Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Riferimento: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

"We have made several changes to finances with the intention of tightening the finances and giving cash a 'value' again"

giving cash a value again???

This statement look very funny to me...I manage a 2nd series team in an Italian championship and money in this game world ALWAYS had a value!

I fight everyday in order not to go bankrupt...with this new update my finances will be completely destroyed.

I mean...a similar system could be fair in a European Championship where there are only big teams with big budgets and where money means nothing.

But in my Italian championship and in all the other little championship money has a value, and it always had it!

These new rules are not fair for little teams...that once again are penalized.

A big team with a 300 M budget doesn't care of losing 1 M a week in wages.

For my team who has a 5 M budget, instead, this is a big problem.

I hope SMFA will do something to fill this gap between big and small teams...

and IMO the stadium enlargement is not enough with the latest changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: Finances

Re: Finances I guess the glory days are over then. No more making a fortune out of every riser possible!! Actually, I hope some of these new features do make money worth something again, but for tha

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts) Is this thread not getting mixed up with the 'Player Valuation in P/E Transfers' thread?

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

Tbh I'd keep the <90 rated players contracts the same (so 90 rated = 45k), but above 90.... Personally I think it should be:

91 = 55k (+10)

92 = 75k (+20)

93 = 105k (+30)

94 = 145k (+40)

95 = 195k (+50)

96 = 255k (+60)

I am mad.... :eek::P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Riferimento: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

"We have made several changes to finances with the intention of tightening the finances and giving cash a 'value' again"

giving cash a value again???

This statement look very funny to me...I manage a 2nd series team in an Italian championship and money in this game world ALWAYS had a value!

I fight everyday in order not to go bankrupt...with this new update my finances will be completely destroyed.

I mean...a similar system could be fair in a European Championship where there are only big teams with big budgets and where money means nothing.

But in my Italian championship and in all the other little championship money has a value' date=' and it always had it!

These new rules are not fair for little teams...that once again are penalized.

A big team with a 300 M budget doesn't care of losing 1 M a week in wages.

For my team who has a 5 M budget, instead, this is a big problem.

I hope SMFA will do something to fill this gap between big and small teams...

and IMO the stadium enlargement is not enough with the latest changes.[/quote']

They haven't changed the wage structure for <91 rated players I don't think, only 92+ rated.

If SM were to use my suggested wage structure, then even the top sides can't bag all the 92+s that easily, and this way the smaller clubs can have a good side and the top clubs can't have too good a side - which is very fair IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riferimento: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

So, what is going to happen with my 155(+20) players team if I don't want to sell?

I built my team roughly from December 2011 in a GW started in 2008 and my current balance is -1.2M.

I think I have a wonderful team and my top players (in terms of ratings) are S.Kagawa, T.Courtois and P.Cissè.

Here is the link:

http://forum.soccermanager.com/showthread.php?t=148751

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riferimento: Re: Riferimento: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

They haven't changed the wage structure for <91 rated players I don't think' date=' only 92+ rated.

If SM were to use my suggested wage structure, then even the top sides can't bag all the 92+s that easily, and this way the smaller clubs can have a good side and the top clubs can't have too good a side - which is very fair IMO.[/quote']

I try to explain my point better...I picked up my team in a 2nd serie 2 years ago. A little team with a 18.000 seats stadium.

In these two years I built a good team and now I have some 93 and 92 rated players that allowed me to be promoted in 1st series and also to qualify for the SMFA shield.

Nevertheless my team remains a small teams in terms of revenues. Even If I play in the 1st serie my stadium is still small and I have very little spectators in my matches.

So I have to face both the bad aspects:

1) pay high wages for my 93 and 92 players (who I signed with a lot of efforts in the last 2 years)

2) have very little revenues

And this is not fair IMO.

A big club will always have high revenues and can stand to pay high wages.

I would be glad to pay high wages if I had the same revenues of a big club who compete in my same series. But this is not the case.

Different teams in the same series have different revenues, basing on what was the original series when the game world was opened, and completely not considering what is the actual performance of the team.

This is something that IMO has to be changed in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

Personally I don't think these changes will make a whole lot of difference in the long run. Gameworlds become stale because managers become less reluctant to sell on players as the gameworld ages. If anything the transfer markets have stagnated further because of the new random player ratings update. People have become less likely to take risks. Also the standing of real life clubs will always dictate how this game goes because there is little flexibility on how the financial standing of a small club changes in game even if they become the best in game team.

