| Forum » General » Question for our scholars | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
1368 msgs.
International
|
Yea I agree with you guys, but I think it did partly alleviate the inflation. More drains need to be added and fast. I feel like putting an option to buy player skills for 10M or so would be easy to add and would drain money quick. | 26/08/2012 15:42 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1382 msgs.
International
|
KingOftheHill said: Yea I agree with you guys, but I think it did partly alleviate the inflation. More drains need to be added and fast. I feel like putting an option to buy player skills for 10M or so would be easy to add and would drain money quick. only problem i see is that, there is a problem with high skill vs high average that would have to be sorted out first. |
26/08/2012 15:58 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1368 msgs.
International
|
cmccourt said: KingOftheHill said: Yea I agree with you guys, but I think it did partly alleviate the inflation. More drains need to be added and fast. I feel like putting an option to buy player skills for 10M or so would be easy to add and would drain money quick. only problem i see is that, there is a problem with high skill vs high average that would have to be sorted out first. What do you mean? |
26/08/2012 16:16 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1382 msgs.
International
|
http://uk.strikermanager.com/foros/hilo.php?id=302914 Also, If someone spends say 100mil to add 10 skill points to a player, wouldnt that start to bring disadvatges? Or what if a manager spends 200 mil for 20 skill points.. Etc..etc.. You'd almost have to cap the number of skill points to be purchased kind of like how you can only pay for 4 or 5 coach upgrades with cash and then if you want o upgrade more, you have to go gbs. |
26/08/2012 16:55 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
207 msgs.
Substitute
|
i regard this as an investment (and that is how this transaction should be viewed) in high prog players that only converts the cash into a vehicle with a high rate of return that can be converted back into cash at a later date. money has been removed, but value has been introduced. it is the same reason why all high prog players in this game cost as much as they do: it is because their growth out paces inflation. if you ask me, this has not done anything to reduce the overall inflation in the game. it is simply an investment tool used by these players to have the growth of their money outpace the growth of inflation. in other words (the null), by NOT converting their money into these high prog players, with that amount of cash on hand they would LOSE money because the rate of inflation would out pace the rate of growth in other investment vehicles (say deposits in the striker bank). to determine its impact on inflation, one has to look at the growth of money supply in the game. nothing has been done to reduce the growth of money supply in the game. or, conversely, nothing has been done to counter the growth of money supply in the game. if Striker wanted to take money out of the game, they should have said these players cannot be RESOLD, meaning, they stay with the team for the entirety of their playing career (then it would be an investment to the team and not a financial investment). this would not change the rate of money supply, but would reduce the total money burden present in the game. i suspect this measure will temporarily decrease inflation since money has been converted from the game (because these juniors will take a while to gain avg), but once these players are sold (most likely for an astronomical amount), there will be a huge bolus in spending and a ripple effect causing a cascade of spending with the purchase and hostile of players...a trickle down from DIV 1 to DIV 7, with player prices gradually increasing as more money is available. unfortunately, many measures that could potentially control inflation unfairly target higher DIV teams. they consist of one time tax (reduces the total cash burden) or an increase in expenses (reduces the rate of growth). they cannot introduce value into the game because people will simply convert their cash into a vehicle that outpaces inflation. If Striker wants to control inflation, they need to check the growth of money supply, or eliminate the total cash burden in the game. some options have been mentioned in this thread, to name a few: allow for cash purchase of skills that DOES NOT TRANSFER if a player is traded or sold- therefore only increases the value for your team and not the value of the player so it can't be a financial investment but a team investment (affects total cash burden) alter players fidelity if they dont start or play regularly for DIV 1 or 2 (affects growth of money supply/rate to increase salary for hostile) increase weekly expenses for high DIV teams through player salaries and fidelity for hostile (affects growth of money supply/rate) increase weekly salaries for staff (affects growth of money supply/rate) increase weekly expenses for high DIV teams through stadium maintenance (affects growth of money supply/rate) introduce a relegation tax for every DIV because of lose of sponsors (affects total cash burden) apply a one-time tax for DIV1 and DIV2 teams purchasing high prog players so the amount they pay is a combination of selling price and tax, creating a potential net-loss in investment allowing these players to be purchased by lower DIV teams (DIV 5 or DIV6) to help lower divisions have a chance at good players (affects total cash burden, spreads the wealth) increase fidelity for lower divisions so less weekly expenses are paid for lower division (affects growth of money supply/rate) these are simple measures. you can think of more complicate measures too. to be honest, striker manager is reflecting real life - with DIV 1 teams with enough money purchasing the best players while lower DIV teams have to use their youth system to generate good players, which are then sold or hostiled to the bigger clubs. better managers will eventually get promoted or find ways to compete with the big boys. enough said. life isn't fair... OR, Striker could introduce financial fair play  ---> cap the overall team budget/value or amount they can spend in a transfer period. i think this would be ridiculous, but if everything is on the table, something to consider if the terms were appropriately structured... |
26/08/2012 16:56 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
i think the relief from star auction is temperory nd short lived.the managers who couldnt win the auction got bck their money.devs seriously needed to drain out more money. May b making a arrangement in which managers lost a small percentage of the bid money after every unsuccessful bid on star player would hau helped to drain much more money. |
26/08/2012 19:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1382 msgs.
