Klubo informacija
Milwaukee Bucks
Vietinis pavadinimas: Milwaukee Bucks
Vadovas: Mariusha
Apdovanojimai
 |
 |
 |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Tarptautinis turnyras | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nacionalinis turnyras | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bendras | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Svarbiausi pasiekimai
+13
Spaudos konferencijos žinutė paslėpta (federacijos savanorio arba administratoriaus)
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
1.1
Can it be understood that we don’t have to pick up potential players anymore, we just wait for others to train and grab them directly from the market. It’s better than saving money, right?
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
If we can't benefit from it, why should we train players? We spend money and time to find players and train players, and then we can't renew our contract because of high wages, and we can only let them go? Then everyone will use all the budget to grab players.
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
Hello, dear competitors. My opinion is different than yours. We should try to see whole picture instead looking only four our interests. We are 32 in 1st WL, but there is 1000 managers who are below us.
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
Ha ha ha, I'm not allowed to say anything. Democracy and freedom of speech. Shame!
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
some of modders are too much trigger happy on post deleting...
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
And what about old (without health) and overly expensive players? If a player has not been extended and has not been selected in a restricted player market, perhaps such a player would need to lower the minimum wage and be given the opportunity to play rather than simply ruin his career as skills fall out without being at the club (which is important for smaller national teams). I think such players could really still play in the lower leagues, but wages are too big for such teams, and here in the higher level teams they no longer have anything to do or simply such players take the place of a younger player of a similar level. At least with teams in their own country (or with teams with 6-7 image) such players who have not received contract offers in the limited player market could sign up in the simple market for less than the minimum wage
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+18
One comment - there would be more players in market for top leagues if released players skills would not immediatelly deteriorate. Maybe up to ~33 years released players skills do not change, but for older it falls more rapidly?
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
Lape, smart, but as it said in the topic - the game is going the opposite direction, so this one will still be just a nice dream :))
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
This post sums up to "nothing is wrong with the games financial system" Which is odd because there are massive problems with the game financial system.
A WL3 teams is handed 18K more in sponsor revenue (minimum) than a WL4 team. That is a massive advantage. An advantage that helps keep a WL3 team where they are and is a barrier to a WL4 advancing.
I hear all these complaints about "giving away money" when a large amount of the income of every team is sponsor money "just given to them". The game has just decided to give more sponsor money to some teams as opposed to others.
Narrow the gap in sponsor money between the leagues. That will increase competition and teams will move between leagues more effectively. Going up won't be a crushing jump in competition and going down won't be a financial death sentence. -- 81 sez. 7 d.
A WL3 teams is handed 18K more in sponsor revenue (minimum) than a WL4 team. That is a massive advantage. An advantage that helps keep a WL3 team where they are and is a barrier to a WL4 advancing.
I hear all these complaints about "giving away money" when a large amount of the income of every team is sponsor money "just given to them". The game has just decided to give more sponsor money to some teams as opposed to others.
Narrow the gap in sponsor money between the leagues. That will increase competition and teams will move between leagues more effectively. Going up won't be a crushing jump in competition and going down won't be a financial death sentence. -- 81 sez. 7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
In general, I agree with the financial model that is being applied.
It also seems to me that what Evinelis proposed could be a good improvement. -- 81 sez. 7 d.
It also seems to me that what Evinelis proposed could be a good improvement. -- 81 sez. 7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
Great detailed response, agree with the suggestion, special "loyalty feature" would be interesting though shouldn't be at the top of the priority list :)
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
Evinelis:Why we cannot decrease the minimum salary is explained in the article (1. Minimum salary should be decreased (or removed))
Gudrioji LapeIf I remember correctly now in the market only players with age 30 and above have skills decreasing. Younger players' skills decrease was removed a few seasons ago. So this is not very far from your suggestion :)
dkerriganWe don`t think that the gap between divisions is a problem. The smaller gap is between divisions, the more often teams will use “tanking” strategy to save money.
Also reducing the gap (increasing the amount of money in the game) would create huge inflation in players' prices (increase prices) . -- 81 sez. 7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
i know what the article is trying to say but i also agree a little with evinelis. Because if a player hasn't played in 2 seasons and is over 30 shouldn't the minimum go down at least a little?
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
1.1
when Rt increases, so do wages. but the revenues do not increase accordingly :)
--
81 sez.
7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
a-darius Your posting because you said there have been a lot of complaints about the financial system. There are complaints because teams want to advance. But the goal of the game doesn't appear to be advancement. It appears to be avoiding bankruptcy.
You can say that the financial system is fine. But from me you have one vote that its not any fun. And since it was felt there was a need to make this thread at all, other players might feel the same. -- 81 sez. 7 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
The rt reached God, so the salaries went up as well. but the revenue of the teams is the same.
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Darius I do not agree with your findings 100%. Anytime a person looking for a job is unable to secure one with the wages they think is fair, they start to lower their demands just to eat and have a place to stay. The demand is not to lower all minimum wages, but to those that are not worth the average of other better trained or height advantaged players. And the gap between WL teams is ridiculous and needs to be reduced. Have you forgotten how I advised you my team was not one of the richest in the game when I had a few hundred k and soon after the 'rich tax' came into being? Obviously there is an issue.
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
1.1
It is not understood what logic is applied in anticipated renewals, because clearly the prices in the market do not fall, but are increasingly higher. And a team that trains a player for several seasons and that must let him go because he can no longer afford his salary, what benefit does he get?
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
mancuso This is actually the logic of a robber. They don't understand how much money we put into discovering players and training them. They will only be surprised, wow! Why do you want so little pay for your excellent players? It's not fair!
We're looking at creation, and GM is looking at destruction because of complaints from players who don't want to cultivate players. Next, I'll gradually cut back on the money I put into the training system, put down my hoe and sickle, take up my arms and fight them. -- 81 sez. 8 d.
