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 / RE: Some changes in our economic rules Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
IdRatherFlyFish
|
posted: 2012-07-02 13:50:12 (ID: 46241) Report Abuse |
|
I'm very disappointed in this upcoming change. I feel this will be very discouraging for someone new to the game.
This change makes it take longer for a new player to max their stadium. It makes it take longer for them to be able to build facilities, hire coaches, build a fan-shop etc, etc. (Especially the impact of the 'out of form' penalty - just about all new players loose a lot their first season) So while this has slowed the development of new teams, it does not change anything for the established teams. Those established teams will now have an even easier time outbidding the new players on the TM. This change makes it much less fun for a player new to the game. Pete - you must have a reason for making this change. Can you help me see the good in it? |
|
| posted: 2012-07-02 14:30:51 (ID: 46242) Report Abuse | |
|
several reasons...
1.) we have seen managers staying in league 2 only because it is easy to earn full stadiums there. While other managers take the challenge and check in into league 1. 2.) Because it is like in real life, where lower league level don't have the same rewards than top league teams 3.) It is not that impact....we are talking about a few dollars less income from tickets, only on that 16 league games. The sponsor money is not worth to talk about... 4.) We have to make form a deeper impact. No single team sells 100% tickets ALL GAMES while losing all the time...and if you are losing 10 games in a row (to get hit by 30%"), you have more important tasks to do than how to earn some money... IMO, it is not that huge impact you are thinking it is... |
|
|
Buffalo
|
posted: 2012-07-02 14:32:48 (ID: 46243) Report Abuse |
|
IdRatherFlyFish wrote:
I'm very disappointed in this upcoming change. I feel this will be very discouraging for someone new to the game. This change makes it take longer for a new player to max their stadium. It makes it take longer for them to be able to build facilities, hire coaches, build a fan-shop etc, etc. (Especially the impact of the 'out of form' penalty - just about all new players loose a lot their first season) So while this has slowed the development of new teams, it does not change anything for the established teams. Those established teams will now have an even easier time outbidding the new players on the TM. This change makes it much less fun for a player new to the game. Pete - you must have a reason for making this change. Can you help me see the good in it? For new teams the main ticket income is the Supercup, if you play away in big stadiums. I think the disadvantage for new teams is lower than for established team, who relegate form League 1 to League 2. This was the main reason to introduce this financial change, hopefully to prevent intentional loosing/relegation. |
|
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2012-07-02 16:20:04 (ID: 46247) Report Abuse |
 I like the change
New teams will he more easy.to make them sell draftees More draftees will go to market prices will even go down and make it for established players to buy them Being honest now: sure i do not like it because it hurts the masses just because the intention was "to punish a handful" |
|
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-07-02 16:30:33 (ID: 46248) Report Abuse |
|
Turtlemania wrote:
I like the change
New teams will he more easy.to make them sell draftees More draftees will go to market prices will even go down and make it for established players to buy them Being honest now: sure i do not like it because it hurts the masses just because the intention was "to punish a handful" so how would Turtle punish the handful whilst not punishing the masses ?? |
|
| posted: 2012-07-02 16:35:12 (ID: 46250) Report Abuse | |
|
No offense here, but is completely bullshit, Turtle.
Do the numbers, and you will see it is not so much difference. A newbee entering the game now will build his stadium much faster than you could, as example. Simply because we have fully built stadiums in the cup. And talking about a punishment is completely wrong, this is just a side effect. The main intention was to create a goal for those managers that climb the ladder... For the numbers: we are talking about 8 league home games, cut by 15% at the moment, and only if you are over that maximum with your possible attendance. So 1.3 million per home game in the league, or 10.5 million per season...divided by 22 weeks this is about half a million per week + some "cents" for sponsormoney and fanshopincome...You were able to spent 100million+ for additional players, and tell me people will go down because of that cut...I thought different about your math skills  |
|
|
KingOfTh3Hil
|
posted: 2012-07-02 16:37:28 (ID: 46252) Report Abuse |
|
First of, why does ppl need to get punished?
Even tho i dont see the reason to punish ppl i think it is a good improvement since it is more real, a div 2/3 cant attract the same amount of ppl like div 1 a top division. |
|
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2012-07-02 16:37:55 (ID: 46253) Report Abuse |
|
I already wrote it: morale is the key
Today no one cares about morale and it does not make a difference change moral loss and gain high loss on league games - slow recovery on win in league games and all the other cups so tems will have hard time to recover it but also a good thing on the change at least goes in good direction: change effect for league loss from -1% to -3% but its too low because a loss 10 team still would have 70% attendance |
|
| posted: 2012-07-02 16:41:57 (ID: 46254) Report Abuse | |
|
The economical change is in place, and it will stay as announced. We think it is a good way! There will be additional changes in the engine (morale loss / gain is engine related as example), but for these changes there will be own announcements, once we think we are ready to go public with them...
|
|
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-07-02 16:55:25 (ID: 46256) Report Abuse |
|
I must confess to some bias on this subject, because I made a similar suggestion Here , but I think my suggestion was actually more harsh as it was 25% less Attendance for Div 2 and 50% less for Div 3 (if I Remember correctly).
So when I look at this new rule change now, the 15% looks OK .... I think this might be just at the right level i.e. to be noticeable but not to be absolutely crippling financially. My first reaction when Admin introduced the "older players lose PC quicker" rule was 'no way, this will ruin everything', but now I look back at that and there seems to be very little difference to my older players , it's noticeable but it doesn't wreck any strategy. I think that in a few months, with the benefit of hindsight, this rule change might look very smart .... but my advice would be to wait and see what happens .... if it's an absolute disaster then I think Admin will probably review it and either amend the percentages or remove the rule altogether (as a last resort). The question that is worth asking yourself is ..... would I rather be in 1.1 or 2.1/2.2 if I had the choice ??? ..... If I ever had any doubts then I think this rule change has removed those doubts for me ... so the rule change seems to be working already (even before it's been introduced  |
|
| Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< 2 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / RE: Some changes in our economic rules | |
