User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Game Changes Discussion > Proposed Changes > GLB Financial System Discussion
Page:
 
Bort
Admin
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Deathblade
Oh, you could make expected salaries based on fame as well...that way, the longer a player "sits on top", the harder he will be to keep on top with salary.


Play in AA for 7 seasons so you can go to Pro for peanuts.
 
Deathblade
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bort
Play in AA for 7 seasons so you can go to Pro for peanuts.


I know, thread was too srs so I figured I would throw out a stupid idea to lol @ people arguing it.

(and someone agreeing with it wtf?)
 
jdros13
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Deathblade
I know, thread was too srs so I figured I would throw out a stupid idea to lol @ people arguing it.

(and someone agreeing with it wtf?)


that would be me....which caused me to realize it is 3:30am and I need to go to bed
 
AngryDragon
offline
Link
 
I don't know where the salary check comes into play or if it still affects moral or not. I kind of think taking away from players builds is lame because they spent money to build their player. Why not give the owner or GMs the ability to give 4 players a moral bonus per game and they can't give the same player the bonus twice in a season. Make eq cheaper or free and put a done stamp on finances.
 
Deathblade
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by jdros13
that would be me....which caused me to realize it is 3:30am and I need to go to bed


me too, was going to have an early night...still gotta lift yet

damn u glb
 
Dpride59
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Deathblade
me too, was going to have an early night...still gotta lift yet

damn u glb


If we go to bed, will we wake up and find out no team can have more than 5 players with attributes over 82?

I am just sorta waiting for bort to change the op and make this official
 
Ahrens858
offline
Link
 
lifting those twinkies to your face does work.
 
Deathblade
offline
Link
 
But yeah, I like the current suggested changes. I'm sure hundreds of people will still be raging hard because they didn't read and/or didn't understand it (some people were raging because the finance changes were "trying to squeeze more money out of people"...really?), but yeah, I think it addresses a lot of the concerns people had.
 
Catch22
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by David Stern
If we go to bed, will we wake up and find out no team can have more than 5 players with attributes over 82?

I am just sorta waiting for bort to change the op and make this official


We're going to give people at least tomorrow, err today, to look over the things discussed in this thread and offer their input. I'll add Bort's suggested solution to the OP.
Edited by Catch22 on Apr 17, 2010 01:31:03
 
merenoise
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bort
I don't really care who or when it was talked about. It's irrelevant. I care about fixing it now.

All you're doing by making EQ cheaper is making money pointless because it's so easy to come by. Might as well make the upgrades free, which is what we've done in both the ideas we've had. I'd like to have a system that makes money actually meaningful.


Fixing the financial aspect was a great idea and something that was long overdue. The first set of changes announced last night were fresh and exciting. The watered down version being offered now just doesn't seem to do as much.

I was really excited about the changes last night, some of which impacted my team negatively and some which were positives. I understood that since it was just being announced it would probably be changed around slightly but I had hoped that it would keep the same basic form and substance. This revision doesn't seem to add much to the game whereas the first version seemed to add some strategic complexity and give users a bit more to do in the preseason which in my mind were both huge wins.
 
Dpride59
offline
Link
 


Originally posted by Ahrens858
lifting those twinkies to your face does work.


I always had him pegged as a cheeto guy
 
DTRAIN
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by DTRAIN
Originally posted by Bort

Originally posted by Deathblade


Take back this entire revision tbh

There was a reason salary cap was NGTH, and that's because it's impossible to wrinkle out the problems.

"Luxury tax" isn't going to do anything in this system, since the only thing people pay for is salaries, and teams that are dominating because they will be over the cap will be earning a higher income anyway since they will be winning.

Honestly, this "revision" is mindblowing.


Gotta have a system that disallows movement of money from teams to players permanently, or we just have all the cash farming type stuff going on, and people frustrated they can't afford equipment. Only way that's going to happen is if EQ doesn't get paid for in cash.

But we still gotta pay the players something...and the fact that they get paid something has to mean something, or there might as well not be salaries or money at all.

So, either the money means the players don't play as well with less money, get less stuff (and by proxy don't play as well), or it's a limiting factor as to who you can sign.

So the only remaining option is...to not have money at all any more? That sounds pretty lame.



dont know if this has been suggested.

when a player leaves a team....the players bankroll gets reset. you already have it set up that if your not on a team you cant really train, so the player doesnt need any cash until he gets on another team.

 
Catch22
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by merenoise
Fixing the financial aspect was a great idea and something that was long overdue. The first set of changes announced last night were fresh and exciting. The watered down version being offered now just doesn't seem to do as much.

I was really excited about the changes last night, some of which impacted my team negatively and some which were positives. I understood that since it was just being announced it would probably be changed around slightly but I had hoped that it would keep the same basic form and substance. This revision doesn't seem to add much to the game whereas the first version seemed to add some strategic complexity and give users a bit more to do in the preseason which in my mind were both huge wins.


We're likely going back to a revised version of the original idea.
 
Sik Wit It
offline
Link
 
Here's where I stand right now.

-I think the original idea was the best, and would ideally like to see that.
-My "reserve" morale idea was only proposed if you wanted to implement the original idea without the penalty, but bonuses instead. I'd still like the original idea better, although I think the morale reserve could work if done right. (In a way that wouldn't trivialize morale)
-Basing salaries off effective level is probably the worst course of action, and I expect you'll see a lot of backlash from it. This new proposed idea is literally the same thing we have now except with a salary cap. It adds no depth to the game, and actually restricts our options more-so than what we have now
-If there isn't a reasonable middle-ground to be found, I'd rather we just keep what we have now. I understand people not having time to deal with all these new features, but adding a salary cap and basing salary on how well-built a player is won't be good for the game. This new proposed change, as DB pointed out isn't even middle ground, it's just a step backward.

I'm probably not going to be in this thread as much until the morning, so I just wanted to get that out there.
Edited by Sik Wit It on Apr 17, 2010 01:33:38
 
Staz
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Catch22
We're likely going back to a revised version of the original idea.


Can we get that outlined once more? I'm assuming you read the issue with the "reserve"? I haven't skimmed through the pages since page 32 or so.
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.