| Forum » Suggestions » Players, price and value | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Whatamidoinghere said: Have you ever view the Spanish server @Vgates? That's the exact direction we are heading. Very soon 90avg players will start selling at 5-10m maybe then, you will agree something must be done to the market system. And oh, new users? Most of the experienced guys are leaving because Uplay for some unknown reasons decides to dump this server into the gutters. So what will motivate the new users to stay? The one month pack or GB? They will hit 90avg team within a year soon or even less than that. What will happen next? They will definitely get bored and leave. This game is dying something needs to be done to keep it alive. The core problem with the way the game is developed is that since day one it's always been set up to eventually die. The fact we actually have a small user base has actually kept the server slowing it's extinction. From the get go progs needed to be dropped, max age lowered to like 28, and training slowed. Age is the biggest one IMO. The fact that you can have a player in your senior team for something like 16 seasons (FOUR YEARS!) is insane, that means player turnover is insanely low. I'd guess most top teams have made like 5-6 purchases max in the last few seasons. Regardless of that, there really isn't a solid way to try and rescue this server. Suddenly prop up sale prices? That hurts newer players who just finally had enough money to get a certain level of player. Lower retirement age rapidly? That kills certain teams with older players. Lower progs? That hurts everyone but hurts people who's teams are still training well. I could go on. I don't know what could be done, but I don't think anything could be done. I think eventually this game just dies due to poor forecasting by the developers, and there really isn't much to be done about it. |
09/02/2016 08:06 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2960 msgs.
Best scorer
|
A lot of good long term views and i agree with illex. I think every change that is made to take money out of the game will mostly benefit strong teams. I was joking about eam and spaniards about deposits but there are 10+teams like mine that sit on billions and farm. I suggested long time ago about removing deposits(never use them till i sell off),i still want that but it will hurt a lot of good teams(probably bankrupt in few seasons) and new managers from spain server who come here just for deposits. Yeah removing deposit is great on long term and will stop rich team to get richer but many teams will die. I like a lot that auction from 0$ that vgates mentioned, few times i offer 200M more than the buyer did and still he sold to team that offer 200M less. Problem with this 0$ auction is that a lot of top quality players can go unnoticed and prices will fall even more. A lot of pros/coins with everything. |
09/02/2016 08:46 |
| Mr. Q17 - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
Username
2149 msgs.
Best scorer
|
brezzette said: I like a lot that auction from 0$ that vgates mentioned, few times i offer 200M more than the buyer did and still he sold to team that offer 200M less. Problem with this 0$ auction is that a lot of top quality players can go unnoticed and prices will fall even more. A lot of pros/coins with everything. there will be a few anomalies in the start, but once most users realise that auctions are more fair to market changes, people will rely less trying to manufacture side deals. I am not saying that it will save the server, nothing in my opinion can anymore, but it will keep the game a little more balanced till it exists. |
09/02/2016 08:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2960 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Spade said: brezzette said: I like a lot that auction from 0$ that vgates mentioned, few times i offer 200M more than the buyer did and still he sold to team that offer 200M less. Problem with this 0$ auction is that a lot of top quality players can go unnoticed and prices will fall even more. A lot of pros/coins with everything. there will be a few anomalies in the start, but once most users realise that auctions are more fair to market changes, people will rely less trying to manufacture side deals. I am not saying that it will save the server, nothing in my opinion can anymore, but it will keep the game a little more balanced till it exists. Guess you are right it should stabilize fast. Most managers will miss good players at auction we will need something like that 'notify' button that dont work. Lets say i need for this season 95+avg forwards and we pay like ~20GB and when player like that is on auction we should receive message. This should be for whole season,maybe pay 50GB or 100GB nvm and you receive message for players that you looking for when auctioned. |
09/02/2016 09:02 |
| Mr. Q17 - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
Fiscal
1769 msgs.
International
|
I think every transaction above 85 rating is inevitably a side deal.. Moving to an auction system would standardize/institutionalize the issues rather than solve problems. The chief problem is actually a lack of demand. If there's an increase of supply, where's the corresponding increase in demand? All transactions require a buyer willing to pay the asserted price - you can't force anyone to buy.. For most anyone <85, the market is relatively full and player prices are thus in line with age/rating. Those players are basically a fungible good at this point. But once you go above 85, you see things like a 90/20 LB with an auction floor of $600M... and you rarely see the age/position/rating combination that you're looking for more than once a week if that. So if the player is priced too high, you keep waiting.. even if that's a player you'd otherwise like. Moving to auction only would NOT mean that you'd necessarily get a higher price.. rather, you get results like what I've done - I will be training in youth nearly 100% of my senior squad and rotating between the positions, because I don't believe I'll be able to find the players I want at the precise times I need to find them. Money is tough for people who aren't in division 3 already. The reason you can't sell your youth >85 forwards is because.. nobody has that kind of money and if they do, they're not spending it on just one player because that's the budget for the entire squad. My solution: Open up one additional division 1 group.. and however many additional div2 and div3 that would require to ensure promotion/relegation works correctly. This would put more money in the game. If you want those >85 players to be bought... more managers need the cash to acquire them! Edited by Buckeye623 09-02-2016 16:58 |
09/02/2016 15:47 |