Goldworld finances also need fixing for small leagues. Suddenly a small league becomes the best league in a world but financial income never changes to reflect this. Why can't a uefa standings type scenario be introduced to take money from the big teams. Surely it adds extra incentive to do better. Why can some leagues never get extra smfa slots when it's clear the larger leagues aren't performing. All adds extra income at end of day.

Lastly why not just add random player requests and relegation transfer requests. The random element would force teams to rethink strategies etc and shake up the transfer markets adding real value to in game money and would also have an even distribution of players across gameworlds

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

We have made a few changes to finances recently with the intention of tightening the finances and giving cash a 'value' again. This will hopefully stimulate the transfer market which frankly has become very stagnate in many Game Worlds as no manager needs to sell as they have so much cash!

It also should naturally form a squad cap and stop player hogging as one club should not be able to afford all the best players and a squad of 255 players.

So what have we changed?

1) We have closed a major loophole regarding loans' date=' by having a wage split of 50/50.[/b']

It used to be the case that very few players went out on loan, this was because they only went to managed clubs. However when we changed the rule so that unmanaged clubs made loan bids all of a sudden managers started loaning out entire squads, literally hundreds of players. Saving themselves hundreds of thousands a turn which is millions a season.

We saw managers saving 800k a turn which is 30M a season in wages.

It meant that managers could now do youth 'farming' and not even have to pay any wages. Buy a bunch of cheap youngsters, 9/10 of which will definitely rise at least a little, loan them out so it costs your club nothing and watch them rise in value. Sell and repeat. Easy way to make money.

It is in no ones interest for it to be that easy to make money, as if you can do it that easily so can other managers and everyone ends up with loads of cash that is worthless, every deal is then a player exchange.

2) Players wages rise in line with rating changes and value

Again another loophole whereby players ratings rise and a manager does need to address the players concern until it reaches a Level 4. It takes around 40+ turns for this to happen which means a club can save millions off the wage bill and even sell the riser making a tidy profit without paying the full cost of the wages.

By the Chairman getting involved in wages (as they do when you sign a player) the wage of the player will always reflect the rating/value of the player and not lag months and months behind.

3) Very top players having a higher wage

We have increased the wages of players that are 92 and above in rating. There are roughly just 60 of these players and we think that clubs should have to pay a very high premium to have these players at their clubs.

This should make it harder for one club to have 9 of the top 10 players (which we have seen) and give other clubs and managers a chance to have some top players, which should make Game Worlds more competitive.

As we said at the start of the thread the idea is to give cash some meaning again which should make transfers in Game Worlds better. Stop excessive player hogging and youth farming.

The skilful managers should still be able to buy risers but will have to be more selective on who they buy.

If a player was to drop in rating does that mean his wage would go down or stay the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

Its a good change I think. It will decrease the amount of player farming we see in some GWs. Though its not a long term one but its ok for the time being. Atleast we will now give more time to finances especially the people in custom GWs that depend upon finances like Financial Fair Play, MLS will have to devote a whole lot of time to figure out wage cuttings.:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Riferimento: Re: Riferimento: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

.

Nevertheless my team remains a small teams in terms of revenues. Even If I

Different teams in the same series have different revenues' date=' basing on what was the original series when the game world was opened, and completely not considering what is the actual performance of the team.[/quote']

Spot on. A poor manager I charge of a 'big' team rakes in money whatever - whereas if a skilful manager makes a 'small' team into a success they get punished.

Ridiculous. Less SoccerManager than MoneyManager. Shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

i posted this earlier in the other thread.... I think its a welcome change, it was desperately needed to move the game on - away from TraderManager back to realism sceranrio in running a football team. Smaller squads, more nous needed in which players to buy and sell, more financial management and althogether bringing back a challenge aspect to the game.....

if you want to run up these 'super' squads with every so called talent under the sun....play a custom GW, turn off all the concerns, turn off SMFA, turn everything off and play to your hearts content...

anyway....a few suggestions..

reading some comments above, i think all the game needs is a few more tweaks...

regarding rule 2, i think it would only be fair if this contract changes only happened in the 'off-season', so the time between the end of a season and a new one, much alike real life when a majority of contracts are negotiated.........rather than ongoing in the middle of a season. gives the 'pre-season' a bit more focus than a few meaningless friendlies i usually ignore!

maybe a feature to negotiate a deal can be created?? ie 2 year deal on X amount (more) or long term 5 years on Y amount (less than X), (using the same programming for TL players when you get external bids, you get multiple offers..)

so you could sign a long term deal on less wages but run the risk of player rating going up and becoming unhappy at his wage....but in a short term deal, he gets a higher wage which he has no chance of becoming unhappy as in 2 'seasons' will go back to the negotiating stages...

