| Aloittaja |
Aihe: Financing for managers through teams |
125 vastausta
|
|
|
Its not shutting them down. Its that 99% of suggestions have already been discussed. Therefore the original topics should be used. This shows people that the person making the suggestion has taken on board all previous discussions. Which again 99% they dont.
The forum then gets cluttered.
People responded to be helpful get martin and others feel we are being rude. Thats simply not the case. No1 is attacking anyone. Everyone is free to suggest anything. Just search before hand. Otherwise we end up with he same suggestions being suggested.
Or would you rather noone replies ever?
Martin is simply clinging onto one thing about experienced members having more of a say. This isnt the case at all. Someone playing 1 day might have the best suggestion going. Problem is after 60 seasons there is no scope for any original discussions.
Perhaps members shouldnt reply to any suggestion thats been previously discussed. However this may get the members making a duplicate suggestion not feel wanted or listened to.
In this case people were polite enough to respond and we're accused of attacking people etc :-(
|
|
|
|
|
#92 lähetetty 31.08.2017, 17:24:00
|
Quote
|
|
Thanks Dainius.....obviously you skipped some snetence as there is a little bit more,but you simplified it perfectly....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#93 lähetetty 31.08.2017, 17:32:12
|
Quote
|
|
But then a simple "this topic has already been discussed" would be enough Michael,or just giving an argument why they think its not a good idea as many did...but not telling people they dont know the value of money and good managment,that they are inexpirienced,talking about prominent people and not prominent,telling them they are allowed to post as "a favour"...As i said,maybe its not your intention,but its not very nice some things yoi write,you do it as you are God and the owner of the truth and that the ones that dont think like you are non prominent and know nothing about the game....sorry,but thats the impression you give me and many others...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#94 lähetetty 31.08.2017, 17:46:01
|
Quote
|
I am God. How were you not aware ;-)
You see it how you did Martin. People have been incredibly helpful in regards to the OP.
I agree this could have been linked to previous discusssions. However members new or old have to take responsibility to not clutter the forums about things that have been discussed.
I apologise if you saw it the way you did. Ive provided all the links neccasary. Its up to yourself and OP to take it further
|
|
|
|
|
|
#95 lähetetty 31.08.2017, 17:52:57
|
Quote
|
|
Ok Michael....i also apologize if by any means i ofended or was rude towards you,i already told you that it wasnt my intention and at least for me no harm done. Just one thing.If someone posts a topic that has already been discussed,its because he didnt see it,dont think it would be on purpose....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#96 lähetetty 31.08.2017, 18:03:57
|
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I don't see any disadvantage that it is the team that decides what to do with the points raised (transformed into cash). I only see some worried that they will not be taken into account by the team when they themselves need help
This thread is to add something more to the game
|
|
|
|
|
So someone from the team gets 20-30M extra per season.
|
|
|
|
|
A limit will be established for the granting of money to each manager corresponding to 30% of the proceeds
|
|
|
|
What would be the main point of giving such a massive (unfair) advantage to a selected manager ?
What good would it do to gpro as a whole to make such thing possible ?
I'd say Nothing good could come out of that.
Equal opportunity to do well has been a cornerstone of gpro, this suggestion would take that aspect away.
So we can say that if this suggestion was to go through, gpro would no longer be gpro. As it would abandon one of it's basic principles it would become something completely different than what it has been thus far.
Quote ( Henrique Hughes Paunero @ September 7th 2017,17:17:33 ) Honestly, I don't see any disadvantage
Then I'd suggest you haven't really thought it through
What you need to understand it that this NO minor suggestion, it's a suggestion of revolutionary proportions,
It would transform both the principles & the financial model of gpro completely
Quote ( Henrique Hughes Paunero @ September 7th 2017,17:17:33 ) This thread is to add something more to the game
And in the process it would actually compromise the cornerstone principle of GPRO
|
|
|
|
One of it's basic principles?
Quote ( Mikko Heikkinen @ September 7th 2017,18:45:20 )
What you need to understand it that this NO minor suggestion, it's a suggestion of revolutionary proportions,
It would transform both the principles & the financial model of gpro completely
Are you afraid of the big changes and that's why you only expected a minor suggestion to give it your approval?
