المنتدى: الإنجليزية 
هذا هو منتدى النقاش العام للغة الإنجليزية . عندما تريد وضع مساهمة هنا يجب اتباع هذه اللغة . المساهمات بلغات أخرى سيتم حذفها .يتم النقاش هنا بخصوص عدة مواضيع . من فضلك ضع أخطائك في قسم الأخطاء التقنية . و فكر قليلا قبل كتابة المواضيع
الإنجليزية >> اقتراحات
Reducing the value of players by 80% (13)
1.Reducing the value of players by 80%
2.Sales to the bank up to the amount of 30 million.(actually € 22 935 780)
For what reason?
And why is that better than simply changing the minimum listing price?
better flatten the graph.
Currently, each player has a stake of € 458,716,000. After the changes, not everyone will succeed and it will be a more realistic valuation (it will be easier to sell players)
I'm not against the idea, but if the main reason is to make it easier to sell players then this can be done by changing the minimum listing price. This would be a simple change with very few consequences.
Reducing the player values by 80% would have a dramatic effect on the game far beyond making it much easier to sell players.
1. The smaller clubs who already struggle to sell players for the max bank value would see their player values drop. A player who was previously worth (say) 10 million would now be worth only 2 million. This would make it much harder for the smaller clubs to grow and pay for better facilities.
2. The middle tier of clubs who may get some of their players to the max bank value of 25 million would now be selling them for 5 million. These clubs would also find it much harder to earn money and grow by selling players.
3. The top clubs would be the least affected as they could still sell many of their players for the max bank value. Although it would also reduce their income as they would be able to sell fewer players at that value. Most likely some of them would find it too difficult to maintain their current facilities.
The end result would be far less money in the game - especially for the smaller clubs, and it would make it a even harder for them to catch up. This would seem very unfair if you were running a small club and already struggling to make money.
Stadium income would now account for a greater proportion of income as everyone would generate less money from selling players.
As I said I'm not personally against the idea, but all the potential consequences have to be considered. It's just not as simple as reducing all the player values.
Now you can sell your really bad player to bank https://rockingsoccer.com/pl/pilka+nozna/info/player-2086916
like my player https://rockingsoccer.com/pl/pilka+nozna/info/player-2080312
You think it's fair.
Communism is cancer
The game allows you to sell players to the bank for 80% of their market value up to a maximum of $25 million.
I chose to sell my player according to the rules. I'd be fairly sure that most of the current top clubs have sold similar players at some point in the past.
You chose to sell yours. No-one forced you. Please explain why that is unfair.
,,You chose to sell yours. No-one forced you. "
Do you understand what the cost of living is? I am forced to sell. You rob a bank by selling a scrap there.
You are a Marxist.
You get money that you don't deserve for free and you spoil the game economy.magically conjuring up money for nothing. )
If I remember correctly and from what I can see after my transfers, there was no magic bank in 2018
I have lost, you can say with the rest, a huge amount of cash that they are now giving away for selling crap players
Thank you.
Also, you didn't answer my question. Let's say we do reduce the prices, for the sake of the conversation. Why 80%? Why not 90%? 85%? 75%? How did you get to 80%? Please explain.
I mean it is kind of unfair that YC10s sell for the same ammount then YA3s to the bank , nobody wants YA3s anymore
Then again , nobody forced me to build YA3 :)
- You rob a bank.
- You are a Marxist.
- You get money that you don't deserve ...
- and you spoil the game economy.
- magically conjuring up money for nothing.
As I said previously I'm not against the idea. I thought we were having a sensible gentlemanly discussion.
Just wow.
-------
Exactly @Taavi.
What would be fair is that YC 10s can still be sold to the bank for the same amount as when everyone else had YC 10s.
When choosing to build YA 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. you do so with the full knowledge that the players can only be sold to the bank for $25 million.
You can't then build these facilities and then ask for the game to be changed retrospectively. Just because you now have better players - which you have paid for - shouldn't mean that other clubs behind you should now get less for theirs. That is what would be unfair.
In any event above the 25 million limit market forces dictate the values and YC 10, YA1 players are now worth less than before because there are so many better players available.
The mix of market forces (above 25 million) and allegedly Marxist economics (below 25 million) gives the game a good balance.
The top players are valued by the market while still allowing the smaller clubs to farm players and grow in the same way as the top clubs did when they were minnows. That to me seems pefectly reasonable.
,,Also, you didn't answer my question. Let's say we do reduce the prices, for the sake of the conversation. Why 80%? Why not 90%? 85%? 75%? How did you get to 80%? Please explain."
I calculated the player's value after the update to 80%. This gives you the opportunity to earn money for new and old players. There is also no need to change any mechanisms for listing players for specific amounts. One change in value improves all mechanisms. 90% is already too much for new players.
We can seek agreement between 70-85%.
Below 70%, the rest of the mechanisms must be changed, i.e. additional work ...
If not, you can always reparate the financial damage caused by the creation of magic banks thanks to which new players are fed with free money that the old clubs did not receive.
2 billion for every older club (over 3 years old) will be the appropriate amount for moral losses.
Fun fact: YS 10 lvl give more players so more money from magic bank :)