Means clubs can set a budget for the season, and can work out better how there finances can be managed over the season.

id also like stadium development to increase more than the current limit ,,which seems to be 24/25K....a common theme

if you get a small club into the big time & Champions League (SM version) over a few seasons, i think a new limit of 35,000 is appropriate. Of course if should be done over several seasons, for example (based on finishing top half and qualfying for Europe)..

promotion to Div 1 you get up to 15-20K,

Season 2 (if successful) 20-25,

Season 3 - 25-30,

Season 4/5 30-35,

Season 6 35K...

something along those lines could be easily implemented using the existing system that is written into the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

In reference to the auto renewal of contracts:

I'm still wondering what the point of wage concerns actually is now. It seems a redundant feature. With wage concerns auto fixed less players will be auto transfer listed after getting multiple concerns to level 5 or 6 (whatever it is) by the chairman. Not exactly market stimulating!

This wont change much if you're a big team with a huge stadium as are the majority of managers. Game worlds will remain 75% empty at best with mostly the big teams managed.

The other changes actually make sense. But this "loop hole fix" for wage concerns is laughable to be labelled as such when the game mechanic of wage concerns was built around it as a mechanism to prevent player hogging.

Here's playing concerns.. oh no they're too strict! Lets relax them AND allow you to pay them off.... Here's wage concerns - oh no! Its a loop hole lets close it and negate that feature too!!!

Instead let managers buy 255 players, loan out 230 of them AND only have to pay half their wages. There, that'l stop player hogging!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

it could of been a try and test method, tinkering to see what woked.

im pretty sure when they planned all this..that wasnt the outcome they expected...

The other changes actually make sense. But this "loop hole fix" for wage concerns is laughable to be labelled as such when the game mechanic of wage concerns was built around it as a mechanism to prevent player hogging.

Here's playing concerns.. oh no they're too strict! Lets relax them AND allow you to pay them off.... Here's wage concerns - oh no! Its a loop hole lets close it and negate that feature too!!!

Instead let managers buy 255 players, loan out 230 of them AND only have to pay half their wages. There, that'l stop player hogging!

people exploited it in the end and highlighted the problem thay had created for themselves!

too drag up old stuff, there is a test GW this could of all been run in before it went live, all this would/could/should of been avoided

I'm still wondering what the point of wage concerns actually is now. It seems a redundant feature. With wage concerns auto fixed less players will be auto transfer listed after getting multiple concerns to level 5 or 6 (whatever it is) by the chairman. Not exactly market stimulating!

good point, hopefull they will read and look into this, as you say, its all conflicting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Respuesta: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

SM Dev (Vicky)

.

.

It also should naturally form a squad cap and stop player hogging as one club should not be able to afford all the best players and a squad of 255 players.

.

.

[/Quote]

If you want stop player hogging just need a squad cap not larger than 50-100 max.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Respuesta: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

If you want stop player hogging just need a squad cap not larger than 50-100 max.

Agreed! Why trying experiments when the obvious solution is standing in front of you. Squad cap 50 and the problem is solved. no more player hogging, good youth available for everyone, bigger competition, much more fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

I would definitely push for squad caps. Perhaps have it so that you are limited to 30 in the first team and 30 in youth.

This would give it more realism, allow people to build up youth which is one of the more exciting aspects of the game, but stop talent hoarding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

thing is lads, how do you implement it now with existing GWs? you cant force people to sell of their squads to get the number down.

it would only work if you applied it to all new GWs going forward, which in a sense makes it pointless as the problem still exists in the active gameworlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

;2590748']thing is lads' date=' how do you implement it now with existing GWs? you cant force people to sell of their squads to get the number down.

it would only work if you applied it to all new GWs going forward, which in a sense makes it pointless as the problem still exists in the active gameworlds.[/quote']

One idea, penalise larger squads. 100 player squads get fined X amount per month, 75 player squads get fined less etc. Its a bit crude but it would do the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

Well, I'll start be repeating that while I'd preferred this change was made with advance notice AND that it does screw me is a few GCs, it is still a good step forward and one I support.