We're looking at creation, and GM is looking at destruction because of complaints from players who don't want to cultivate players. Next, I'll gradually cut back on the money I put into the training system, put down my hoe and sickle, take up my arms and fight them. -- 81 sez. 8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
https://www.basketpulse.com/uy/Player/1952630/description how is this player minimum wage 25k? this is a not even a reserve for wl1 teams, I believe the "formula" used to come up with market prices is just not right.
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
If a player is on the market and is offered 80k of salary and it is not worth it, it is the problem of whoever pays it. The explanations do not make sense, the reality shows something very different and it is an obvious punishment to those teams that invest in the training of players
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
mancuso It's obvious that some clubs who don't pay attention to training players are complaining again. They don't have the patience to train players, so they want other people's players. People at the bottom of capitalism have this mentality. They don't think about how to create, they just think about how to share the results. But it's very simple. As long as the rules are consistent with everyone, the loser will always be the loser.
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
GM told us that ‘Players’ salaries are not set by some “formula” but they are determined by the demand (by the community).’, and then used the minimum wage to restrict everyone to sign players at the right price. Don’t you think this is ridiculous? Since wages are determined by the demand (by the community), why set a minimum wage? Isn’t this a contradiction?
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
GM told us'Reduce the prices of extending contracts (early extension) would lead to less good players in the limited market. So prices in the market would go up even more. Our goal is quite the opposite. We believe that it should be easier to find a player in the limited market. So that teams which advance to the upper league would have more chances to improve their rosters.'
I can't help but ask, are good players born good players? We have been training them since they were fourteen or fifteen years old, so that they have the best training coach and plenty of playing time. Then just let them go for nothing when they can help the team? So who will spend money to train young players in the future? We just save the money used to train players and go to the market to plunder. -- 81 sez. 8 d.
I can't help but ask, are good players born good players? We have been training them since they were fourteen or fifteen years old, so that they have the best training coach and plenty of playing time. Then just let them go for nothing when they can help the team? So who will spend money to train young players in the future? We just save the money used to train players and go to the market to plunder. -- 81 sez. 8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
One more thing, I think in calculation of average and mininal wages there should be included skill of health
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
Agree on health skill inclusion,
For market salaries is it only market included or extension as well? One way to keep extension prices more reasonable is to include extension prices in market calculations. Or give a bigger doscount for extrnsion. Lets say if soneone buys center for 60k, it is no chance others could pay as much for extensions -- 81 sez. 8 d.
For market salaries is it only market included or extension as well? One way to keep extension prices more reasonable is to include extension prices in market calculations. Or give a bigger doscount for extrnsion. Lets say if soneone buys center for 60k, it is no chance others could pay as much for extensions -- 81 sez. 8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Salary min. Its good
Better salary min. and salary máx. -- 81 sez. 8 d.
Better salary min. and salary máx. -- 81 sez. 8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
One simple change that could bring salaries down across the board without giving anyone a dime would be to set a minimum roster size of 10. I run into teams often enough running with only 7 or 8 players on their roster. Why not? There doesn't seem to be the slightest reason not to.
How many 8 man rosters are seen in real basketball? 9 looks like its about the average roster size in game but in real basketball a team with only 9 can't even practice 5 on 5. To prevent teams from signing bums to fill out their roster who they don't play either have a penalty on future signings or just set a minimum player RT per league (or both). If minimum salaries are OK, I don't know why minimum RTs wouldn't be.
But, that does beg the question, if there is a minimum salary and everyone has to bid that or over to get a player. And every time a bid is won, the minimum salary goes up (or at best stays the same). How mathematically is it even possible for the minimum salary to trend down? -- 81 sez. 8 d.
How many 8 man rosters are seen in real basketball? 9 looks like its about the average roster size in game but in real basketball a team with only 9 can't even practice 5 on 5. To prevent teams from signing bums to fill out their roster who they don't play either have a penalty on future signings or just set a minimum player RT per league (or both). If minimum salaries are OK, I don't know why minimum RTs wouldn't be.
But, that does beg the question, if there is a minimum salary and everyone has to bid that or over to get a player. And every time a bid is won, the minimum salary goes up (or at best stays the same). How mathematically is it even possible for the minimum salary to trend down? -- 81 sez. 8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
dkerrigan Excellent point on the last sentence. There is no way for minimum to drop, and hence a huge reason why salaries continue to inflate. The release players fee when it became an item was originally to prevent sniping other players. So why is it that I must pay the penalty when I release players that have always been on my team? Lots of things are not even considered in reality.
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
Two American brothers, GM's main purpose is to attack training clubs. You think the problem is too complicated. In fact, it's very simple. It's just that we have worked hard to cultivate some excellent players, but the best part will never flow out, so their performance will never be good. They don't want to copy this training mode, but they want to rob.
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
I agree with fourkings here. If there is no benefit for training your talent then no one will train new talent. Keeping 1 player every other year on a cheaper than market deal is not really significant / will make a team. The only middle ground is maybe limit the number of scouted players from 3 to 1 per season (does not account for denom). At the rate we are going, the situation as it stands for players will soon reflect what is currently going on with the cost of coaches.....
--
81 sez.
8 d.
fourkings here. If there is no benefit for training your talent then no one will train new talent. Keeping 1 player every other year on a cheaper than market deal is not really significant / will make a team. The only middle ground is maybe limit the number of scouted players from 3 to 1 per season (does not account for denom). At the rate we are going, the situation as it stands for players will soon reflect what is currently going on with the cost of coaches.....
--
81 sez.
8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
In the original game of this type, managers have been training players for a long time and getting personalized excellent players is the greatest pleasure for managers. It's great fun to watch the players who have been trained for 630 days finally gallop on the field as they wish. But what does GM want to do now? He wanted to take away the pleasure of the manager after 630 days of waiting. Just because some managers are complaining. He has to watch the players he has trained for two years leave. It was 630 days and nights
Although I have always said that I don't want to train young players under this system, if I don't train young players, I will not have fun in this game.
I'm very ambivalent and I don't know what made GM make this decision. -- 81 sez. 8 d.
Although I have always said that I don't want to train young players under this system, if I don't train young players, I will not have fun in this game.