| ★★Dyslexia Untied - Div2/Gr2 | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Buckeye623 said: My solution: Open up one additional division 1 group.. and however many additional div2 and div3 that would require to ensure promotion/relegation works correctly. This would put more money in the game. If you want those >85 players to be bought... more managers need the cash to acquire them! Edited by Buckeye623 09-02-2016 16:01 I disagree with opening up more groups in the divisions, but I don't disagree with the fact that money needs to be pumped into lower divisions, or money needs to be taken out of upper divisions. In a month and a half in div 2 I've already gotten more from my stadium than I did all last season in div 3. Last season i lost 200m being in div 2, this season I'm set to make 500m because of it. That's a bad discrepancy. Not saying it should all be even, but it just means the rich get richer. This has been going on since forever. Way back when I was newer the teams in div 1 and 2 were all extremely well off and had rapidly growing teams. If you weren't one of them, well, sorry. |
09/02/2016 16:58 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
6832 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
@illex said: Buckeye623 said: My solution: Open up one additional division 1 group.. and however many additional div2 and div3 that would require to ensure promotion/relegation works correctly. This would put more money in the game. If you want those >85 players to be bought... more managers need the cash to acquire them! Edited by Buckeye623 09-02-2016 16:01 I disagree with opening up more groups in the divisions, but I don't disagree with the fact that money needs to be pumped into lower divisions, or money needs to be taken out of upper divisions. In a month and a half in div 2 I've already gotten more from my stadium than I did all last season in div 3. Last season i lost 200m being in div 2, this season I'm set to make 500m because of it. That's a bad discrepancy. Not saying it should all be even, but it just means the rich get richer. This has been going on since forever. Way back when I was newer the teams in div 1 and 2 were all extremely well off and had rapidly growing teams. If you weren't one of them, well, sorry. You say this but some teams in div 1 aren't gaining money, they are just struggling through with expenses, some are even losing money every week. Prime example is div 1 leader champos, he pays about 150m+ per week expenses and with that he hasn't got any schools, at 45m per home game he doesn't even gain his expenses on a 3 home game week nevermind 2. Also if any team drops from div 1 into div 2 they lose a big amount of money weekly, the last time I was there I had expenses of around 100m which was impossible to make from stadium alone. Look at brezz in div 5, he gains 12m per home game, with a finished stadium without the exp of brezz I expect around 9-10m for div 5, for me instead of changing the revenue I'd change the stadium building, make the building time shorter and cheaper. Edited by @eamwilson 09-02-2016 17:17 |
09/02/2016 17:10 |
| Steel City - Div4/Gr12 | ||
|
Username
138 msgs.
Substitute
|
some ideas for helping with the issue; players go up to 125 stats. many millions and good advice for new users. simulation changed so wide players (l/rb, l/rmf, l/rw) are worth something. more even money split to divisions, or more divisions with less groups(ideally both). edit - get rid of formation rights, no one wants to buy a player knowing they will lose 10% on the sale, that kills the transfer market more than any other factor, including inflation Edited by mr_euskaltel 09-02-2016 21:28 |
09/02/2016 19:26 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@eamwilson said: @illex said: Buckeye623 said: My solution: Open up one additional division 1 group.. and however many additional div2 and div3 that would require to ensure promotion/relegation works correctly. This would put more money in the game. If you want those >85 players to be bought... more managers need the cash to acquire them! Edited by Buckeye623 09-02-2016 16:01 I disagree with opening up more groups in the divisions, but I don't disagree with the fact that money needs to be pumped into lower divisions, or money needs to be taken out of upper divisions. In a month and a half in div 2 I've already gotten more from my stadium than I did all last season in div 3. Last season i lost 200m being in div 2, this season I'm set to make 500m because of it. That's a bad discrepancy. Not saying it should all be even, but it just means the rich get richer. This has been going on since forever. Way back when I was newer the teams in div 1 and 2 were all extremely well off and had rapidly growing teams. If you weren't one of them, well, sorry. You say this but some teams in div 1 aren't gaining money, they are just struggling through with expenses, some are even losing money every week. Prime example is div 1 leader champos, he pays about 150m+ per week expenses and with that he hasn't got any schools, at 45m per home game he doesn't even gain his expenses on a 3 home game week nevermind 2. Also if any team drops from div 1 into div 2 they lose a big amount of money weekly, the last time I was there I had expenses of around 100m which was impossible to make from stadium alone. Look at brezz in div 5, he gains 12m per home game, with a finished stadium without the exp of brezz I expect around 9-10m for div 5, for me instead of changing the revenue I'd change the stadium building, make the building time shorter and cheaper. Again, I think no matter what might change, someone's team is getting screwed, which is the hardest part of this all. There isn't one fix that ends up working out for everyone. As far as BC's team is concerned, he does have 3 of the best offensive players in the whole game, which cost him 60m a week, in addition to having some more of the best players in the game. So his costs being an outlier is expected. Worst case scenario his team does have a lot of equity in players and he can sell 1-2 off and pay for quite a bit of his weeklies. Smaller teams who are already sort of maxed out, and dropping down divisions for someone who's been in the game for just 6-7 seasons can be hard to manage. |
09/02/2016 19:43 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
1769 msgs.
International
|
As well, many managers in upper divisions are paying higher weekly salaries to their youth than lower divisions - even if the youth have the same stats in both places. That's just not required! I'd think higher divisions would have those youth at LOWER salaries -- after all, there's a problem finding a buyer for those youth once the training is completed, right? So if the hostile point was lower, these players would be more apt to be sold earlier, thereby increasing cash-on-hand for the higher division team AND decreasing their weekly nut by a million+ per week. |
09/02/2016 21:33 |
| ★★Dyslexia Untied - Div2/Gr2 | ||
4
