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 / Suggestions / Adding a minimum % when bidding on players Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2011-12-13 20:36:34 (ID: 19917) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:
Just a small note: prices can't be silly, the market determines the price itself...much interest - high price. This is working since 200 years, and our american "imperialists" know that  Classic Supply and Demand Economics only works in a rational market environment...such a thing is impossible with human beings involved, imho. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2011-12-13 20:37:57 (ID: 19918) |
|
Too bad, the "important" people don't see it like you do
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2011-12-14 03:35:57 (ID: 19935) Report Abuse |
|
Admin... in real life (sports wise) money has to have a value or else the game will turn into the Euro soccer system with serious haves/have-nots. Its understood you checked that by saying that later in the game as more expensive players come into play and we max out our coaches that that level of operation will be unsustainable... We'll take your word for it..
But you combine that with the arms race (stadium building) it's leading us to believe that the object of the game is to build fast... buy quick.. and worry about the penalties (as of right now.. penalties are all theory) later. Thats why guys now can spend 11mil on a player with the knowledge they only make 8mil a week in games because the consequences are minimal if any so far in the game. A cool system check to this would be that no matter how well scouted.. you can never 100% predict the performance of a player (IE. a manager can throw cash at a player with world class potential but he never develops to that level.. therefore negative return on investment). I mean i know were throwing around virtual money so its difficult for us to mimic the actions of real life given but the system's gotta check itself cause like its been said... people won't. Money's gotta either be more scarce (:thumbdown  or the penalities for financial mismanagement be very severe.. pretty much franchise crippling (:thumb |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2011-12-14 03:44:52 (ID: 19936) Report Abuse |
|
Interesting thought - perhaps even a 20 Scout is only 90% (or whatever) accurate.
Conversely, adjust the best Scout level to 18. No more 19 or 20 Scouts. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2011-12-14 07:18:18 (ID: 19943) Report Abuse | |
|
From my point of view, the best way to "burn" that money is to adjust the wages to a system based on demands.
But this will lead to more teams in financal trouble, so the recovering system has to be good. By System by demand I mean a system where a player demands a certain wage, because he knows he has a specific value and similar players are paid the same or more. Now the managers can think about given him that or even more (on free agent market bidding). So very fast the wages will adjust to the money a manager is able to spend. if less money is available, the wages get down, because a free agent doesn't get his demanded money and has to lower it (system wise). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Admin
Contact |
posted: 2011-12-14 07:40:43 (ID: 19944) |
|
I don't say you guys are wrong!
The thing with the economy is: when I calculated the stuff, I had to make a decision. Should it be a long an boring way by building the stadium in millions of small steps, or should newbees could do that part faster. So we added a quite progressive curve on the wages. This means there won't be any trouble based on the relation of stadium income and player/staff wages - which is the downside of such a system. On the other hand newbees have more "success" in a faster way. I guess however you do such things, you wouldn't please all. We already took action to add a bit more "financial excitement" to the game. We are in the middle of a development we call "Coaches". These Coaches will be a set of a HC and several ACs (per position - 11 ACs overall) - to replace the 5 coaches you have in the staff today. They are quite expensive. This will consume more of your weekly income. By having less money for other things people will have less money for "buying a P for 1 billion" actions. And by the difference these Coaches are adding to the training and the gameplay, we will see more different team tactics in the future since a team can't buy all of them at high level, and maybe a more vital market for coaches and players. Let's do our job in the development platform first, then we will introduce the feature including all details. More details soon. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lee1950
|
posted: 2011-12-14 08:00:12 (ID: 19950) Report Abuse |
|
Admin wrote:I guess however you do such things, you wouldn't please all.
One of Life's Truths. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Tarjan
|
posted: 2011-12-14 08:01:26 (ID: 19951) Report Abuse |
|
as long as i am pleased i don´t care
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Swordpriest1
|
posted: 2011-12-15 04:09:40 (ID: 20031) Report Abuse |
|
Admin... I'm quite cool with those new developments as it shows that there is a movement for not allowing players to just spend money wrecklessly w/o worrying about consequences or saying "no biggie.. I can just build a bigger stadium".
Thats basically all i was getting down to. We all would like for newer managers to come into the game and feel they have attainable goals.. but there's gotta be some level of balance or penalties for just willfully blowing your cash like you've got an unlimited bank account. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Chatral
|
posted: 2011-12-15 06:43:52 (ID: 20033) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:
From my point of view, the best way to "burn" that money is to adjust the wages to a system based on demands. I like this idea. I also like the idea at some point of a salary cap creating other problems for coaches as well. I've only been playing few days, but I'm wondering if there is a potential game balance issue around pace of development that leads to he-who-starts-the-game-at-launch will always win over a newbie. Later in this thread our esteemed Admin says he had to decide on how to deal with the 'pace' of development for new players, and that it was decided to make money available quickly for new players. This could be the right call, in the right context. However a good balance on pace is simply the toughness of the opposition bots. Over on the Bug thread I commented that I thought it was a bug that bots punted on my 22. . . and was told this is programmed. I'm wondering if bots are just too soft (watch me get squished in my next game and eat my words!). If bots are soft, a newbie might be faced with an odd introduction, where you rapidly get loads of cash and squish all the bots around you, but then also rapidly come up against longer-term players who squish you utterly because of the pace of cash ramp up in the game. I realise all the above is a bit speculative, but I hope you get the gist. Just from the perspective of a very fresh set of eyes, it feels like the cash / pace issue carries a lot of risk if you get it wrong. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 5 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Adding a minimum % when bidding on players | |