I'm very ambivalent and I don't know what made GM make this decision. -- 81 sez. 8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
1.1
dkerrigan
Playing with only 8 elements becomes a necessity in this game. And the reason is always the same, you have to pay the strong players / coaches. With a limited budget and guaranteed minimum salaries I am not able to play with 9 valid elements !! -- 81 sez. 8 d.
Playing with only 8 elements becomes a necessity in this game. And the reason is always the same, you have to pay the strong players / coaches. With a limited budget and guaranteed minimum salaries I am not able to play with 9 valid elements !! -- 81 sez. 8 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
Agree with bloomis and fourkings. I play to discover and develop my own players. If I cant do that, I wont play.
--
81 sez.
9 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
We used not to have early extension at all, and even then teams scouted and trained players. Let’s not forget that in the limited market there also are discounts. So I believe that even if prices for early extensions are more similar to market prices - ability to grow your own player will not disappear from the game.
The minimum salary might not look logical. But in the same way early extension is not logical and many other things but each of these have their own purpose.
As for health skills - that is a bit more complicated. Average salary formula is based on “similar players prices in the market”. Right now there are not many players with bad health and including this criteria would lead to not-logical numbers.
The other option would be to somehow re-make the calculation of RT and include health. Probably someday in the future we will come back to this question and investigate possible options more deeply.
About players in the team I personally don't like this situation at all.
But the reason for that is not economical. If in real life team owners would be 100% sure that their players will not get any injury and will not have “bad shape” during all season - we would see a lot of teams with 7-8 players, too.
But this is a big topic for another time - it is not related to economics. -- 81 sez. 9 d.
The minimum salary might not look logical. But in the same way early extension is not logical and many other things but each of these have their own purpose.
As for health skills - that is a bit more complicated. Average salary formula is based on “similar players prices in the market”. Right now there are not many players with bad health and including this criteria would lead to not-logical numbers.
The other option would be to somehow re-make the calculation of RT and include health. Probably someday in the future we will come back to this question and investigate possible options more deeply.
About players in the team I personally don't like this situation at all.
But the reason for that is not economical. If in real life team owners would be 100% sure that their players will not get any injury and will not have “bad shape” during all season - we would see a lot of teams with 7-8 players, too.
But this is a big topic for another time - it is not related to economics. -- 81 sez. 9 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
There were like 30 other suggestions but lets just stick with the ones you (or like the chinese like to call you - GM) like, right? :)
--
81 sez.
9 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
Darius, one suggestion which could help reduce minimum salaries would be introducing an "effective RT" which would be based only on actual skill values, discounting any reserves. E.g. older players, who hit the market drop skills, and their 12 skills become 11.9, which are far less effective but the player costs almost the same as prior to skills drop. Effective RT would always be lower than actual as 11.9 skill would count as 11.0 for effective RT calculation purposes. If minimum salaries for 30+yo players were calculated on "effective RT", this could help make the minimum salaries more sensible.
--
81 sez.
10 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
Game manager, production capacity has been the driving force of development. And you're punishing producers and encouraging robbers. In the next game career, I will always observe the early renewal amount of similar players in different countries, and be a robber according to your wishes. As for my player who has only 8 potential, trained for 630 days and needs 29000 euros to renew his contract, I just think it's a joke.
As for your changing the rules again and again, it reminds me of table tennis. As long as I can't win, it must be a matter of rules. -- 81 sez. 10 d.
As for your changing the rules again and again, it reminds me of table tennis. As long as I can't win, it must be a matter of rules. -- 81 sez. 10 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
Out of curiosity, I opened a one month standard membership and inquired about 24-year-old players with five season contracts. I was surprised to find that there was only one player above 29000 euros and no more than 10 players above 20000 euros. Now you tell me that the salary for renewal is calculated according to the average salary, and their average salary is 29000 euro. It's so interesting.
--
81 sez.
10 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Well its pretty clear from the original post and the subsequent posts from the game that pricing a certain tier RT player right out of the game is the intention in order to lower league RT averages across the board.
So, instead of the top teams throwing all their money at 9 and 10 potential players, they will throw it all at 7 and 8 potential players so prices on those players will skyrocket.
And all the lower tier teams who have been carefully developing the players the top teams didn't want previously will get priced right out of all their work on the market.
Going back to basics, this is a game and its supposed to be fun. None of this is fun. Doubt that was much of a factor in whatever went into making this ridiculous plan. -- 81 sez. 10 d.
So, instead of the top teams throwing all their money at 9 and 10 potential players, they will throw it all at 7 and 8 potential players so prices on those players will skyrocket.
And all the lower tier teams who have been carefully developing the players the top teams didn't want previously will get priced right out of all their work on the market.
Going back to basics, this is a game and its supposed to be fun. None of this is fun. Doubt that was much of a factor in whatever went into making this ridiculous plan. -- 81 sez. 10 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
The average health of the top 10 RT Lithuanian players is 70%. 3 of them are 50% or less. Who would pay good money for these players? How can you say there is not many players with low health? Darius you need to be a bit more open eyed on what is actually the problems. To be sure, here is a short list that I consider big issues:
1-Minimum wages calculated on forced values, not actual market value of players ( since we are forced to bid at least x EU ).
2- Teams being able to operate with 7 players and never foul out. Totally ridiculous, and obviously blatant cheating going on due to this fact.
3- Draft players that come out with high potential always have either very low RT and or health compared to scouted players with same potential. Differences in payouts per league tier is too much, stifling advancement opportunities.
4- Giving teams that promote free draft points in the 1 to 3 thousand range. I had 440 and teams got free 3000? What a joke.
These are just the glaring things, IMHO. -- 81 sez. 10 d.
1-Minimum wages calculated on forced values, not actual market value of players ( since we are forced to bid at least x EU ).
2- Teams being able to operate with 7 players and never foul out. Totally ridiculous, and obviously blatant cheating going on due to this fact.
3- Draft players that come out with high potential always have either very low RT and or health compared to scouted players with same potential. Differences in payouts per league tier is too much, stifling advancement opportunities.
