Содржина: Suggestions

Any chance we could get stats for faceoffs to see how each player does each night?

Thats a good suggestion i'd like to see that as well.

I'd like to discuss the market and the transfer fee rate for a bit.
As teams progress up the sports academy, more and more players will enter each team, so in order to keep a stable roster size, more and more players must be sold.

I assume the rising fee is to discourage 'day trading' but something does not seem quite right. I am by no means a day trader, but I have bought 2 players and have sold 19 this season just to keep my roster at 35 or so players, which means I now pay 25% fee for my next player sold and I am only at level 9 SA. The cap is 50%, which means it becomes nearly pointless for fully developed SA's to even bring in players at some point. If I held to 10 transfers per season, in 2 seasons I would have about 70 players on my squad.

This means the newer teams will have to rely more on their own youth school which will put out worse players than the rejects from the older teams. This slows their development and keeps the stronger teams more insulated for longer over the newer teams, reducing competition.

Does this seem to be a problem to anyone else, or am I overanalyzing this?

Would it make sense to either 1) raise the cap from 10 to 15 players, 2) lower the rate of increase of the fee, or 3) lower the upper cap of the fee, so as to not discourage stronger teams from releasing relatively better players to the market?

I was actually thinking about this as well and was considering another possible solution to all the ones you mentioned, because of the Academy issue that you brought up.

The idea I had was that all homegrown players could be sold for free, regardless of how many transfers.

All players previously purchased would be taxed more heavily when resold.

This then attacks the day-trading issue while still allowing the academy guys to be put on the market.

I think the changes you are suggesting would have the opposite effect. If you allow them to sell players more freely, they will earn more money, ergo they will be able to pull further ahead.

Why should stronger teams feel discouraged from selling their players? Even with 50% fee they earn some money for their players which is still better than nothing. That means that it is always better to sell a player that you dont need instead of keeping him on your roster and pay the daily fee for too many players.

I think that when we're a few more seasons in the players on our teams will be much better than the ones we pull from the academy. In my opinion we won't be keeping as many youths as we do now and we're going to let more players' contracts run out without selling.

Also, teams are making way too much money from selling players right now IMO. Obviously if someone is selling someone is buying and the economics stay even but a 50% fee still makes you profit on someone you didn't want.

To sum up, I think it will be easier to manage rosters when the pulls aren't as good as your current players.

I have to agree with Vlady here. In fact tho I still favor raising the maximum fee to something like 75%. My reasoning is to allow for player mills to churn out players but at ever increasing diminishing returns. It still can allow the strong SA to sell product but also at lesser and lesser effect.

Basically there will come a point where a person will have to decide do I just dismiss this player or sell this player. If a manager is going to pay an increased fee for every player sold it may not be good to sell every player. If they sell 2 players at 100k each and then a player at 10mil those first 2 actually cost them money not made them money! (assuming they're over the 10 player 112day mark). This helps the newer teams A LOT by reducing the lower end of player prices. It also hurts them by reducing a potential market for players they might want to sell... Since sponsorship is where the income is at that isn't a big factor.

I would like to make the suggestion that half (or some %) of all the market fee be put into special fund. This fund would then pay out a dividend to all managers in their first 112 days of playing. This would be a way to help excite new managers and also help them get into a competitive position faster.

Thats a really good idea Eeoulo - somewhat like revenue sharing for the weaker teams in a league.

Why? because the opportunity cost of a 50% fee is very large. People will hold onto their better players to find the right time to release them, when the fee is lower. Or they will just not even bring some people in that will help lower clubs more than what comes from their youth school.

Currently a 200 OR (call him 2nd tier ) player will not get close to making my squad, so I won't even bring him in because he will make me lose more cash if I put him on the market than a 300 OR (top tier) guy. So now, the second tier guy does not go to a DIII team where he could be a star, instead never sees the light of day.

2nd tier players will not give DI teams that much cash, but you effectively cut the market for those players because advanced teams will ignore them.

I agree with that theory, but the market is flooded with 200 OR guys.

Out of curiosity... how the hell does anybody get a 300+ OR player without paying 10+ million (minimum)???

Currently, yes. But in the future?

lol - wait for the market to have more of them

In the meanwhile, all the strong teams just keep getting stronger and stronger and stronger. I don't think so.

But you must have missed my question. There are teams with loads of 300+ OR players, right? How do they get them?