The auction house at level 30 is daft you've got players going for sale who are 30 year going for over 7000rp I simply cannot compete with that kind of spending. If you want players to have a commmunity I suggest you introduce a cap of somesort oftherwise the players who aren't spending big will be eventually priced out of the game haven't been able to get anyone with a reasonable rating at the at a sensible price for almost 2 seasons
a max anybody can spend on one player and once that cap has been reached nobody else can bid
07/01/17 08:55
07/01/17 09:00
It only gets worse, much worse.
07/01/17 13:43
Ashley Longthorn :
The auction house at level 30 is daft you've got players going for sale who are 30 year going for over 7000rp I simply cannot compete with that kind of spending. If you want players to have a commmunity I suggest you introduce a cap of somesort oftherwise the players who aren't spending big will be eventually priced out of the game haven't been able to get anyone with a reasonable rating at the at a sensible price for almost 2 seasons
The auction house at level 30 is daft you've got players going for sale who are 30 year going for over 7000rp I simply cannot compete with that kind of spending. If you want players to have a commmunity I suggest you introduce a cap of somesort oftherwise the players who aren't spending big will be eventually priced out of the game haven't been able to get anyone with a reasonable rating at the at a sensible price for almost 2 seasons
Good idea but it does have a slight flaw, if someone is willing to spend 120,000 on one player, and a cap is introduced of say 30,000, then that same player is still able to buy four players. A way around it would possibly be to introduce a cap of squad sizes, I know this has been mooted before. But say a squad size was limited to 25 players, then more players would be available for purchase by everyone. If a team had 25 205* players then they wouldn't be able to purchase a 195* player without putting one of their existing players on the market.
25 players would allow for you to have 2 or 3 injuries during the season and still utilise all the possible subs.
07/01/17 13:48
Craig Ingram :
Good idea but it does have a slight flaw, if someone is willing to spend 120,000 on one player, and a cap is introduced of say 30,000, then that same player is still able to buy four players. A way around it would possibly be to introduce a cap of squad sizes, I know this has been mooted before. But say a squad size was limited to 25 players, then more players would be available for purchase by everyone. If a team had 25 205* players then they wouldn't be able to purchase a 195* player without putting one of their existing players on the market.
25 players would allow for you to have 2 or 3 injuries during the season and still utilise all the possible subs.
Ashley Longthorn :
The auction house at level 30 is daft you've got players going for sale who are 30 year going for over 7000rp I simply cannot compete with that kind of spending. If you want players to have a commmunity I suggest you introduce a cap of somesort oftherwise the players who aren't spending big will be eventually priced out of the game haven't been able to get anyone with a reasonable rating at the at a sensible price for almost 2 seasons
The auction house at level 30 is daft you've got players going for sale who are 30 year going for over 7000rp I simply cannot compete with that kind of spending. If you want players to have a commmunity I suggest you introduce a cap of somesort oftherwise the players who aren't spending big will be eventually priced out of the game haven't been able to get anyone with a reasonable rating at the at a sensible price for almost 2 seasons
Good idea but it does have a slight flaw, if someone is willing to spend 120,000 on one player, and a cap is introduced of say 30,000, then that same player is still able to buy four players. A way around it would possibly be to introduce a cap of squad sizes, I know this has been mooted before. But say a squad size was limited to 25 players, then more players would be available for purchase by everyone. If a team had 25 205* players then they wouldn't be able to purchase a 195* player without putting one of their existing players on the market.
25 players would allow for you to have 2 or 3 injuries during the season and still utilise all the possible subs.
This would further limit those trying to compete without coins and help those with coins. If you look around you will see some folks with over 100 players for a week and there is RP strat involved here. Limiting players means those that have learned ways to keep up with those who coin can no longer keep up with them and we are toast and the advantage widens
07/01/17 14:13
BM, I take your point, but in reply, at present two of the top 3, have 22 or less players in their squad, they have ratings of 142,155, and 198, not really what you would call "coiners" in fact 8 out of the top 10 have 30 or less. Obviously massive squad size no longer relates to ranking high. I know that by buying large amounts of players and then selling them on is one of the only ways to raise a large amount of RPs, which is why I have also on another thread raised the Idea,(which you agreed with) of altering the function of one of the banks to exchange money for RPs. Say for arguments sake you are one of the lucky ones with a large amount of RPs ( i for one am not, I have 50,000, built up over the length of time this game has been on Facebook), and you have a full squad of 200+ players, you are unable to bid on anymore so true market forces will take place and any players up for sale will be sold at a price that the market demands, not a price that is dictated by the "coiners". If a "coiner" wants to buy anyone, he must first sell one of his existing players, who will again sell for market price. Not some inflated price dependent on how much that person is willing to pay in real money. I for one have not purchased players or RPs, so the RPs I have built up are from buying and selling players on the market, there are also other ways of raising quite a few RPs without massive squad size too, but won't go into that here. My current rating is 144* and find myself in the top 50 at the end of each day, so by "coining" it as you put it doesn't always mean you have a top team.
07/01/17 14:36
If you have read any of my coining posts you know I agree, this game allows anyone with managerial skills can become a top. But your system might allow me to have more max level players, as would everyone and where is the challenge in that, but I would be stuck with the 29 yo max players and the coineras would be buying 18-20 yo max players and further causing a distance and in turn making RP for them worthless which would result in the 'collusion' of transferring to to their mates which would put me even further behind. Having a full max team should be more difficult than it is now, not easier. I simply think this solution evens out the quality of players temporarily but then causes a bigger gap with time. Also, when I post disagreement on here I'm not saying the other person is stupid, I'm pointing at the holes and propose different actions or maintaining the status quo.
07/01/17 14:53
I agree, it is far too easy to get maxed players, when the "special" offers first appeared i said it would be bad for the game. In reality does any player come along with completely maxed attributes, No. Although at the end of the day, it is a way for the developer to increase income which makes the game available for players who do not want to spend their money on it. So we can surmise that they will never remove the ability to purchase them. The transferring to mates already happens so not much would change there. And as far as i am aware i never referenced to anyone saying anyone was stupid. We are getting away from the original post which was it is neigh on impossible to purchase decent quality players the nearer you get to the top, Which I am in total agreement with, just hope they take on board some suggestions that have been made in this or past posts.
07/01/17 15:07
Wasn't saying you thought I was calling you stupid, some people think my disagreement is passionate anger thinking the other was stupid, I was clarifying that it's not the case, not directed at you and sorry that it came that way. And as far as the original post, a cap on bid amount makes it a first come first get venture, not OK, your solution is better but I prefer the status quo above all, even though it is difficult. Transfer of cash to RP is better imo
10/01/17 15:26
The problem is that the game has become flooded with RPs, because they are being swapped around. To end this, RPs shouldn't go to the seller. They should just disappear, when a player is bought.
That would mean you'd only get RPs from your auction house production, watching ads, winning/drawing GCs or buying them. Not through trading.
That would mean you'd only get RPs from your auction house production, watching ads, winning/drawing GCs or buying them. Not through trading.
10/01/17 15:40
Bournemouth Celts :
The problem is that the game has become flooded with RPs, because they are being swapped around. To end this, RPs shouldn't go to the seller. They should just disappear, when a player is bought.
That would mean you'd only get RPs from your auction house production, watching ads, winning/drawing GCs or buying them. Not through trading.
The problem is that the game has become flooded with RPs, because they are being swapped around. To end this, RPs shouldn't go to the seller. They should just disappear, when a player is bought.
That would mean you'd only get RPs from your auction house production, watching ads, winning/drawing GCs or buying them. Not through trading.
So if I develop players to sell I'm SOL? Everyone would simply dismiss their players and not sell them making the gap bigger yet