4- Giving teams that promote free draft points in the 1 to 3 thousand range. I had 440 and teams got free 3000? What a joke.
These are just the glaring things, IMHO. -- 81 sez. 10 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
I have fun playing this game and I haven't seen inadequate prices yet except for 25k for Kreivaitis but he plays in the youth team so he's cheap.
--
81 sez.
10 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
I was promoted to the first division of my country, I lost more than 20k of sponsors compared to the lower league .. result? forced to fire the best players ... how can you be competitive if you don't give financial possibilities?
--
81 sez.
10 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
@el buitre: income from sponsors depends on international league
--
81 sez.
10 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
What is clear Darius is that you do not care the least about the club that spends time and money in training a player, the logic that good players come to the market is ridiculous, so only those managers who have money are favored and take advantage of the work of others who end up feeling stupid for working players for others to take them
--
81 sez.
10 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
a-darius I have been relegated other times in the International League but I have never lost 20k of sponsors ... I have never had as little money as this season ... I can't explain it
--
81 sez.
11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
el buitre you relegated.
4wl sponsors you can have 60k
5wl sponsors you have now 41k
your image is down to lvl 1, you relegated so popularity is down also. what's here to explain? -- 81 sez. 11 d.
4wl sponsors you can have 60k
5wl sponsors you have now 41k
your image is down to lvl 1, you relegated so popularity is down also. what's here to explain? -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
mancuso:This is not about “caring” or “not caring”.
Everybody can grow their players in the game and teams get discounts for that.
We want this game to be available for playing in a few ways.
Teams that want to raise players - they get discounts in the market and for most important players they can use early extension.
Teams that do not want to invest in raising players - they should be able to find decent players in the market for a bit bigger price.
If somebody does not like this model - there also are many other games with different models.
But we do not plan to change the main points of the game just because teams always want to have cheaper contracts. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
Darious, you want that people play in few ways, but just be sure that wage Is related to real ability and not on RT only. You made single skills potential for difference them, but are wages considering that? Not all are useful same way After that
--
81 sez.
11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
If the clubs that train young players can get a big discount in the restricted player market, then this amendment is reasonable and acceptable.
What I want to say here is that the discount must take into account the amount of money invested by the clubs that cultivate young players. It is not only the salary of the players, but also the relevant trainers and the time cost.
In addition, the current number of early contract renewal is really meaningless. If it is feasible, my suggestion is to reduce the number of early contract renewal (for example, one player and one coach can be renewed every season, and one foreign player can be renewed every other season), and reduce the salary of early contract renewal. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
What I want to say here is that the discount must take into account the amount of money invested by the clubs that cultivate young players. It is not only the salary of the players, but also the relevant trainers and the time cost.
In addition, the current number of early contract renewal is really meaningless. If it is feasible, my suggestion is to reduce the number of early contract renewal (for example, one player and one coach can be renewed every season, and one foreign player can be renewed every other season), and reduce the salary of early contract renewal. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Darius seems unhappy with his comment that if I don't like it I'll go to another game, it's no way to respond. Regarding the point we are dealing with, here the trainer of players with high salary increases is harmed and there comes a point that he must let them go because he cannot keep them and the one who does not invest is rewarded, and benefits from the work of those managers
--
81 sez.
11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
Nepatinka - eikit kitur. Tikras verslo požiūris į savo klientą:)
--
81 sez.
11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+17
Respect. What else can I say? I knew it was useless
--
81 sez.
11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
2.2
I believe that some aspects of the game can be improved, it is not to argue but we must analyze the situation of the game.
It is very easy to go bankrupt for various reasons, usually due to ignorance and others due to greed, how many times a player is hired in the market for a very high salary and a month the team goes bankrupt, I have seen it a lot.
For those teams that try to create homegrown players, in contract renewals there may be a discount bonus to the salary, for example -10% on the average salary, the nationality of the player can also be entered for that bonus, there are many possibilities to alleviate the rise progressive salary for modest teams.
From my short experience in the game, the last changes have not improved the game, for example the draft.
I think that before modifying more things in the game, you would have to think about this very well, so as not to make a serious gameplay error. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
It is very easy to go bankrupt for various reasons, usually due to ignorance and others due to greed, how many times a player is hired in the market for a very high salary and a month the team goes bankrupt, I have seen it a lot.
For those teams that try to create homegrown players, in contract renewals there may be a discount bonus to the salary, for example -10% on the average salary, the nationality of the player can also be entered for that bonus, there are many possibilities to alleviate the rise progressive salary for modest teams.
From my short experience in the game, the last changes have not improved the game, for example the draft.
I think that before modifying more things in the game, you would have to think about this very well, so as not to make a serious gameplay error. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+11
Well I'll put my two cents , first scouting sucks now, just remove it at all , unless im extremely unlucky, in a year i've invested over 300k and got 5pot talent, now im standing with bunch of draft points that I'll probably use in 5 seasons at best with current draft updates. and agree , that health should be added in calculation for minimum salary. another thing like review salary ceilings , i do not think a 4wl club needs 150k, make a 100k and then above give them taxes, just like nba. Could also put ceiling on how much you can offer to a player, maybe if it's top tier talent like 50k, and then in the end if 5 clubs offered him 50k he could look into, popularity, winning percentage and other shit .
--
81 sez.
11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
Almost all of this goes back to how teams acquire players and how much should they cost.
I thought fourkings made an excellent point that for teams that develop players the benefits given have to match the costs, time and patience.
And his point is in direct conflict with what a-darius said that teams that choose not to develop talents should be able to find decent players in the market ... for a bit bigger price.
Why exactly should teams that ignore an entire portion of the game only have to pay "a bit" more?
Teams developing players spend a lot more than "a bit" developing them. A team can save a ton of money ignoring scouting and training completely. That savings gives them a lot more "bits" to use in the market than the teams who do. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
I thought
fourkings made an excellent point that for teams that develop players the benefits given have to match the costs, time and patience.And his point is in direct conflict with what
a-darius said that teams that choose not to develop talents should be able to find decent players in the market ... for a bit bigger price. Why exactly should teams that ignore an entire portion of the game only have to pay "a bit" more?
Teams developing players spend a lot more than "a bit" developing them. A team can save a ton of money ignoring scouting and training completely. That savings gives them a lot more "bits" to use in the market than the teams who do. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
Dkerrigan: what do you think how big “discount” (in percentages) player should give for his first team compared to other offers?
--
81 sez.
11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
I have an offer for scouted players in market: calculate average from two highest bids (from different managers), then add discount. Example of formula:
1st bid - 25k, 2nd bid - 15k. Discount 10% (I will use this amount of discount for ex). (25+15)/2*0,9=18k.
What's the point? It will decrease impact of crazy offers.
Two more examples for this idea:
1. 10 offers around 20k and one offer for 40k. Probably this player isn't worth 40k, because only one thinks that (he could have some reasons to overpay). In these days you will extend him for 36k. My offer is let extend contract for (20+40)/2*0,9=27k.
2. 1st highest bid - 42k, 2nd bid - 38k. It means that there is not one manager opinion, it's something near player worth. So calculations could look like: (42+38)/2*0,9=36k -- 81 sez. 11 d.
1st bid - 25k, 2nd bid - 15k. Discount 10% (I will use this amount of discount for ex). (25+15)/2*0,9=18k.
What's the point? It will decrease impact of crazy offers.
Two more examples for this idea:
1. 10 offers around 20k and one offer for 40k. Probably this player isn't worth 40k, because only one thinks that (he could have some reasons to overpay). In these days you will extend him for 36k. My offer is let extend contract for (20+40)/2*0,9=27k.
2. 1st highest bid - 42k, 2nd bid - 38k. It means that there is not one manager opinion, it's something near player worth. So calculations could look like: (42+38)/2*0,9=36k -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
During the last few days I investigated quite a lot of different statistics and examples (early extension prices, bonuses in restricted market, prices in free market).
Let's go with one example (one of the team that complains about this situation a lot)
Weekly salary of the main team players + coaches: 363k Eu/week
The same salary without discount in restricted market: 428k Eu/week (18% is the minimum discount that teams get for their own scouted players in restricted market)
Difference: 428 - 363 = 65k saved every week (585k saved in a season)
Such numbers would be if restricted market is used.
As in many cases an early extension is used - the amount of the saved money is even bigger.
I understand that scouting and growing players cost money. But the discounts in the restricted market are quite big now.
Not to mention the fact that teams with their own players save a lot of money because they avoid expensive mistakes in the market.
Now almost all top players never reach the market and that is not OK. So if there is a need for correction - it should be in a completely opposite direction.
We used to have situation when early extension prices were similar to the market prices. In that case the amount of “early extensions” decrease (now we do not see that) -- 81 sez. 11 d.
Let's go with one example (one of the team that complains about this situation a lot)
Weekly salary of the main team players + coaches: 363k Eu/week
The same salary without discount in restricted market: 428k Eu/week (18% is the minimum discount that teams get for their own scouted players in restricted market)
Difference: 428 - 363 = 65k saved every week (585k saved in a season)
Such numbers would be if restricted market is used.
As in many cases an early extension is used - the amount of the saved money is even bigger.
I understand that scouting and growing players cost money. But the discounts in the restricted market are quite big now.
Not to mention the fact that teams with their own players save a lot of money because they avoid expensive mistakes in the market.
Now almost all top players never reach the market and that is not OK. So if there is a need for correction - it should be in a completely opposite direction.
We used to have situation when early extension prices were similar to the market prices. In that case the amount of “early extensions” decrease (now we do not see that) -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
a-darius I know this is counter to what you just said, but I think the advantage to teams developing players should be given through the extension and not discounts in the limited market. I think the savings should be dramatic and be applied regardless of whether its a 2 or 5 year extension. Adjust the benefit based on the players opinion of the team and the personnel sector. I think it should be extension based because the number of extensions is limited. With discounts applied in the limited market every scouted player sees the benefit. If it is extension based, the team who scouted the player gets to keep their pick of players but not everyone. Choices have to be made and players have to be risked.
I think the benefit should be dramatic because (a) the costs and time to develop players is dramatic and (b) higher tier teams have a dramatic financial advantage due to the disparity of revenue between league levels. This makes the market fundamentally inequitable in a game where the goal is to climb a ladder. The top teams get the most money so they get the best players and stay on top indefinitely. Keeping some players off the market completely acts as a check on that.
In general, I don't think the game should be balanced around teams who don't scout and develop anymore than it should be balanced around teams who don't have a coach. Developing players should be a requirement for a certain level of success. Sure, you don't have to if you really don't want to, but your only going to get so far if you don't. A team that primarily relies on the market to supply its roster should find life difficult. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
a-darius I do not find this statement correct : "Now almost all top players never reach the market and that is not OK. So if there is a need for correction"
Why?
These strong players if they go on the market it is assumed that they will go to those few clubs that can spend. thus forming few all-star teams that raid the best talents of the poorest teams.
Consequently, no one wastes time and money to train a player that as soon as he goes on the market he loses him.
The current early renewal system works and must remain unchanged. These renewals are already limited in number by regulation. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
Why?
These strong players if they go on the market it is assumed that they will go to those few clubs that can spend. thus forming few all-star teams that raid the best talents of the poorest teams.
Consequently, no one wastes time and money to train a player that as soon as he goes on the market he loses him.
The current early renewal system works and must remain unchanged. These renewals are already limited in number by regulation. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
It is not an easy situation to figure out exactly how it all needs to work. However I want to say I know Administration will look at every angle and try to make the best choices for the game. They have an inherit investment to do so.
Thanks for listening to our points. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
Thanks for listening to our points. -- 81 sez. 11 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
what you did not take into account in your investigation Darius, that is why I ask you to continue in the limited market, that in practice much of that saving that you say is obtained, is lost because the wages that are paid at that stage many times They are much higher than the average, today many even mediocre players have several offers that raise their contracts a lot, so today the one who invests and trains is harmed and the one who only comes out to hire in the markets benefits. On top of that, many times later they fall into bankruptcy because they cannot afford those salaries, but the damage they have already done.
--
81 sez.
12 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
Maybe good suggestion will be to give 10% discount for extension if player played 8 seasons in club, but 20% if he played more?
--
81 sez.
12 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
Gudrioji Lape, if a player does not ask you for a 50 to 80% increase in his salary for the anticipated extension as happens now, a bonus would not be necessary
--
81 sez.
12 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
I just checked the top players Darius mentioned all the time and found that among the top 10 players in the game, eight are Chinese players, and among the top 30 players in the game, 17 are from China, which is more than the sum of other countries. I think before considering whether the strongest players should always play for a club, Darius should first consider why other countries can't produce so many excellent players. Don't we play the same game under the same rules? Why can't clubs in other countries cultivate their own players, but ask those clubs that have the ability to cultivate the best players to share their players? I can tell you that the best players can only be produced under the best system. These clubs have invested a lot of money and painstaking efforts. These clubs can enjoy the peak period of these excellent players with preferential prices, which is completely a financial sharing. During the growth period of these excellent players, the club's funds have already been injected into their careers. If these clubs can't control the best players, then these clubs can not invest the money and effort. I love the game, but I don't like the one-sided change of Darius. So far, if Darius continues to make such one-sided changes, I will run my club in a different way. I will show you that a good manager is different from others under any rule.
--
81 sez.
12 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
is that that is the point, you do not have to fill the market with good players, but rather that each team invest in scouts and form their own, there you see a good manager
--
81 sez.
12 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
You missed the point of the article. The article is not about changes we did or changes we plan to do. It is just an explanation of how the economics work in the game.
We do not change the direction of the game. The same economic model we use throughout the entire history of the game and we plan to maintain it in the future.
Even in game`s help section it is written that early extension is similar to market price:
“Players from scouts want to prolong contracts for average salary of similar players (also depends on contract length) and denominative player - for smaller than average salary. “
Now the average price is growing - so the early extension price is growing together with it.
And after reviewing the situation (by your request) I have a completely opposite opinion about what changes are needed.
However right now the game is in transition period (creating less supertalents compared to previous version). So probably the best way would be to wait and let everything settle down a bit before doing any drastic changes -- 81 sez. 12 d.
We do not change the direction of the game. The same economic model we use throughout the entire history of the game and we plan to maintain it in the future.
Even in game`s help section it is written that early extension is similar to market price:
“Players from scouts want to prolong contracts for average salary of similar players (also depends on contract length) and denominative player - for smaller than average salary. “
Now the average price is growing - so the early extension price is growing together with it.
And after reviewing the situation (by your request) I have a completely opposite opinion about what changes are needed.
However right now the game is in transition period (creating less supertalents compared to previous version). So probably the best way would be to wait and let everything settle down a bit before doing any drastic changes -- 81 sez. 12 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
Geriausia sistema - uždirbti pinigai. Reiktų naujų rėmėjų ir fanų davimo sistemų. Arenos turėtų būti tobulinamos. Bilietų kainos reguliuojamos. Žaidėjai parduodami.
--
81 sez.
12 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
The only thing we ask managers who train youth to nurture our main team with them and not have to go to the markets is a little consideration in their renewals, because it is frustrating to work a player for several seasons and have to let him go because not salary can be paid. It is not something drastic
--
81 sez.
13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
https://www.basketpulse.com/cn/Player/2051309/descriptionDarius, can you explain how the player who almost gets the highest salary is explained by the average salary. You know, this player needs 29000 euros to renew his contract in advance. If the price is the same, no matter how you explain it, I will think you are attacking the club that trains the players. As I have said before, young players can't produce any value in training players, but they have started to receive high salaries. After more than ten seasons of training, do you still have to pay such a high salary? I say you can't be too one-sided. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
I have a couple suggestions. Most managers don't like the limited market and hate losing young talent on it.
1. Compensation if you lose a player. In the US, the NFL is king. When a football team loses a player to the market that team gets compensation. I suggest if a team loses a player on the limited, they get cash compensation equal to one years salary of the lost player.
2. Make it easier to trade players for young talent. Most managers know when they will have a tough time keeping a player. The current trade system makes it impossible to trade players for prospects. My suggestion is, instead of basing the rt match on current rt, base it on predicted rt. Also, base the wage match on what a player with that predicted rt would make.
This wouldn't eliminate player movement, but it would make it easier to move players a manager knows they will lose. Plus, it would give managers compensation for their investment if they do lose a player. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
1. Compensation if you lose a player. In the US, the NFL is king. When a football team loses a player to the market that team gets compensation. I suggest if a team loses a player on the limited, they get cash compensation equal to one years salary of the lost player.
2. Make it easier to trade players for young talent. Most managers know when they will have a tough time keeping a player. The current trade system makes it impossible to trade players for prospects. My suggestion is, instead of basing the rt match on current rt, base it on predicted rt. Also, base the wage match on what a player with that predicted rt would make.
This wouldn't eliminate player movement, but it would make it easier to move players a manager knows they will lose. Plus, it would give managers compensation for their investment if they do lose a player. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Just to clarify my above suggestion, the compensation funds for losing a player wouldn't come from the team signing the player. It would come from basketpulse. This is key as forcing a signing team to pay additional cash would be prohibitive to player movement.
--
81 sez.
13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Hollywood :
tip number 1 is not feasible.
tip number 2 would be fair compensation for the club. a bit like what happens in the nba where to get Davies / Harden you have to give promising youngsters in exchange -- 81 sez. 13 d.
tip number 1 is not feasible.
tip number 2 would be fair compensation for the club. a bit like what happens in the nba where to get Davies / Harden you have to give promising youngsters in exchange -- 81 sez. 13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Extension prices weren't increased on purpose. It increases because extending was too cheap and was considered a bug that many exploited for a quite long time. Now when it is patched and reflects real prices of a player - we complain. Those prices are from the market to similar players (taking in the account not only current RT of a player, but also it's future prediction of potential and RT).
