Asunto: Questions & Answers

It just like you have one extra week in the season, its really no big deal.
Specially because most managers do log in at least every few days, so differences will be even smaller in reality.

At least that is my opinion.

It's not the big deal for teams with low sponsor offers.

It's like you get 7% on your sponsor deal - so the better sponsor offer you have - the more money you will get - it just makes even greater difference between teams.

My point was that obviously some thought has gone into the difffence between sponsor money for the top teams of a league and the bottom.

Now if these two teams both log in the same amount over the season the top team will get an additional amount because the bonus is based off sponsor offers and the top teams have a larger offer.

Therefore the difference in money has just been increased. Either this wasnt thought through or it has been decided that the top teams were not getting enough of an advantage.

In my opinion the top teams have always gotten way to much compared to the teams coming near the bottom of the top leagues (i am a top team so are not saying this out of jealousy.)

how much did u get from sponsor every week?

depends whether your talking hockey or soccer (and before or after i lost my team cause i was away and didnt login).

As you know, i'm in complete agreement on this. The strong teams are getting stronger and the gap is widening by the day. PPM need to curb that gap or the managers in lower leagues will soon get tired of the game.

Changes are on absolute amounts, the relative values are the same; they simply changed the scale. Again, the new bonus feature is not concentrative nor distributive.

Agree. "Strong" teams get more money from sponsors, so their 1% has to provide the biggest amounts, but they are supposed to have the biggest expenses as well, so I think it's fair as it is.

Of course, anyway I'm all for looking for a way to decrease the growing financial gap between the top teams and the rest. Maybe a gradual tax for selling players, depending on the level of the league, and/or on the money got by each sale, and/or the money stock could work...

Indeed, despite the neutral effect of the bonus, it´s really interesting to consider ways of redestributive measures. I was considering raising players salaries.

The important thing we must consider while thinking about suggestions is to try to find a way to balance strength without penalizing the more efficient managers. That raising player salaries suggestion is some that tries to bring more difficulties to the teams that have stronger players, to make a little more difficult to them to mantain themselves on the top. They will face more costs to stay on top and then they will not be able to sustain that level of expenditure (and then strength) for much time, or if they do, they will bear high costs on that.

This measure has the advantage of turning the game more and more difficult as long as you evolve your team strength, what should make a lot of sense for all.

PPM tried to do something like that with free agents, but the long period for planning and preparing for those contingencies allows experienced managers to easily overcome the cash needs related to that.

Raising players salaries (in an exponential way, such that extraordinary players would mean really exorbitant costs) would do the job for the short run.

I could even leave a formula. Should be something based on the sum of the cubic attributes, quite similar to what we have for employees. Only we should introduce a denominator (maybe the number 50) to divide the attributes before elevating to the cubic potence.

But they didn't take any measure to decrease gap between teams - but instead with this measure the gap is even larger.

Really interesting - so now rich teams will get +50mil per season more then some teams from same league - because they have better players with not so big salaries

Only logical explanation is that IzzaX and Jorgenius has think of this new bonus system :p

IF they made it equal for all from the start, would there be any complaints ? What do you think ?

I think that novakoni is right to make it the same amount for all to be fair.
They want to reward players for logging in regulary? Thats fine. But why should i rewarded hígher just because playing a higher league with higher sponsor income than a manager playing lower league with lower sponsor income if we both log in as often as the other?

Quote:
"We have impletemented this feature to reward all the active managers. Now you can gain a small advantage by being an active manager over those who let their teams run on "autopilot"."

So - this was the goal - but this will not be the result.

The biggest reward goes to teams with big sponsor deals. Because such teams could make more money without more log ins. There could be difference between 2 teams with 112 log ins per season in 50 mil/season. Is that the plan?

This should be really motivation for new managers in lower leagues to make difference and the only way is to make FIX bonus for everyone.

I cannot leave the idea that the new feature will have the exact result as it was intended to: give a small proportional advantage to every manager who come to PPM more often. All this reasoning of yours makes no sense to me. It´s an extra bonus feature. It depends on the teams´ weekly revenues. I see no reason to change this to a fix amount. There are many other ways to promote wealth distribution in PPM that are much more efficient and fair. Once more: this is only a scale change. No proportional changes intended nor implemented. The goal is to equally reward active members.

Let me try to stress my point: consider the bonus would be a daily 100% of weekly sponsorship. What would be neutral: giving any team 50 000 000 for every login or 100% of the team sponsorship?

That´s a matter of scale. With 7% a week they limited inflationary effect while distribution stays the same.