Crazy idea here.......
How about we ELIMINATE GLB'S FINANCIAL SYSTEM ENTIRELY...WAMMO, problem solved
How about we ELIMINATE GLB'S FINANCIAL SYSTEM ENTIRELY...WAMMO, problem solved
vetsgt02
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catch22
No.
Thanks alright I have nothing left to bitch abotu i can make do with anything else I just did nto want to lose my pretend money I spent forever building up
No.
Thanks alright I have nothing left to bitch abotu i can make do with anything else I just did nto want to lose my pretend money I spent forever building up
Deathblade
offline
offline
Originally posted by vetsgt02
look who is crying now LOL
Who's whining? I'm simply pointing out flaws in the system...not like any of it effects me, I've quit playing this game with the intent to compete a long time ago.
look who is crying now LOL
Who's whining? I'm simply pointing out flaws in the system...not like any of it effects me, I've quit playing this game with the intent to compete a long time ago.
Yes and you have a salary cap but yet you have no control over the salaries players are being paid...makes perfect sense to me!
blln4lyf
offline
offline
Originally posted by Catch22
5) There will be a salary cap and set salaries. The salary cap will be based on the average incoming team revenue for that league. Things that count towards incoming team revenue include but is not limited to: Ticket Sales, Concessions and Media Revenue. Salaries will be determined based on three criteria:
--Effective Level
--Skill Point Value
--Position
Teams will only negotiate contract length and whether or not there is a no trade clause when signing/re-signing players. If a team goes over the salary cap, they will be unable to sign any new players. Bort will be figuring out the set salary amounts within the next two weeks and we will publish that information as soon as he has done so.
WOW. You can not be serious. If I am reading this right teams will not be able to sign too many "elite" dots?? This would by far be the worst implementation ever, you can't tell people where to sign there dots. WOW.
5) There will be a salary cap and set salaries. The salary cap will be based on the average incoming team revenue for that league. Things that count towards incoming team revenue include but is not limited to: Ticket Sales, Concessions and Media Revenue. Salaries will be determined based on three criteria:
--Effective Level
--Skill Point Value
--Position
Teams will only negotiate contract length and whether or not there is a no trade clause when signing/re-signing players. If a team goes over the salary cap, they will be unable to sign any new players. Bort will be figuring out the set salary amounts within the next two weeks and we will publish that information as soon as he has done so.
WOW. You can not be serious. If I am reading this right teams will not be able to sign too many "elite" dots?? This would by far be the worst implementation ever, you can't tell people where to sign there dots. WOW.
Catch22
offline
offline
Originally posted by sigepmagicmike
I would really like an answer to this if you guys have one before I head to bed. It would be appreciated.
You'd probably have to either continue playing him if he's inactive or make roster decisions to get your team under the cap.
I would really like an answer to this if you guys have one before I head to bed. It would be appreciated.
You'd probably have to either continue playing him if he's inactive or make roster decisions to get your team under the cap.
ChicagoTRS
offline
offline
april fools right?
so now we are limited to what players we can have on our teams?
lol...i was one of the few 100% behind the originally proposed changes...put me on the rage quit side now...
Originally posted by Bort
Ok...so what would you do? Allow super teams? Allow people to go over the salary cap but have a luxury tax?
Allow teams to stay together and fill their roster how they see fit.
Depending on where the salary cap floor is and how much it ends up restricting how we can build our rosters...you are basically going to have waves of development teams sweeping into the top leagues and dominating until they hit decline.
awful idea...come on...don't wimp out...just go with your original plan!
so now we are limited to what players we can have on our teams?
lol...i was one of the few 100% behind the originally proposed changes...put me on the rage quit side now...
Originally posted by Bort
Ok...so what would you do? Allow super teams? Allow people to go over the salary cap but have a luxury tax?
Allow teams to stay together and fill their roster how they see fit.
Depending on where the salary cap floor is and how much it ends up restricting how we can build our rosters...you are basically going to have waves of development teams sweeping into the top leagues and dominating until they hit decline.
awful idea...come on...don't wimp out...just go with your original plan!
Edited by ChicagoTRS on Apr 16, 2010 23:35:23
sjmay
offline
offline
Originally posted by David Stern
I Hated the fact morale/conf was tied into salary, but that was playable, and a strategy. This just destroys the dynamic of the game.
Glb's biggest strength is its community based MMO enviroment. Change #5 completely destroys that, and makes this game absolutely worthless.
I was arguing in favor of the original change, not the revision....
I like the idea of a salary cap mind you.