International
|
Baltimore Wanders Fc said: allow for cash purchase of skills that DOES NOT TRANSFER if a player is traded or sold- therefore only increases the value for your team and not the value of the player so it can't be a financial investment but a team investment (affects total cash burden) alter players fidelity if they dont start or play regularly for DIV 1 or 2 (affects growth of money supply/rate to increase salary for hostile) increase weekly expenses for high DIV teams through player salaries and fidelity for hostile (affects growth of money supply/rate) increase weekly salaries for staff (affects growth of money supply/rate) increase weekly expenses for high DIV teams through stadium maintenance (affects growth of money supply/rate) introduce a relegation tax for every DIV because of lose of sponsors (affects total cash burden) increase fidelity for lower divisions so less weekly expenses are paid for lower division (affects growth of money supply/rate) I like the skills idea of purchasing skills but losing skills that are paid for, if player is transferred to another team. Increasing weekly expenses through salaries and hostiles seems like a tax. I like the idea of being able to tax a higher division team more for hostiling players. Increasing weekly salaries of staff I could agree with as well. Increasing weekly expenses for High DIV teams stadium maintenance, I dont agree with only because, there is already a tax in place not to mention having to do the upgrades. Some people who take the promotion or are promoted to a higher division shouldn't be taxed for being "lumped into the crowd" for lack of a better phrase. Relegation tax I haven't even thought of and I would like you to further explain this because I don't know if you mean the end of season lose of sponsor, introducing the lose of a sponsor and taxing that or simply, billboard sponsors. Increasing fidelity for managers in DIV 5, 6 and 7 I am all for. I think that's a great idea, I even thought that, maybe giving a very high yielding interest rate on deposits for these managers; forcing them to save money to pay for weekly expenses would do the trick. Overall, I see your approach and can agree with some things listed above. |
26/08/2012 19:49 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
608 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
KingOftheHill said: Did this creating of star players help our inflation problem? Or is it just going to make it worse in the future? A lot of money was drained out of the game which should reduce inflation, so was this a good choice or not? (Dee feel free to post your analysis please) So what do you guys think? (I ask managers to refrain from writing 3 word answers, trolling the thread, or writing things that add no value to the thread) In answer do your question, the majority of answers posted have been correct. These 'star player sales' pretty much only cut inflation as a by-product - And when I say bi-product, I mean a drop in the ocean. Taking 10 Billion out of the game does little to help from an inflation stand-point. Top teams will always generate more money. Not just because they are in the higher divisions, but because they don't have the same kind of spending required - E.g. Stadium, Schools, etc. For them, all of this is pretty much done, and with it, most of their over-heads. The main problem is simply the amount of money being generated. There's too much of it coming into the game, and taking 10 Billion out once in a blue moon really doesn't make that much of a difference. What this game needs is a recession. If all revenue created were to drop by x%, (Stadium, TV, Billboards, etc), couple with a slight rise in expenses (tax, staff costs, and stadium maintenance), you will see many people spending outside of their means will be forced to sell players. Those that have a healthy balance sheet, won't suffer too much. But overall, more people will need to sell/re-negotiate salaries and hostile clauses. That would pretty much spread wealth and cut inflation down to a manageable level. They could even warn us a season and a half in advance, that this will take place at a certain point. Some will heed the warnings, other will choose to ignore. But one thing is for certain - It would lead to less money generated, less money being spent, and more money being saved. I really don't think price fixing is the answer (See Harold Wilson's Government in the 1970's). Increasing the supply of players (as mentioned in my paper) is. There would also be no need to cap deposit interest rates - Something that has greatly hindered me personally. And with regards to the money that people have right now, that adds to the challenge of the clauses you have to set. But one thing is for certain - If a Division 3 Manager like me can afford all the 5* Excellent Schools pretty easily, it's kind of saying something. What I love most about this game (other than the social interaction it provides), is the Trade-Offs every Manager is required to make. Schools/Stadium/Juniors/Seniors etc. The day you can afford all 4 of these, without any real struggle, is the day that you stop having to make the trade-offs that make this game so good. Edited by Dee12345 26-08-2012 20:14 |
26/08/2012 20:12 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5205 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
I don't mean to pee on your parade, but I think you are all worried about nothing. 1) a team that joined 3 months ago was able to raise 3 billion without loans or cheating. This means new teams always have a chance to outdo old teams. For perspective, I have raised about 5 billion total in 1 year, and that's pretty respectable. 2) player average has only a marginal effect on win/losses. Tactics is far more important and can elevate up to a 20 point team average difference (I.e. make your team perform as if it were 20 points higher in average as compared to a team with bad tactics and good players) 3) inflation responds to the sim. As GKs become less important in the outcome of games, their price has dropped. Lower average <70 CFs prices also took a nosedive. Midfielder prices have gone up dramatically, and defenders have started to settle. The fast training rate has increased the value of low-average juniors with high progression as compared to just 3 seasons ago. The path from div. 7 to div. 1 is long and arduous, but It is not impossible, and if income were only available to the rich, it would be impossible. I should also note that acquiring players who will help in div. 1 takes just as long as it did acquiring players that will help in div. 5. Yes, we make more money, but we spend it just as quickly. I spent $525 million on an 85 average RDF halfway through the season, and I'm now working through 77 million in debt gradually. When I was in div. 5, I bought a 43 average CF with 7 million and took out a loan for 3 million. Both loans will take me the same amount of time to pay off in the end. And no, I don't think it is very good for the game to have many div. 5 players buying 80+ average players. The fun of working your way to the top is very important. |
26/08/2012 20:27 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2768 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@CelloG said: I don't mean to pee on your parade read nothing after i saw these words..... Edited by vijji 26-08-2012 20:31 |
26/08/2012 20:29 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
2
