AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,190
Threads: 3,853
Joined: Jul 2010
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%
sxr007
Offline
Posts: 3,004
Threads: 771
Joined: Jan 2012
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.
Dodgers 2036 - Present
Padres 2026-2035
23 NL West Championships
9 Wild Cards
National League Champion 2057, 2060, 2095, 2115
WORLD SERIES CHAMPION 2057
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,190
Threads: 3,853
Joined: Jul 2010
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%
mattynokes
Offline
Cleveland Guardians GM
Posts: 8,985
Threads: 4,310
Joined: Feb 2011
(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.
Cleveland Record: 5631-4946 (.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
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,190
Threads: 3,853
Joined: Jul 2010
(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%
|