Majority has to understand that prices were not increased to do so on purpose but it was a bug fix. All the crazy offers some players receive during free/limited market adds to increased prices of those extension.
And I will repeat myself for the third time - it wasn't increased on purpose, it was done by fixing a bug.
So please stop attacking administration for a wrong reason. Article was written to explain how economics work in this game, not to ask suggestions on how economics should be run in it. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
Majority has to understand that prices were not increased to do so on purpose but it was a bug fix. All the crazy offers some players receive during free/limited market adds to increased prices of those extension.
And I will repeat myself for the third time - it wasn't increased on purpose, it was done by fixing a bug.
So please stop attacking administration for a wrong reason. Article was written to explain how economics work in this game, not to ask suggestions on how economics should be run in it. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
Spaudos konferencijos žinutė paslėpta (federacijos savanorio arba administratoriaus)
--
81 sez.
13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
HeyHoudini
From now on, I will not say even one more word about this shit like economic policy. You can cover it up in any way, and I will have my countermeasures. I'll see you on the court. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
From now on, I will not say even one more word about this shit like economic policy. You can cover it up in any way, and I will have my countermeasures. I'll see you on the court. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
It costs a lot of time and money to train a player. In real life, clubs spend a lot of money on training youth teams, because they can sell players to make money. But in BP, once a player enters the restricted market and is bought by other teams, it means that all the previous investment is gone. GM should consider how to protect these training clubs.Unfortunately, GM is moving in the opposite direction. If no player is willing to train players in the future, the price of players will only be higher
--
81 sez.
13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
Fourkings,
I understand disappointment, but it wasn't done to hurt users. Increased prices are basically fault of managers that waste huge money in the market. That's why extentions prices has so dramatic increase after a bug was fixed. In the end, this is rough times for everyone as transition period is going through. After it is over and managers understand that their market decisions effect everyone, situation with salaries should bring some stability and crazy spendings will go down. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
I understand disappointment, but it wasn't done to hurt users. Increased prices are basically fault of managers that waste huge money in the market. That's why extentions prices has so dramatic increase after a bug was fixed. In the end, this is rough times for everyone as transition period is going through. After it is over and managers understand that their market decisions effect everyone, situation with salaries should bring some stability and crazy spendings will go down. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Maybe it would be right when you do not have players from your academy, to pay a good enough salary to the team that trained.
--
81 sez.
13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
movida - with regard to my suggestion to financially compensate clubs losing players on the limited market, I disagree. IRL this is what happens when pro teams lose players to free agency, restricted or not. IMHO Compensation and altering the trade system would not only give managers a tool to avoid losing guys for nothing, but also give them something for the time and effort that manager put into scouting and development. -- 81 sez. 13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Houdini,
" After it is over and managers understand that their market decisions effect everyone, " So as long as couple of users splash a lot of money in free market we're struck on this? -- 81 sez. 13 d.
" After it is over and managers understand that their market decisions effect everyone, " So as long as couple of users splash a lot of money in free market we're struck on this? -- 81 sez. 13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
As Always Will be some Crazy wage offer Is It so hard to exclude couple of higher offers and couple of lower offers for calcolate the medium average for similar players?
--
81 sez.
13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
The big issue is that these days there's a quite some tams who buy serious amounts of ingame money with credits. They can and do pay every price in the market, rising prices for everyone. This is something that is not reflected in the description of the economic model above. As long as huge amounts of money are pumped into the game by some of these bigtime buyers, all others will suffer.
--
81 sez.
14 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+16
RaZeev: yes we know that BasketPulse has this feature. This is one of the reasons why you and others can still play this game.We have about 1000 users who play daily and only a few of them buy money.
And as recently we increased credits prices - we have even less money purchases now.
So I believe that this “unfairness” is a “fair” price to pay to have this game available for everyone.
And the impact to the market is very small. Average salary is calculated from at least 20 similar players/coaches. So one or two bigger offers affect average salary insignificantly. -- 81 sez. 14 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Darius - please explain how average rate is calculated. Because filtering similar players and comparing them to average rate does not match at all. So better understanding how it works would help a lot.
--
81 sez.
14 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
Is it true? Do you have less income than you had before price incresement? Then it's your mistake. I'm sad, because I told you about this possibility before changes. I wish this is temporary situation and you will get more income lately. Otherwise, new marketing strategy could be useful.
--
81 sez.
14 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
Average salary is based on offers from the market's history of the past few seasons.
It is calculated from at least 20 similar players/coaches. If the number of similar players is not enough - then it calculates again with broadened range until at least 20 similar records are found.
This method has a few issues. One of them is that now we look at the final offer the player chose. In many cases that includes the discount based on the situation - scouted/sectors/country (can be even ~50%).
If we only looked at free market history where we have a bit less discounts - we would get bigger average salaries. But there is another problem - too little data.
Probably in the future we will increase the average salary to be closer to the free market numbers (not the restricted market) and apply more bonuses for early extensions. -- 81 sez. 16 d.
It is calculated from at least 20 similar players/coaches. If the number of similar players is not enough - then it calculates again with broadened range until at least 20 similar records are found.
This method has a few issues. One of them is that now we look at the final offer the player chose. In many cases that includes the discount based on the situation - scouted/sectors/country (can be even ~50%).
If we only looked at free market history where we have a bit less discounts - we would get bigger average salaries. But there is another problem - too little data.
Probably in the future we will increase the average salary to be closer to the free market numbers (not the restricted market) and apply more bonuses for early extensions. -- 81 sez. 16 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Thanks! Early extension prices are way too low it needs to be increased ASAP!!!
--
81 sez.
16 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Palme: Early extension prices are not way too low, they probably were before the bug was fixed.
Now the price is correct for me. Because we are talking about players taken from very young, and left to grow even for 10 seasons. The savings on early extension offsets the expenses incurred to take young people and raise them -- 81 sez. 16 d.
