Subject: [idea] Game economy

12 draft players (of similar quality)

Help them catch up with someone in their league? Maybe a little, but definitely not worth rewarding losing on purpose.

Draft sounds not really related with football to me.
I also believe that this will bring another layer of complexity

I have no respect for "not like in real life" arguments, because this is a game.
The idea is to give every manager a good chance to build one of the best teams. That is also not related to real football at all.
If you want it realistic, give me more money so I can stay at the top forever :D

I does add more complexity, but I don't think it's too scary.
The special contract might be confusing.
The draft itself is simple, but even if you don't make the list you would get a random draft player.

Same as other elements that need to be fixed according to new calendar - like injuries or training speed.

Probably best use will be tickets prices adjustment, but hard to say about direct value - i think it will be verified during tests.

Its another touchpoint where we can fix a bit game ecomomy.

Probably best use will be tickets prices adjustment

Good point. Sponsors for leagues positions too, there are very poor compare to the money and wages spend.

But its seem to be a fix for a false problem. Trading/training is much more valuable than any challenges, we dont gain (or loose) much money for challenging.

This could be fixed for this changes :

1) Stopping High frequency trading (priority to arcade "bug"...). Also see all these trading limitation proposals
2) Fixing farming. Farming is typically cause by the training system. The future "new system" will never fix that since we are limited to 10 full training, farming strategy is again a good candidate to optimize training.
3) Fixing price inflation. 1) and 2) is a good start... Increasing the numbers of skilled Youngs on market will reduce prices at the root, taxes on capital gain in trading...


(edited)

How do you want to fix farming?

By taxing money kept on the bank, no ?

That's not fixing farming but discouraging money grubbing.

fixing farming? well ....

1) fixing price inflation and HF Trading for the solutions given can already fix "farming" (less profits, less reasons to farm)

2) The (old and next) training system is the problem. We need - theoretically - a training system for 22 players to keep challenging by recycling at minimum your first team during time (due to the linear progression and regression).
Otherwise whatever you manage, we need trading and profit to recycle and here's the key point of problem : it's very very difficult to keep challenging (read: keeping your rating) and, at the same time, optimize training for profits ! That' why farming "works".

My little solution is to reduce specific training, and increase G.T for all players who play (maybe max 22 players). In that case, "farming" will be less profitable because farmers use specific training on "youngs" (26y and less) to maximize profit when challenging teams can't do that.

Another solution, players ask more salary the longer they are wirh a club, apart from higher salary because of better trained skills. In rl players also earn more when contracts are renewed. Sokker doesn't have contracts but does have years that players are with the same team.

So for example each year 10% extra costs for first division, 5% for second division, 2% for third division.

This way more money will leave the game, specially form highest clubs owning the most expensive players who get more expensive over time (each year).


Make managers really think about their economy. Not only if I can afford to buy that player, but can I keep that player because of salary.
(edited)

Another solution, players ask more salary the longer they are with a club
That would mean the players would be sold earlier. Why would you keep a player that costs you more than the one you buy?

Or another solution, a player wants to more money the moment they play in a higher division.

For example player X has a salary of 30.000 euro in second division, a first division buys the player, now that player will have a salary of 1.5 times as much, 45.000 euro, simply because it is a higher league.

And each skill pop in second division will also cost less extra salary as a skill pop in first league.

That would mean the players would be sold earlier. Why would you keep a player that costs you more than the one you buy?

If the player is so good it will keep you in first league, then you have to pay for it.

Ofcourse you can buy another player, but the other also have to be sold.

(and I wrote this idea with in the back of my mind the idea of players not being willingly sold that easily)

Or; if the tactical discipline drops a lot when buying a new player, then you really have to choose. Do I want to keep the player even if this will cost me even more because it is the new season, or do I buy a player with a tactical discipline that drops a lot so he won't be as good as the other for quite some weeks (adjusting time)?

Something like that?

It could work if the tactical discipline would have higher impact on the game, i dont think it has at the moment.

I see no conception in the proposals. In RL player does not usually choose a new club that offers him worse financial conditions than the previous one.

dind't read all the discussion.

I think we need:
-to slow down the stadium income
-make a progressive transfer tax which increases when the player is resold shortly after purchase and goes to zero when it's resold after 2 seasons or more.