I Hated the fact morale/conf was tied into salary, but that was playable, and a strategy. This just destroys the dynamic of the game.
Glb's biggest strength is its community based MMO enviroment. Change #5 completely destroys that, and makes this game absolutely worthless.
I was arguing in favor of the original change, not the revision....
I like the idea of a salary cap mind you.
Deathblade
offline
offline
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.
The only possible way I can think of "luxury tax" being a deterrent, is if it put a maximum cap on chemistry. Obviously wouldn't make any realistic sense, but would bring the from-scratch super teams in line with other teams.
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.
The only possible way I can think of "luxury tax" being a deterrent, is if it put a maximum cap on chemistry. Obviously wouldn't make any realistic sense, but would bring the from-scratch super teams in line with other teams.
Dpride59
offline
offline
Originally posted by FBGProfessor
To be fair, a salary cap is hardly forcing people where to play. Again I ask, is it really that big of a deal if you play with 45 of your best internet buddies instead of 55? I mean, do you really have that many close friends here?
Or is it really about networks and alliances and gaming the system?
The best players for each team are already made. You realize what this means right?
I just get my best 55 on the teams they are made for right now, and when you get your team to the wl, you never get to compete vs us because you can't recruit a good enough roster to compete with me.
So my "network" which has already filled my teams with the dots since they were level 32 crushes you and you can never recruit to compete with me because it would put you over the cap.
GL man
To be fair, a salary cap is hardly forcing people where to play. Again I ask, is it really that big of a deal if you play with 45 of your best internet buddies instead of 55? I mean, do you really have that many close friends here?
Or is it really about networks and alliances and gaming the system?
The best players for each team are already made. You realize what this means right?
I just get my best 55 on the teams they are made for right now, and when you get your team to the wl, you never get to compete vs us because you can't recruit a good enough roster to compete with me.
So my "network" which has already filled my teams with the dots since they were level 32 crushes you and you can never recruit to compete with me because it would put you over the cap.
GL man
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.
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.
Staz
offline
offline
Originally posted by jbleich
Yeah maybe Eff Level isnt the way to go......
I suggested performance/fame, but the easy exploit would be just to sand bag your stats. How else do we get the "you perform well, you get paid more" type thing you see in professional sports?
Yeah maybe Eff Level isnt the way to go......
I suggested performance/fame, but the easy exploit would be just to sand bag your stats. How else do we get the "you perform well, you get paid more" type thing you see in professional sports?
Sarg01
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bort
Ok...so what would you do? Allow super teams? Allow people to go over the salary cap but have a luxury tax?
Personally, I thought you were on the right track by encouraging players to look out for number 1. I can understand backing off in the face of the opposition though.
The issue you have to deal with is it's human nature to prefer winning to losing unless there's some benefit to you playing for the loser.
Rewards apart from winning include:
Decorations on player page (trophies, etc)
Improved performance (this could get to be a mess, though)
Recognition/ranking systems (so that agents want to move up the charts)
Ok...so what would you do? Allow super teams? Allow people to go over the salary cap but have a luxury tax?
Personally, I thought you were on the right track by encouraging players to look out for number 1. I can understand backing off in the face of the opposition though.
The issue you have to deal with is it's human nature to prefer winning to losing unless there's some benefit to you playing for the loser.
Rewards apart from winning include:
Decorations on player page (trophies, etc)
Improved performance (this could get to be a mess, though)
Recognition/ranking systems (so that agents want to move up the charts)
My concern is not regarding team's ability to merge. I think that is essentially collusion and should never have been allowed.
My concern is with a team that is built from the ground up (level 1 to level 60+) and built very well. In this system, does such a team need to plan to build fewer players since the cap will hurt them as the players mature? Should they intentionally build slightly above average players but not real good players simply to avoid the cap penalties and the risk of going broke?
My concern is with a team that is built from the ground up (level 1 to level 60+) and built very well. In this system, does such a team need to plan to build fewer players since the cap will hurt them as the players mature? Should they intentionally build slightly above average players but not real good players simply to avoid the cap penalties and the risk of going broke?
Originally posted by Catch22
You'd probably have to either continue playing him if he's inactive or make roster decisions to get your team under the cap.
So basically you are telling me because one player went inactive I would have to cut players who have stuck with the team just so I can fill the void at one position? This is absurd.
You'd probably have to either continue playing him if he's inactive or make roster decisions to get your team under the cap.
So basically you are telling me because one player went inactive I would have to cut players who have stuck with the team just so I can fill the void at one position? This is absurd.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
