件名: I.1

What are the loop holes that he used? Selling staff?

Gotta be smart from day 1 when Handball comes out.

I don't know what did you mean with that loop holes?
Good start was important,my hard work, patience and above all a good overview of the market(to make some extra cash),how I said for all beginners:
"spending all the money earned on the construction of background"that's the way improve team and also help NT with new young talents.
Even with my level 15 sport academy and top staff I'm not so lucky.I will take care to win this season the champion league and hopefully we gonna have more teams in next seasons.

I think we, ourselves, can make it more interesting if we want. I decided I will play more in a real way ..... Cant have too many internationals. So now i try to find good Americans in the market (good for D3 but not so good for D1 lol)

I dont mind much not be able to promote and compete in D1. My real complain is lack of competitiveness no mater what league/division.

I just wanted all the nonames to go and the developers find ways to at the end of season move teams around

The loophole that allows you to sell 30 & 40 players. I've seen some hockey clubs sell 70+ in one season. It's all a bit ridiculous. Like zomg said, I want a sports sim, not a market sim with some sport trappings. You're playing this like a market sim. I think it sucks that they allow this to happen.

Perhaps implement what exists in real life wold solve help this issue...

the team that raised the player would get a good percentage of any time the player is sold and that percentage comes from the team selling.

So, if he get a player in the market (obviously not raised by him) for 2M, train super fast and place to sell and sell to 50M, the team that raised the player would get lets say 20% of the transaction and thus 10M.

the buyer pays PPM fees (lets say 10%) and the extra 10% to the team that raise. total 30%. so he effective sold the player for 35M AND it would help the team that raised and sold cause didnt have enough facilities to effective train.

This seems like an interesting idea.

I don't know if it is reaslistic. If an NHL team obtains a player by offer sheet (assume that the appropriate amount of money relative to PPM was exchanged instead of draft picks), the QMJHL that developed the player would not be compensated in any way (perhaps there might bd some sort of goodwill implications or something). In addition, the team that raised the player did not do anything to desrve consideration beyond clicking on the button to view and accept prospect and subsequently sell the player.

Of course, for the purposes of the game, such arguments could be creatively dealt with to make the game better. This approach would help to close the window of profitability for players, diminishing the profits of teams engaging in such behavior. In addition, this would help younger teams to catch up and marginally better encourage parity.

On the other hand, this might not necessarily benefit younger teams so much as it would redistribute the money from teams that invest primarily in training facilities to teams that invest primarily in sports academies (at least of the mid-tier teams as the top teams would just max both out). I suppose that it would be easier for a younger team to invest in one sports academy than to invest in two training facilities with the hope of starting to profit ten season into the game.

In addition, while this may encourage parity, it would make success more dependent on the luck of one's sports academy rather than hockey tactics and management.

The main problem is that regular access to top tier players is limited by the market to the top tier teams. While a younger team could save up and buy the best player in the world, it would have to substantially sacrifice in other areas and would lack the ability to develop the player at all.

Does anybody know how the price of a young player with good qualities compares to the price that player would have after being developed by a given set of facilities over x years? Is there any preference for prospects over older players or visa versa? In addition, the timing of when a player is put on the market on how many managers are on the market at a given time might artificially alter the price. Perhaps the best solution for eliminating such irrational exuberance might be for PPM to provide every manager without requiring credits in exchange perfect market information. However, while this might solve the problem of teams excessively profiting from the market, it still wouldn't help to steer this game away from being more of a market sim.

Generally, I think that I would support trying out this idea, as well as the transfer cap, and possibly some form of the spending cap.

but that is the idea of the real world .. to support those small teams community that find those hidden gems.

By having an extra spending (have to give to the raised team) cold prevent teams from selling players. they would sell only if necessary not as a way to make "daily" profit.

But yes, they could chose to do academy only to try to raise. This would be an strategy. Nowadays, top teams already have this option that lower teams dont as their academy are already built.

but anyways, just one of many possible ideas to improve the game and make it more competitive.

As for other alternatives I've considered:

1) Perhaps the most financially successful teams with maxed out facilities could have the option to buy a second team (at a sufficiently high enough price). There would have to be no second sponsor and sufficiently high prices to build infrastructure (as well as limitations to prevent transfers between the two teams). Of course this, similar to creating higher levels of facilities, would just delay problems (though unlike creating higher levels, it would not further help to ensconce the top teams). There could be a problem of teams simply refusing to take advantage of this option.

2) Perhaps the top teams could actually act as the sponsors. This would help to remove money from the market without directly benefiting those teams. Of course, like in the first suggestion, there would be a problem of participation as well as a problem of providing enough compensation to make this worthwhile.

3) Perhaps the most financially successful teams (according to value of facilities, stadium, players (according to expected average market price for similar players), sponsors, and money saved), could be promoted into some sort of all-world elite league. Teams in this league could be restricted from making transfers (perhaps it could be allowed only within the league). They would have the option to not participate if they would prefer to forgo the opportunity to participate in the top league in favor of being able to use the market. This would help to remove the top money makers, permitting the next tier to move up one tier. I suppose that this would not be much of a solution since though it may remove money from the market, it may just redistribute the money to the next tier and fail to address the ability of a team to move up a tier. It might still be a purely interesting option to pursue though.

Willmott I am not sure how you always get to face a NOVAK -less defense. GG

I'm a bit late with this, but goddamn, Blackkat. That was an embarrassing loss. Thankfully I came back with a much better effort vs The Coronas.

I warned you about playing aggresive. All the Cards including the red did not help you out in our game.

If you are cheating your not winning, playing aggressive usually works for me.

I thought the phrase is, "If you're not cheating, you're not trying!"

lol... Screwed it up... We live by it at my insurance office. If your NOT cheating your not winning. Winning as referenced toward gaining accounts.