Results 1 to 10 of 18
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: One Time Bonus For Renewing Player's Contract Is Too Expensive

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    VIP Buffs Mad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Gert Funck View Post
    One Time Bonus For Renewing Player's Contract Is Too Expensive-2015-07-28-20_36_54-start.jpg
    Thanks Gert. Clearly the bigger cash issue at your level is the balance between wages and value and the impact the 'rising' wages vs the 'almost-capped' Market Value.

    For me the signing on fee is a constant (with MV) and no more significant than TM buy and sell variations.


  2. #2
    VIP Gert Funck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffs Mad View Post
    Thanks Gert. Clearly the bigger cash issue at your level is the balance between wages and value and the impact the 'rising' wages vs the 'almost-capped' Market Value.

    For me the signing on fee is a constant (with MV) and no more significant than TM buy and sell variations.

    Wages is clearly the biggest issue, and this is extreme because a sell can only provide two players salary. That said, it seems that the two economical packs from Nordeus has tweaked the balance . but player value vs. wage is still wrong IMO
    Buffs Mad and Cat Harrison like this.
    __________________________________________________
    Groundhog Day visiting level - 58 -

    considering quitting, since nothing is improved for veterans ... nothing and pay to win has become to dominante

    FireCats is testing level - 36 -

  3. #3
    VIP Buffs Mad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Gert Funck View Post
    Wages is clearly the biggest issue, and this is extreme because a sell can only provide two players salary. That said, it seems that the two economical packs from Nordeus has tweaked the balance . but player value vs. wage is still wrong IMO
    +1 - but my point is the one time bonus signing on fee is a non-issue.

    As soon as someone at your level signs a player, any non-FA player from the TM, they lose money because of the imbalance between the wage rise and MV rise and this would remain the case even if the sign-on bonus was zero.....I think.

  4. #4
    Elite Tactician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Mauritius
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffs Mad View Post
    +1 - but my point is the one time bonus signing on fee is a non-issue.

    As soon as someone at your level signs a player, any non-FA player from the TM, they lose money because of the imbalance between the wage rise and MV rise and this would remain the case even if the sign-on bonus was zero.....I think.
    The wages for the new contracts are high also.

    Maybe, if we were given the option to negotiate the value of the new wage and the bonus, it would be better.

  5. #5
    VIP Buffs Mad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactician View Post
    The wages for the new contracts are high also.

    Maybe, if we were given the option to negotiate the value of the new wage and the bonus, it would be better.
    But at your level and a few levels below mine, you are getting what you pay for. That's the point. You won't experience the wage imbalance until you hit the Market Value capping. Your players MV will rise with Q as will their wages and bonus - they are fairly well balanced with relative increases.

    EDIT: movedthis bit because itmade no sense in para below >.<

    Costs a lot to renew but so does replacing. It does give you the choice of selling or renewing (a player who's performance is known) - management choice.

    If you compare the cost of replacing an equivalent player or renewing at your level then its not punitive. At Gert's its a big blow and its not the bonus.

    /EDIT

    At Gert's level (and mine to a very small extent) the MV hardly moves and the sign-on fee is relatively static but the wage increases.

    No idea how they could implement a negotiation mechanic without having some sort of penalty - if the player (by chance) rejects he might become ineligible to play/performance penalty/MV reduction etc. Its a nice idea but a minefield I think.
    Last edited by Buffs Mad; 07-29-2015 at 10:42 AM. Reason: moved text
    Cat Harrison likes this.

  6. #6
    VIP Gert Funck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffs Mad View Post
    ..
    I could add the impossibility to sell players resulting in extreme costly; ex 2 year contract => player value
    Buffs Mad and Cat Harrison like this.
    __________________________________________________
    Groundhog Day visiting level - 58 -

    considering quitting, since nothing is improved for veterans ... nothing and pay to win has become to dominante

    FireCats is testing level - 36 -

  7. #7
    Elite Tactician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Mauritius
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffs Mad View Post
    But at your level and a few levels below mine, you are getting what you pay for. That's the point. You won't experience the wage imbalance until you hit the Market Value capping. Your players MV will rise with Q as will their wages and bonus - they are fairly well balanced with relative increases.

    At Gert's level (and mine to a very small extent) the MV hardly moves and the sign-on fee is relatively static but the wage increases. Costs a lot to renew but so does replacing. It does give you the choice of selling or renewing (a player who's performance is known) - management choice.

    If you compare the cost of replacing an equivalent player or renewing at your level then its not punitive. At Gert's its a big blow and its not the bonus.

    No idea how they could implement a negotiation mechanic without having some sort of penalty - if the player (by chance) rejects he might become ineligible to play/performance penalty/MV reduction etc. Its a nice idea but a minefield I think.
    If the player rejects, you can still offer a better contract.