no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
Main / Discussions / Financial warning process reconsideration Search Forum | |
Navigation: |< 2 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
Poster | Message |
janos
|
posted: 2016-12-28 14:20:07 (ID: 100094402) Report Abuse |
Is it possible to review and reconsider the financial warning process?
I am currently around zero balance and try to keep my financial in the positive territory. My main issue is player wages. I do not purchase anyone, just try to keep my trained guys on roster. The beginning of this season I was really unlucky as I started with 2 away games after the wage recalculation, that resulted in the 3rd consecutive financial warning below -500.000. During the 3rd warning: a) my primary QB was cut, which is a major pain for the team b) moral hit was implemented c) a facility with 10.000 maintenance was disabled I do not understand point "c", as it was the cheaper facility. And 10k or even a 25k cost does not make any difference. Is it possible to increase the limit of 500.000, as this is a very low level comparing to weekly cost/income for a well established team? In my opinion it would be a good idea to provide more weeks to recover from negative balance, as the transfer market means a week delay. If someone transferlisted is not purchased at first, he could be put on the TL for the second try. On the other hand more games available gives more chance to have decent home game income for recovery. Is it possible not to cut the player with the most wage, as it might be the irreplaceable and most important one? With the QB cut I do not have chance to win my home games following, thus my team morale, my incomes and financial situation suffers further. So it does not help at all and makes situation worse. We would rather need just some more time to manage the recovery. BTW, is there any chance to buyback my primary QB, that was cut? Thanks for reading. Your feedback and opinion is welcome. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2016-12-28 14:29:44 (ID: 100094404) Report Abuse | |
Just for clarification - not meant to be part of the discussion. And moved to discussions as well
C. It is just ONE out of the facilities, since they are all quite comparable in terms of costs Increase of limit: a manager can do this on his own...just set yourself kind of a limit to to go below. The 500k are the hard limit set by the game...soften these limits means a disadvantage for managers doing their finances right, at the end of the day. More weeks: same as increasing the limits Which player gets cut: the most expensive one. Since you are not able to pay your guys, you need to act. And this means, make fast and strong decisions...the game helps you here, because cutting some youngsters won't help anyway.. Buy him back: no, only if he was chosen to become a Free Agent by the game... |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Fincyril
|
posted: 2016-12-28 17:18:00 (ID: 100094430) Report Abuse |
Maybe saying goodbye to some of your 54 LB () a few weeks ago would have been wise.
I do not know your current balance level. But reading your message I assume you were a few hundreds of thousands dollars under the limit. Your team is suffering a major oop penalty due to your training choices. Considering the close losses you had this season, with the good players at the good places I like to think you would have win the games and make between 275k and 705k depending of your sponsor. To this we can add more money from the stadium as it is calculated according to the number of wins during the last 10 games. Only you can know if it would have been enough to save your QB. But if yes, the responsible is you, not the rules being too strict. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
posted: 2016-12-28 17:27:59 (ID: 100094431) Report Abuse | |
I would think that being here since season 1 a manager would be able to figure out how to stay in the black and avoid bankruptcy and it's punishment.
With that said I think a 1 week extension before punishment would probably be a good idea. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Quimriera
|
posted: 2016-12-28 17:46:19 (ID: 100094433) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
I understand the complaints of Janos, but the rules are know by everybody and we can't make exceptions (IMO).
Other thing is the dinamyc of the game. You only can keep on the top in a constant way if you won a lot of money at the beginning. If not, you can also sell as if it was the village's market. If you think about the game in an sportive way (my case), you must accept that you could not reach the top, without die in your attempt. Perhaps (according to Pete's suggestion) if would be interesting to apply strict taxes to people who accumulate too much money, forcing them to play with the rest under the same conditions. Besides, we can set up, once and for all, the salary cap in the game (IMO, The Final Solution). Last edited on 2016-12-28 17:46:44 by Quimriera |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Stanford87
|
posted: 2016-12-28 17:51:33 (ID: 100094434) Report Abuse |
Quimriera wrote:
Besides, we can set up, once and for all, the salary cap in the game (IMO, The Final Solution). We have a great suggestion right there |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Rock777
|
posted: 2016-12-28 18:18:52 (ID: 100094440) Report Abuse |
Hmm... I'm not sure that is completely accurate. This is defiantly an endurance game (which is typical for online sport sims), but I don't think you need to be here from the beginning. I don't buy and sell players like a market, but I have a billion dollars banked at this point. If I decided to make a run at the top I could probably purchase a bunch of 28/29 year olds off the market for pretty cheap and still have the money to maintain for a long time.
The main issue is when new teams try to "win now". The game is designed to reward patience and sinking lots of hours into it. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Rock777
|
posted: 2016-12-28 18:20:34 (ID: 100094441) Report Abuse |
Applying a tax would just be punishing the people who have been playing the game "correctly" based on the current design. It would be invalidating a perfectly reasonable tactic.
|
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
JonnyP
|
posted: 2016-12-28 18:34:28 (ID: 100094443) Report Abuse |
Quimriera wrote:
Perhaps (according to Pete's suggestion) if would be interesting to apply strict taxes to people who accumulate too much money, forcing them to play with the rest under the same conditions. Besides, we can set up, once and for all, the salary cap in the game (IMO, The Final Solution). I'd have no problem with a salary cap, but a tax on savings would only punish those who have been sensible with their finances and managed to achieve success while also keeping a tight grip over their own expenditure. |
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
Quimriera
|
posted: 2016-12-28 18:56:48 (ID: 100094446) Report Abuse |
It is one thing "who have been sensible with their finances" and another is to have accumulated 500 million (or more) and burn a portion of the money each season.
|
|
Quote Reply Edit | |
reply Mark this thread unread | |
Navigation: |< 2 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
Main / Discussions / Financial warning process reconsideration |