Now the price is correct for me. Because we are talking about players taken from very young, and left to grow even for 10 seasons. The savings on early extension offsets the expenses incurred to take young people and raise them -- 81 sez. 16 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
a-darius Above you explained how average salary is calculated. Could you also explain how minimum salary is calculated?
--
81 sez.
16 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Ok, I need clear example to understand - signing 24y 8pot C for 5 years which players he is compared to?
Why I am asking - I think that signing 2y deal his salary should compared to 25y players, 3y-26y and etc. Now I feel that is calculated to average salary after 5 years. This could explain why now contracts are the same for all periods and why they are so high. -- 81 sez. 16 d.
Why I am asking - I think that signing 2y deal his salary should compared to 25y players, 3y-26y and etc. Now I feel that is calculated to average salary after 5 years. This could explain why now contracts are the same for all periods and why they are so high. -- 81 sez. 16 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
Movida
Yeah, I was joking man. Players are talking about how the extensions are unfriendly with them and the game admin comes and says that they are too low and it needs to be fixex. Lol. Clearly it's a dead end when it comes to communication in bpulse :) -- 81 sez. 16 d.
Yeah, I was joking man. Players are talking about how the extensions are unfriendly with them and the game admin comes and says that they are too low and it needs to be fixex. Lol. Clearly it's a dead end when it comes to communication in bpulse :) -- 81 sez. 16 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
I thing that the trade market must be improoved with the pottential trades of a player for player+future draft pik like the actual NBA system. The value of the draft could be free or less than the 50% of the traded player value
--
81 sez.
31 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
actually, the rating criteria in trades could be replaced or complemented with player's future max rating and salary differences increased
--
81 sez.
32 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
Man tik nelogiška, kodėl minimali alga senukams nemažėja ir kodėl min alga nemažėja žaidėjui, kurio niekas nenupiko ir jis vėl bando laimę laisvų agentų rinkoje.
--
88 sez.
63 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+11
Faktas, kad su minimalia alga yra nesąmonė. Jeigu žaidėjo niekas neperka už jo minimalią algą, tai jis kaip pvz. sekančią dieną turėtų ateiti į rinką su kokia 5-10 proc. mažesne minimalia alga. Ir taip kasdien.. Nes man net ir gaila dabar, kaip koks resursų švaistymas, žaidėjas nustumiamas į užmarštį, nes jo niekas nenupirko, nes minimali alga nesikeičia..
--
89 sez.
2 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
Some of the smaller communities, such as ours, lose the local players that we scout because extending is too expensive. Maybe you could have the players extend contract with the team they were scouted by for a little cheaper? This will encourage people to train players from scouts more and not just chase Lithuanian or Chinese players in the market don't you think? Which would also lead to a more competitive atmosphere in the national teams in my opinion.
--
89 sez.
2 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
Praėjo 5metai, ironiška, bet per tokį laikotarpį niekas nebuvo padaryta iš išvardinto sąrašo :D
--
110 sez.
13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Tai niekas ir neturėjo būti padaryta. Čia yra paaiškinimai kodėl to nežadama daryti, tai nelabai suprantu ko tu tikėjaisi. :D
--
110 sez.
13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Apribotųjų rinkos metu taip pat rodyti ir žaidėjus iš laisvųjų rinkos. Su šiais žaidėjais būtų lengviau pasirašyti kontraktą, kadangi nebūtų "dabartinės komandos", kuri galėtų "permušti" jūsų pasiūlymą.
2. Kuomet į žaidimą pridėsime "specialius žaidėjų įgūdžius", daugiau skirtingų žaidėjų bus sukurta. Ir šitaip daugiau žaidėjų taip pat atsiras rinkoje. Keli pavyzdžiai:
Kai kurie žaidėjai visada rinktųsi didžiausią pasiūlymą (jokių nuolaidų, jokių išankstinių pratęsimų)
Kai kurie žaidėjai būtų labai lojalūs ir duotų didesnę nuolaidą savo klubui
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų žaisti savo gimtojoje šalyje ir už tai duotų didesnę nuolaidą
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų žaisti aukštesnėse lygose
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų kovoti dėl titulo
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų žaisti kiek įmanoma daugiau minučių -- 110 sez. 13 d.
2. Kuomet į žaidimą pridėsime "specialius žaidėjų įgūdžius", daugiau skirtingų žaidėjų bus sukurta. Ir šitaip daugiau žaidėjų taip pat atsiras rinkoje. Keli pavyzdžiai:
Kai kurie žaidėjai visada rinktųsi didžiausią pasiūlymą (jokių nuolaidų, jokių išankstinių pratęsimų)
Kai kurie žaidėjai būtų labai lojalūs ir duotų didesnę nuolaidą savo klubui
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų žaisti savo gimtojoje šalyje ir už tai duotų didesnę nuolaidą
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų žaisti aukštesnėse lygose
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų kovoti dėl titulo
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų žaisti kiek įmanoma daugiau minučių -- 110 sez. 13 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Rodyti paslėptus atsakymus: 106
Manau, kad galetu buti isimciu zaidejams laisvu agentu rinkoje, kuriais noekas nesidomejo, kad kaskart grizis i rinka ju kaina sumazetu 20%. Daug zaideju, kurie galetu dar zaisti zemesnese lygose tampa nereikalingi. Aisku ne visiems idomu zaisti zemam lygy, bet cia irgi galetu buti special skill.
--
110 sez.
14 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Toks vaizdas, kad žaidėjai norėdami patekt į laisvą rinką turi iššokt iš lėktuvo be parašiuto palyginus jų įgūdžius prieš ir po
--
110 sez.
14 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
1.1
I think there should be exception for FA(free agents) to join a team for 20% lower salary, team must be competing for promotion(top 10 in RT at its WL, or 90% Winrate within first 10 games minimum), so they could submit lower salary offer but for that single season max. So in theory player could raise his CV and it would be beneficial for team. It should be allowed 1 player per team per 2 seasons etc. This could work in my eyes.
--
110 sez.
14 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
+0
+0
+0
+0