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 / Rookie Area / Stadium Construction Length of time Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2012-04-26 10:01:09 (ID: 37399) Report Abuse | |
|
Ranagol wrote:
pete wrote:
of course it works. On the other hand there is no reason to keep some space, to be able using this exploit, since it costs you ticket money you could hava earned during the season. Remember, this is not -TOG- where it is nearly useless to fully build your stadium Of course during the regular season it is useless. But I was talking about the offseason where the team is out of the supercup and league games. And I'm not talking about "keeping some space intentionally" per se, only about a few situations where by the offseason the manager has i.e. a 100k seat stadium. Normally he would stop stadium construction alltogether not to go bankrupt, but with this he can just schedule an away friendly (getting ticket income from elsewhere) and he's good to go to save those few hunder k's. So how to solve it: disallow construction on all four sides at the same time? What's allowed: 2 or 3, only 1? IMO we need no change here, but that's just my opinion. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Ranagol
|
posted: 2012-04-26 10:17:35 (ID: 37401) Report Abuse |
|
Why not adjust the new construction rule of 100/10/1 to something like "1% of the original, but a minimum of 100/10/1"?
So 10000/1000/100 stadiums and everything below that seat count would get a minimum of 100/10/1, and everything above that gets a minimum of 1% of the original seat number. So 20000/2000/200 wil need to build 200/20/2 etc. Edit: I've made a mistake with the 400/40/4 constuction fees earlier, it's not 26.8k (used the income numbers -_-), but 172k  Well but the exploit still works with stadiums between 200k maintanence fees and maxed out. The impact is less though...Last edited on 2012-04-26 10:23:07 by Ranagol |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-04-26 10:20:46 (ID: 37402) Report Abuse | |
|
Ranagol wrote:
Why not adjust the new construction rule of 100/10/1 to something like "1% of the original, but a minimum of 100/10/1"?
So 10000/1000/100 stadiums and everything below that seat count would get a minimum of 100/10/1, and everything above that gets a minimum of 1% of the original seat number. So 20000/2000/200 wil need to build 200/20/2 etc. I am afraid we are making it more complicating than needed |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
preachie
|
posted: 2012-04-26 10:57:47 (ID: 37405) Report Abuse |
|
I don't know if I miss anything here or maybe I'm to naive, but couldn't it changed that way that you have to pay stadium maintenance even when the stadium is in construction?
I mean it's the same in real life, when I own a building I have to pay taxes etc too regardless if there are any construction works ongoing or not 
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Tarjan
|
posted: 2012-04-26 11:00:41 (ID: 37408) Report Abuse |
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-04-26 11:29:31 (ID: 37416) Report Abuse |
|
preachie wrote:
I don't know if I miss anything here or maybe I'm to naive, but couldn't it changed that way that you have to pay stadium maintenance even when the stadium is in construction? I mean it's the same in real life, when I own a building I have to pay taxes etc too regardless if there are any construction works ongoing or not
simple but brilliant ! nice one, Preachie 
I think this one is actually a debate about whether deliberately closing your stadium to avoid maint fees is an "exploit" or a "clever financial tactic". There is always a very thin dividing line between clever tactics and exploits ...but which side of the line does this one fall on ? maybe it's vote time  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hansend
|
posted: 2012-04-26 11:30:51 (ID: 37417) Report Abuse |
|
Not adding anything to the discussion, but it seems I have created quite the firestorm here!
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-04-26 11:41:01 (ID: 37420) Report Abuse |
|
hansend wrote:
Not adding anything to the discussion, but it seems I have created quite the firestorm here! the RZA forums get more than the national average of firestorms per year ! .... but that's why I love RZA ... people can debate likes/dislikes of RZA and pete doesn't get offended (well, not often  ) by the lively discussions that are always happening here.
And there have been bigger 'firestorms' in the past anyway |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-04-26 12:22:15 (ID: 37422) Report Abuse | |
|
sh8888 wrote:
preachie wrote:
I don't know if I miss anything here or maybe I'm to naive, but couldn't it changed that way that you have to pay stadium maintenance even when the stadium is in construction? I mean it's the same in real life, when I own a building I have to pay taxes etc too regardless if there are any construction works ongoing or not
simple but brilliant ! nice one, Preachie
I think this one is actually a debate about whether deliberately closing your stadium to avoid maint fees is an "exploit" or a "clever financial tactic". There is always a very thin dividing line between clever tactics and exploits ...but which side of the line does this one fall on ? maybe it's vote time No, it is a nice idea, and I am arrogant enough to add this without any further poll - only an information |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2012-04-26 13:14:21 (ID: 37428) Report Abuse |
|
It's an elegant solution, Happy to see it implemented.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 4 > >| | |
| Main / Rookie Area / Stadium Construction Length of time | |
