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

[Tactician]

The cost to renew a player's contract is expensive; it is required to pay an amount (so called bonus) equivalent to 10% the value of the player. The contract length is only 2 years.

The total amount required for renewing a group of players contracts which are about to expire is a significant amount.

The increase in wage is also too much.

[Gert Funck]

The cost to renew a player's contract is very expensive; it is required to pay an amount (so called bonus) equivalent to the value of the player. This is unrealistic.

I agree, this should only be the case when signing/buying a new player, not on renewal of contract.

As it is now it is 10% extremely expensive

[Tactician]

I agree, this should only be the case when signing/buying a new player, not on renewal of contract.

As it is now it is 10% extremely expensive

Like it is now, renewing a player's contract is as if buying the player again from the market. Maybe this is why many users sell their players after 2 seasons and buy other players.

[Buffs Mad]

I agree the Contract length is a problem since I think it should run from the day after it was due to expire. eg if I want to renew my players contracts on Day 28 or the following Day 1 or up to Day 6 or whatever it should be the same term i.e. from Day 1. (I'm happy to pay a little bit extra on Day 28 or before to avoid the 2/3* replacements. )

My gut reaction to the signing on fee is that its a non-issue at lower levels and it's not actually the real issue at higher levels, where I suspect its the imbalance between MV and wages that causes a problem.

But, I'd like to see some numbers rather than guess.

Unfortunately, I need another player to complete a true picture with the numbers, but at my level (18) there is no real difference between renewing a young fast training OOC 5* player and selling him to buy an equivalent new one.

The cost of renewing the contracts of 5 players at my level is a significant amount (and I have) but it is no more significant than replacing them like for like.

[HoofDaddy]

The game centres around token use, ofc they will encourage use of them.

[Gert Funck]

The game centres around token use, ofc they will encourage use of them.

this has nothing to do with tokens

[Tactician]

this has nothing to do with tokens

It will if the user has not enough money (and don't know or don't want to use free signings as a source of revenue), but he wants to keep his current players who their current contract have expired or are about to expire. And, even if the user let the players go, he will have to buy other decent players from the market.

[Gert Funck]

I agree the Contract length is a problem since I think it should run from the day after it was due to expire. eg if I want to renew my players contracts on Day 28 or the following Day 1 or up to Day 6 or whatever it should be the same term i.e. from Day 1. (I'm happy to pay a little bit extra on Day 28 or before to avoid the 2/3* replacements. )

My gut reaction to the signing on fee is that its a non-issue at lower levels and it's not actually the real issue at higher levels, where I suspect its the imbalance between MV and wages that causes a problem.

But, I'd like to see some numbers rather than guess.

[Buffs Mad]

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.

[Gert Funck]

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