50-70m, and as such I should only have to protect him with a 150-300m clause initially, which is only about 100-200k. 200k for 20 players (the max you can train) is 4m per week, or 48m per season. 48m is the sale of one 75 average JR, so it's still worth doing the training. Even if I'm paying 1m per week for a player for 2 seasons, and 2m for him for 3 seasons, and he's a 93 prog 14 year old when I get him, that's 98m I've paid in salary for him, and conceivably he'll be 85-90 average by the time he reaches 19, and at current market rates, that will still fetch you at least 500m, so he's still profitable, just not as profitable. If I only had to pay 300k for 3 seasons and then 500k for 2 seasons for a lower prog player, that's 23m, and maybe he only gets to 80-85 average, but that's still 1-200m at least, so your margins are still very good. (this is all roughly based on current market values, if values drop, so do your clauses and cost to own) The really rich teams will want to protect their investments and might just go with a 3m clause from the start, meaning they're losing money needlessly from the start, which is only a good thing. What I think it will do is change how many players people train. Right now I have 16 players I train. 3 of them are getting 50% training, which isn't really worth it in the current market, as they can't really reach their full potential and sell for peanuts. People with decent money will get 4-5 premium players to train, and the rest will be lesser players that are cheaper. It will change the market, and there would be some growing pains, but overall I don't think it's a bad idea. Plus it adds incentive to search for players and be more active, which is good. |
20/01/2015 16:07 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3059 msgs.
Best scorer
|
+1 with illex | 20/01/2015 16:10 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5339 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
@illex said: While I do think this hurts lower level teams a little, I think it hurts the teams with higher value jr's more (so typically the richer teams). Here's the key. We discussed the last two days in ES forum and some managers still call us idiots lol. |
20/01/2015 18:08 |
| A - Div2/Gr4 | ||
|
Username
2184 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@illex said: What I think it will do is change how many players people train. Right now I have 16 players I train. 3 of them are getting 50% training, which isn't really worth it in the current market, as they can't really reach their full potential and sell for peanuts. People with decent money will get 4-5 premium players to train, and the rest will be lesser players that are cheaper. This could lead to a rapid decline in the MVs of the expensive positions. The market will be full of high progression juniors that are surplus to their owners, and at a certain point of time in the future, it will be very difficult to find buyers who are willing to meet your demands. But this just speaks about the top 3 division teams. It's not at all feasible for a div 5 manager to pay 1m salary to ward off hostiles on his 90prog junior, instead he might resort to train lower prog players and that won't give him much in return. :/ |
20/01/2015 19:55 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@yoyoyoyoyo said: @illex said: What I think it will do is change how many players people train. Right now I have 16 players I train. 3 of them are getting 50% training, which isn't really worth it in the current market, as they can't really reach their full potential and sell for peanuts. People with decent money will get 4-5 premium players to train, and the rest will be lesser players that are cheaper. This could lead to a rapid decline in the MVs of the expensive positions. The market will be full of high progression juniors that are surplus to their owners, and at a certain point of time in the future, it will be very difficult to find buyers who are willing to meet your demands. But this just speaks about the top 3 division teams. It's not at all feasible for a div 5 manager to pay 1m salary to ward off hostiles on his 90prog junior, instead he might resort to train lower prog players and that won't give him much in return. :/ This is already happening because of the volume of players coming out of schools. Since schools are really only a 1 time cost, so many managers have been able to invest in schools and so the # of schools out there in the universe is incredibly high and thus the more likely a good player from a school is. The sheer volume of surplus 80+ average 19 and 20 year olds already has driven the market down. So much so that players under 80 average players are worth under 100m. I sold this guy 16 months ago at 76 average for 220m, and now at 88 average his market value is close to what it was then http://en.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=10982882 It's also all about trade off. If I'm a div 5 manager without much money, my 90 prog player from a school might have a general market value of 60m, but if I set his clause at 150m (I just tested it and it's 110K to get that clause for one of my jr's) and someone hostiles, then I've made a profit above market value. |
20/01/2015 21:02 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5633 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
I dunno I think we will have to wait and see the outcome. There are many variables, but for sure it will be easier for richer teams to keep juniors for longer. Imo they should reset the server every 12 seasons or something. Fifa ultimate team resets every season and no one bitches about that - in fact if they didn't it'd end up in the same situation we have here. These kind of updates only serve to take the fun out of the game I think. |
21/01/2015 03:01 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
290 msgs.
First-team player
|
When Can We Start promoting The Game and get prices | 21/01/2015 06:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
3
