Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Thema: »[info]DevDiary 80: “Price is what you pay, value is what
Obviously you don't consider yourself that affected by these changes, so you just don't give a shit.
Or you're just trolling...
For a substitute player, that you just need for a few weeks and that did cost 20M, you now will lose 5M. That really IS insane.
The devs claim that they want to motivate users to compete for titles and then they make it harder and harder to finance a team on that level.
They try to fix one thing and break another.
They should have increased the tax depending on how often someone trades.
Or you're just trolling...
For a substitute player, that you just need for a few weeks and that did cost 20M, you now will lose 5M. That really IS insane.
The devs claim that they want to motivate users to compete for titles and then they make it harder and harder to finance a team on that level.
They try to fix one thing and break another.
They should have increased the tax depending on how often someone trades.
For a substitute player, that you just need for a few weeks and that did cost 20M, you now will lose 5M. That really IS insane.
just sell the other one that he was substituting after he gets out of red card/injury, problem solved.
if someone has free 20m euro for buying one sub, then yeah, it's hard to consider it a problem :-P
I do agree though that this new tax should concern mostly younger (u28 etc.) players, it is hard as it is at highest level.
just sell the other one that he was substituting after he gets out of red card/injury, problem solved.
if someone has free 20m euro for buying one sub, then yeah, it's hard to consider it a problem :-P
I do agree though that this new tax should concern mostly younger (u28 etc.) players, it is hard as it is at highest level.
The devs claim that they want to motivate users to compete for titles and then they make it harder and harder to finance a team on that level
Users can always slightly reduce the destined final team level to be able to finance it. Which means that the idea itself is good in general.
Users can always slightly reduce the destined final team level to be able to finance it. Which means that the idea itself is good in general.
It's not possible if you want to win
If you have 2 opponents playing for 84 you can't limit your team to 75 rating and hope to win trophies
If you have 2 opponents playing for 84 you can't limit your team to 75 rating and hope to win trophies
I know that it is impossible in the scenario you described, but I am talking about situation when the other 2 would also have to lower the power of squad to be able to finance it.
Such situation won't be possible as long as it is possible to gather hundreds of millions and have a short term plan to play at max potential for 2-4 seasons and then sell out because the team and money pile will burn out.
In big, strong countries like Poland you either have to go at max possible level, or you won't win.
In smaller countries with lower demands, yeah, it is possible.
In big, strong countries like Poland you either have to go at max possible level, or you won't win.
In smaller countries with lower demands, yeah, it is possible.
Yes, I am aware of the fact that as long as users can easily gather infinite amount of money the scenario is impossible but I would like to see it one day because the whole idea of gathering money, excessive trading etc. is caused by that fact.
No I wasn’t trolling and it affects me like everyone else but everyone always resorts to calling people such when they have a different perspective (usually because they can’t see past their own).
You say it costs you 5M for a 20M player that you bring in for one match or two. I was pointing out that it previously cost 2M anyway in such a case and hence was only looking at added costs hence the 3M.
Realistically when would you pay 20M to bring a player in for a few matches? Obviously if you have 20M to spend on that and then resell someone of that calibre you’re not too bad off. A more realistic scenario for a filler
Is probably closer to 5M which costs you 1.25M of which only 750K is added. Again 750K in most scenarios is one maybe 2 home matches in the league. If it’s not then you’re probably not paying 5M for a filler to resell in a few weeks anyway.
If you want to talk about not effecting myself, we already have a transfer tax in Australia that Europe doesn’t get. It’s called a time zone difference. Australian users and other southern hemisphere nations in similar scenarios almost always overpay for players because we can’t be online when their deadlines are or else we’re fighting amongst ourselves for the only player in our time slot and that’s rare. Similarly when we sell we often can’t sell for much profit because again our time zone limits when we can sell. So don’t tell me I don’t get your viewpoint. I’m simply saying it’s been a clear dev intention to reduce the amount of money in the game and to also reduce the amount of perfect players that teams can afford. Maybe they could have adjusted it by age such that older players weren’t impacted by the tax hike but I swear in most cases you won’t notice it unless you’re one of those players they are trying to target with this.
You say it costs you 5M for a 20M player that you bring in for one match or two. I was pointing out that it previously cost 2M anyway in such a case and hence was only looking at added costs hence the 3M.
Realistically when would you pay 20M to bring a player in for a few matches? Obviously if you have 20M to spend on that and then resell someone of that calibre you’re not too bad off. A more realistic scenario for a filler
Is probably closer to 5M which costs you 1.25M of which only 750K is added. Again 750K in most scenarios is one maybe 2 home matches in the league. If it’s not then you’re probably not paying 5M for a filler to resell in a few weeks anyway.
If you want to talk about not effecting myself, we already have a transfer tax in Australia that Europe doesn’t get. It’s called a time zone difference. Australian users and other southern hemisphere nations in similar scenarios almost always overpay for players because we can’t be online when their deadlines are or else we’re fighting amongst ourselves for the only player in our time slot and that’s rare. Similarly when we sell we often can’t sell for much profit because again our time zone limits when we can sell. So don’t tell me I don’t get your viewpoint. I’m simply saying it’s been a clear dev intention to reduce the amount of money in the game and to also reduce the amount of perfect players that teams can afford. Maybe they could have adjusted it by age such that older players weren’t impacted by the tax hike but I swear in most cases you won’t notice it unless you’re one of those players they are trying to target with this.
Please help.
So today, Wednesday, I have two players with 7-day injuries:
Interesting that one can play today but the other can't!
[url=https://ibb.co/v1JmzV9][/url]
The problem is here:
[url=https://ibb.co/mS0y7C4][/url]
In tomorrow's update, will Viskari receive training or will he still be injured?
I know that in morning update skills increase and after it they might decrease, that's why it makes no sense to give training in Superdivine skills.
But what about Injuries? First the training and then the treatment or vice versa?
(Edith war hier)
(Edith war hier)
So today, Wednesday, I have two players with 7-day injuries:
Interesting that one can play today but the other can't!
[url=https://ibb.co/v1JmzV9][/url]
The problem is here:
[url=https://ibb.co/mS0y7C4][/url]
In tomorrow's update, will Viskari receive training or will he still be injured?
I know that in morning update skills increase and after it they might decrease, that's why it makes no sense to give training in Superdivine skills.
But what about Injuries? First the training and then the treatment or vice versa?
(Edith war hier)
(Edith war hier)
They won't received training. Which is absurd in case of that Viskari guy because he can play in the match today.
Receiving / not receiving training should be compatible with new view.
Possibility to play in the match should be compatible with old view.
Why it is still unfixed and when that injury days mark will be consistent no one knows.
Receiving / not receiving training should be compatible with new view.
Possibility to play in the match should be compatible with old view.
Why it is still unfixed and when that injury days mark will be consistent no one knows.
Weird. How it is even possible?
The player who is able to play today won't receive training tomorrow?
The player who is able to play today won't receive training tomorrow?
So they can't fix injury bugs wich Raul said they will fix asap, but they introduce shitty taxes with wishes of a happy new year!
Great job, thx devs, keep doing this genius updates without even saying any word.
Lol.
Great job, thx devs, keep doing this genius updates without even saying any word.
Lol.
They say they want more competitive sokker and less corner tactics sokker?
Yeah, sure
Yeah, sure
just sell the other one that he was substituting after he gets out of red card/injury, problem solved.
Yes, this will become the norm and it's super boring.
You won't have club legends, just random names that you replace with other random names staying in the team until their first injury before an important game.
Yes, this will become the norm and it's super boring.
You won't have club legends, just random names that you replace with other random names staying in the team until their first injury before an important game.