With that said, none of this will ever matter until SM gets committed to improving the match engine which remains a farce way too often. I firmly believe small clubs should be able to upset large clubs, but when I have an avg. player rating of 88 compared to the other teams 77, dominate the statistics (shots, possession, etc.) AND my average player performance of the match is an 8.28 when the other teams is 5.45, I probably shouldn't walk away with a 4-0 loss. Now, if my players didn't perform, fair enough, but this type of scenario is just way to common. Upsets are considered upsets specifically because they don't happen that often. When they happen frequently....they aren't upsets anymore, the system is broken.

Additionally, with the new changes, SM must make sure that players can be sold. For example, I took over a team and am desperately trying to sell players. But some of them have been transfer listed for near 3 weeks and I still have not received a single bid for them. If I am going to slim down the roster, there has to be a buyer for the players I am doing my best to sell. (And yes, I would accept the crappy CV offers you typically get from unmanaged sides.)

Just some thoughts to add to the pile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

Let me add that as I attempt to get some rosters more in line with the new rules, it would sure help if SMFA wasn't blocking deals that are completely legit. Typical SM...fix one thing and bring a new problem to the forefront that they will take 4 months to fix. Of course, the layout of the homepage is sure to be improved 3 times during the same time period. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

;2590748']thing is lads' date=' how do you implement it now with existing GWs? you cant force people to sell of their squads to get the number down.

it would only work if you applied it to all new GWs going forward, which in a sense makes it pointless as the problem still exists in the active gameworlds.[/quote']

Two things:

1 - Maybe the limit is not valid for existing GW, but with all the GW that start everyday the squad cap it's in each case a good solution for hogging player.

If they really want stop this.

2 - For active Gameworlds they can simply make an announcement for all manager and after 30 days (for example, because normally if a manager don't login for 30 days lose the team), Chairman can start to sell player with low rating in order to reach the squad cap.

And i'm the first who have some big team with 100 player's.. but i prefer this to penalize who have more big player with 92+.. it's obvious that everyone in a GW try to buy them..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

While the general theme of the changes is belt-tightening, one thing I would like to see is increased cup and end-of-season awards, maybe 2x or 3x what they are now.

While 10m for winning a domestic cup would still be a pittance for a big club, good rewards for deep runs and promotions would enable smaller clubs to grow without having to tinker with flexible stadium sizes and whatnot, while increasing competitiveness throughout the game in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

;2590748']thing is lads' date=' how do you implement it now with existing GWs? you cant force people to sell of their squads to get the number down.

it would only work if you applied it to all new GWs going forward, which in a sense makes it pointless as the problem still exists in the active gameworlds.[/quote']

That could be quite easy for the existing GWs. Give the managers time till the end of their current season to make the necessary trades and if they wont the chairman could randomly put players on the transfer list(similar to the level 5 concern situation)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

Two things:

1 - Maybe the limit is not valid for existing GW' date=' but with all the GW that start everyday the squad cap it's in each case a good solution for hogging player.

If they really want stop this.

2 - For active Gameworlds they can simply make an announcement for all manager and after 30 days (for example, because normally if a manager don't login for 30 days lose the team), Chairman can start to sell player with low rating in order to reach the squad cap.

And i'm the first who have some big team with 100 player's.. but i prefer this to penalize who have more big player with 92+.. it's obvious that everyone in a GW try to buy them..[/quote']

The second point is harsh, but probably that what will push the game forward and makes GW alive again with no club too dominated with that farming youth(:rolleyes:) thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Riferimento: New Finances (Loans / Contracts)

They haven't changed the wage structure for <91 rated players I don't think' date=' only 92+ rated.

If SM were to use my suggested wage structure, then even the top sides can't bag all the 92+s that easily, and this way the smaller clubs can have a good side and the top clubs can't have too good a side - which is very fair IMO.[/quote']

Thhat structure is not do able you need a team of 90+ players to success fully use aggressuve tackling and short passes making some of the tactics unusable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...