Poll: What would you have us do?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Decrease to -20%
5.56%
1 5.56%
Increase player demands to +20%
33.33%
6 33.33%
Something more radical (discuss)
33.33%
6 33.33%
Nothing
27.78%
5 27.78%
Total 18 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

 
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Tighten Finances Suggestion
#11
I would encourage everyone to take a look at the +20% file just for reference and post their thoughts.

Matty's idea about raising the in-game cash is a good one, but that is likely to hurt stadium funders most. But I'm open to that change.

(Or both that and the 20%)

I am pretty much 100% opposed to IFA.
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
#12
I also agree with a lot of Mike's thoughts.  

The real problem is the top players don't ask for nearly enough $$$.  These players never hit free agency until after there prime.  They lose out on $$$$ that should be taking out of the game.  Want to solve some kind of money problem in the game, solve this problem.

And yes at the same time, low and mid level guys ask for to much a lot of times.  Adding the 20% demand will probable make this even worse.
Lad

Dodgers 2036 - Present
Padres 2026-2035
23 NL West Championships
9 Wild Cards
National League Champion 2057, 2060, 2095, 2115
WORLD SERIES CHAMPION 2057
#13
Can we even avoid the problem of high end/middle/low end? As long as I've played mogul, this issue has existed.

Am I wrong on that feeling?
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
#14
(07-11-2018, 04:51 PM)AndyP Wrote: I would encourage everyone to take a look at the +20% file just for reference and post their thoughts.

Matty's idea about raising the in-game cash is a good one, but that is likely to hurt stadium funders most.  But I'm open to that change.

(Or both that and the 20%)

I am pretty much 100% opposed to IFA.

I don't see how that hurts Stadium Funds. Teams that are trying to do that are still collecting money, whether they can bank starting at 30M or 50M. It'll just keep more money in the game instead of in the bank.
Cle

Cleveland Record5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4

ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1

NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
#15
(07-12-2018, 01:21 PM)mattynokes Wrote:
(07-11-2018, 04:51 PM)AndyP Wrote: I would encourage everyone to take a look at the +20% file just for reference and post their thoughts.

Matty's idea about raising the in-game cash is a good one, but that is likely to hurt stadium funders most.  But I'm open to that change.

(Or both that and the 20%)

I am pretty much 100% opposed to IFA.

I don't see how that hurts Stadium Funds. Teams that are trying to do that are still collecting money, whether they can bank starting at 30M or 50M. It'll just keep more money in the game instead of in the bank.

Just that teams trying to stockpile cash are going to have to hold more money in the game and that will alter how much money they make over the course of the season.  (Higher cash total = lower revenues)
World Champion 2018, 2021, 2026, 2030, 2035, 2037, 2039
AL Champion 12 times
FCM Best Record-Holder - 121-41 2028
Overall Record: 3530-1978 .641%
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



Forum Jump: