|
|
Post by ambiorix on Jan 14, 2007 12:41:52 GMT 1
"Cyclist wages are now halved! I noticed lots of teams struggling to survive and this might help a little."
What about players who have been investing carefully and realisticly by for example contracting a trainer of a lower level. This gives the players who are financial disasters a huge advantage.
Reactions???
Op die manier benadeel je de spelers die het financieel realistisch en dus voorzichtig spelen - bijvoorbeeld door een trainer van lagere kwaliteit aan te werven - en beloon je de spelers die roekeloos investeren. Laat die rustig met de kop tegen de muur lopen ...
Reacties??
Ambiorix
|
|
|
|
Post by Ambi on Jan 14, 2007 12:45:31 GMT 1
1) ENGLISH TALK ONLY PLEASE!
2) I don't think you're right because: now it might be possible to pay the wages of the players but when they grow it won't.
The extra's you get from winning races won't increase and wages will.
Ofcourse the sponser money will increase but not as much as the wages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Jan 14, 2007 12:57:07 GMT 1
I do agree, but on the other hand the wages were a bit on the high side since the introduction of the secondary skills. A reduction of 20 % or less would be apropiate in my opinion, a reduction 50 % is just too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgeenens on Jan 14, 2007 13:25:18 GMT 1
I don't agree with ambiorix, for several reasons:
1) Most people who bought a trainer with f.e. 20 hills won't be complaining about the wage of their trainer.
2) Just like someone already said here, these cyclists are not very good. What will happen if these cyclists get better, and their wages higher?
3) In active divisions it will be hard to gain 60k € each week. And that's what we needed to pay all our cyclists.
|
|
|
|
Post by coureurtjen on Jan 14, 2007 13:28:04 GMT 1
I don't agree with ambiorix, for several reasons: 1) Most people who bought a trainer with f.e. 20 hills won't be complaining about the wage of their trainer. 2) Just like someone already said here, these cyclists are not very good. What will happen if these cyclists get better, and their wages higher? 3) In active divisions it will be hard to gain 60k € each week. And that's what we needed to pay all our cyclists. I agree, and actually I think that there were little people who looked at the wages before they hired a coach of 400k. |
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Jan 14, 2007 15:09:40 GMT 1
i don't think it will give only some people an advantage: the wage reduction is for everyone. people who are financial 'disasters' (  ) will still struggle. the main reason why I did this is because currently, the cyclists are, well, crap. and already their wages were very high (I had over 50k of wages for my cyclists already!). it wouldn't be maintainable after a few seasons of training. |
|
mrpiet
Amateur Team
Posts: 134
|
Post by mrpiet on Jan 14, 2007 15:15:07 GMT 1
hehe, are you one of those financial disasters il padrino |
|
|
|
Post by coureurtjen on Jan 14, 2007 15:17:42 GMT 1
I am very certain he isn't  |
|
|
|
Post by ambiorix on Jan 14, 2007 15:58:41 GMT 1
Il Padrino, I think you did a good thing by reducing the wages if you consider this game in the long run. Wages were in fact to high. My point? I just tried dot show that changing this rule in this way 'ruined' my plans, and of the more 'conservative' players. And favored the players who took more risks. Because the risks they took are no risks anymore. Reducing wages = reducing risks This game is also about long term management. I also could have bought for example a very expensive trainer, and then go broke the next week. My plan was to build slowly a financial healthy team that performes well. And here I am with my low level trainer competing with teams and their high level trainers...  I'm looking forward to my first races this week. And congrats for all the effort you put in this game. Ambiorix |
|
|
|
Post by coureurtjen on Jan 14, 2007 16:04:10 GMT 1
Il Padrino, I think you did a good thing by reducing the wages if you consider this game in the long run. Wages were in fact to high. My point? I just tried dot show that changing this rule in this way 'ruined' my plans, and of the more 'conservative' players. And favored the players who took more risks. Because the risks they took are no risks anymore. Reducing wages = reducing risks This game is also about long term management. I also could have bought for example a very expensive trainer, and then go broke the next week. My plan was to build slowly a financial healthy team that performes well. And here I am with my low level trainer competing with teams and their high level trainers... I'm looking forward to my first races this week. And congrats for all the effort you put in this game. Ambiorix and that is what is called: a very nice said statement  |
|
duikboot
U23 Developm. Team
Niet lullen, maar bijvullen!
Posts: 63
|
Post by duikboot on Jan 14, 2007 16:59:21 GMT 1
another nice thing to do is: put it in the announcements. Now everyone ses it, and peopl who use the forum don't have an advatage versus a unsuspecting other manager.
I like the measure. A lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Jan 15, 2007 9:33:17 GMT 1
Also: the way the wages are now is how they originally were. I doubled the wages after the beta because I thought (incorrectly) that it was easy enough to make good profit. However, it turned out that this wasn't the case, so I returned the wages to how they were originally.
|
|
|
|
Post by coureurtjen on Jan 15, 2007 10:39:17 GMT 1
I think everybody is delighted with the 'new' rule |
|
) will still struggle.
