Teema: Suggestions

If I play with higher importance a game, my ratings should be bigger. It would be gr8 if importance of the match would influence ratings.

Why? Just because youre team considers it a high important game doesn't mean the game is "of high importance".

Or am i missing the point?

Because that way you will see the real ratings of your team ...
It seems logic that if you play with high importance, then your team ratings will be higher.

i think you mean team strength rather than overall team rating.

Could you make a credit feature - being able to see players CL from detailed stats, even though he wasn't in current team from the beginning ?
For each player manager should give up to 5 credits or something like that.

Since I'm buying a lot of players, and not only me, we should know what we have in our team, if we are willing to pay for it.

i have few suggestions
1: make direct player selling ,two teams pay 1 credit each and can make one transfer
2.when manager sell players for 10 000 -stays out of tax
3.make professional league where ppm money and real money will be same and all sides can sell it
4.make one or two qualification match for new teams before they enter league
5.raise credit price for bringing foreign managers (this help to raise u.s.a.,japan and other big markets)
6.when tournament fail and owner didnt reject any manager bring him credits back

Vlady, I'm all against the new advertising feature.

There are two possible outcomes when a manager makes use of it:
1. a player/staff is sold for more money than he would have normally fetched or 2. the player/staff is sold for as much money as without the extra advertisement, in other words no effect at all.

If the feature does fetch more money you're giving an advantage to those who can afford buying the extra credits. Wasn't it something you always proclaimed never to happen on ppm?
However, imagine there is no effect on the trasfer at all. What's the consequences for the manager? Where's the ingame risk of using it? There is absolutely no risk. Zero risk vs. high reward? This is contradictory to free market advertising practices.
Product placement/adverts cost money. A real life company that decides to advertise its product looses ressources, that's the risk. Your feature is comparable to giving more rights to one company than to others, allowing them to offer their products for free.

If there was an option to buy extra advertising with your ppm-teams's ressources instead of credits, that would be fair. Then you have that ingame risk by giving up franchise value for the chance of increasing a player's market value. That's where such a feature would become what it should be, namely strategical.

I believe the majority of ppm-managers want to play a fair game. Fairness to me is keeping the competition among managers in the game, including player/staff advertising. If you can increase competitiveness from the outside of the game why bother playing it? I chose to pay a propack to support the game's development. Now it turns out I have to pay money to equalize the chances.

If you ultimatively choose to keep the advertising feature, then make the adverts visible only to those managers who use this feature themselves, like an exclusive "advertising magazine" you have to subscribe to with credits.

Like like like like!

Interesting point.

I'm assuming then that you also believe teams like Manchester City, Man U and Chelsea are all being "unfair" because they can afford to spend millions on better players?

I know that's a soccer reference in a hockey thread but as the advertising is both, it applies.

Fact is, in reality some teams will ALWAYS have better resources than others. If a manager can afford to spend credits to advertise their player, then good on them. You can't hold the fact that he can afford to against him/her.

The soccer teams you're refering to use their own ressources to buy players. They take bigger risks spending more money than others.
The Devil is in the details, trueblue. Like I said, I've nothing against managers using resources to advertise players, but it's got to be ingame resources, not real money(credits).

Hi, If you wanna pull the "realistic card" I've got my own one too:

Team's getting advertised by credits is like Chelsea getting advertised by UFO's money.. The money for advertising comes from a whole different dimension.

Why?

Is that because you can't afford to do it yourself, or because you choose not to? Affording it is an issue i have with it, bit that's MY issue, not PPM's. If the latter though, then it's purely a choice.

When was the last time you clicked on one of the advertised players? Personally i've never done it as don't really pay that much attention to it. I doubt many others are either, because the market filter system is still the best way to find players.

In other words, i don't see the true value in paying to advertise a player. But if someone wants to do it, i'm not going to hold it against them.

For the record though, my reference to those football clubs was accurate. They can afford to get the big players because they have more money to spend on their club. That is no different from someone here having more money to buy credits with, to advertise. So my point was very valid.

What if players and staff were allowed to be advertised only through that advertising feature? In that case you would surely agree that people who can afford to buy more credits than others could buy an ingame advantage. Conclusionary you would agree that the new feature does add an advantage to its buyers.

If you are playing a game with your friends you don't setup different rules to everybody do you? You want same rules for everybody, otherwise it's no fun to play.
Now if they gonna implement a brand new feature that allows you to buy a 5% higher chance to pull a top prospect for 50 credits would you still sit back and say: "It's ok, If there's someone out there who can afford it, why not? "
How's that different from the extra advertising when both mean an ingame advantage to a certain group?

In my humble opinion, the best players will sell for huge money, and the worst players will likely stay with their teams, or be sold for very little.

Advertising or not.

I'm with TB on this, although you do make an interesting point about real money making a difference.

For me it won't make that much of a difference.
But that's only my opinion.

I disagree, i don't believe it adds ANY advantage to people. All the people i've spoken to said that they saw no improvement in the bids on their players. I also had the same experience. In fact, the only thing I really noticed was my credit balance was lighter by 10 credits. I, like many others, will not use it again as don't believe it to be worth it.

And the rules ARE the same. Just because you choose not to use it, doesn't mean others have an advantage. ANYBODY here can use that system, so everybody has the same advantage from a usability point of view.