As Martin Irla said before, instead of thinking about the cornerstone, you put stones on the road and only think about going against the changes
|
|
|
|
The idea of DA's being used to finance main accounts alone puts me off.
There just doesn't seem to anything healthy about the suggestion, as everything it offers just hinges on giving a specific manager an unfair advantage.
I don't see the system being used to help managers who are struggling financially, but rather to catapult managers already doing well with unfair advantage, such as elites being funded by the wealthy amatuers in their teams and giving DA's a seriously unhealthy purpose and value.
|
|
|
|
The idea of team's earned money to be given to a specific manager in a team, might really change how the higher groups play, for example on worst scenario multiple DA's in ama earning money for one or few managers who are in top groups, elite/masters ... How would you deal with that ?
Or a team based of players who are fine sitting in ama/rookies just to make extra cash for someone who want's to beat the elite, while other play just for pure enjoyement and extra balance is not needed for them.
|
|
|
|
First, the game sanctions the DA and does its best not to exist. Would the majority seek to have an DA to take advantage of this suggestion or would there be greater controls on DA?
Reading this thread that has more than 100 messages many pose a problem on the side of DA as if the game was based on a constant use of DA (yes, there are, but I do not think so many)
Quote ( Dainius Vaškys @ September 7th 2017,19:50:42 ) The idea of team's earned money to be given to a specific manager in a team, might really change how the higher groups play, for example on worst scenario multiple DA's in ama earning money for one or few managers who are in top groups, elite/masters ... How would you deal with that ?
A specific manager receives some of the money but after that the whole team decides to give it to him. The leader only manages, the team chooses. (This improves communication between computers in which it does not exist). In case of misuse, as in many other cases, the leader is punished
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Guido Simonetta @ September 7th 2017,19:37:28 ) Are you afraid of the big changes
No. The point of that sentence is that clearly people behind the suggestion don't realize the magnitude of this suggestion and the total effects it would have on multiple aspects of gpro.
IF there was anything I was "afraid" in the suggestion it would be this:
Equal opportunity to do well has been a basic principle gpro, this suggestion would take that aspect away.
Quote ( Guido Simonetta @ September 7th 2017,19:37:28 ) As Martin Irla said before, instead of thinking about the cornerstone, you put stones on the road and only think about going against the changes
IF you abandon the equal opportunity principle, you might as well make it "pay to win"
and allow and encourage DA's to populate whole of gpro to "pump up" the finances of selected members.
The ability of pumping up finances to selected members would skew the whole finces
Quote ( Guido Simonetta @ September 7th 2017,19:37:28 ) you
And your post is just about attacking person, nothing to do with the discussion itself
Have you run out of arguments related to the suggestion ?
All that post brought to the table was intentional misquotes to attack a person, no contributions to the discussion
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Guido Simonetta @ September 7th 2017,20:03:50 ) A specific manager receives some of the money but after that the whole team decides to give it to him. The leader only manages, the team chooses. (This improves communication between computers in which it does not exist). In case of misuse, as in many other cases, the leader is punished
What if half or whole team is made by DA's ? One of the DA is a team leader, the punishment to the leader will just force another DA to be put in his place and rotation will continue ...
|
|
|
|
You do not seem interested in listening to any input any body is giving Guido. Why?
People are worried about entire teams abusing the system, in order for a team member to be more competitive than they otherwise would be on higher lvls.
As for DA, it's already a problem in the game which is difficult to police when done well and there isn't any sort of tangible gain compared to what your suggestion would introduce, which raises legimate concerns of the DA situation getting worse.
In what way can the system that's being suggested be policed to ensure the game stays fair? Leave the decision up to the team members? How does that police anything other than make sure team leader doesn't steel the money? How does that stop teams choosing to give the money to the member in elite, or master etc, so that he has an unfair advantage in his group, has money he didn't earn, has a financial position he didn't earn?
You are not addressing any of the concerns anybody is raising. If anything, reading through the thread, it seems you're hellbent on completely ignoring them.
|
|
|
|
There are many arguments. In any case, the criticisms are only based on the DA.
You, Mikka, minimize to those who propose this suggestion. Yes, we think about the magnitude of it. And we do believe that the game has principles of progress. Or was the energy bar not a fairly revolutionary change?
|
|
|
|
I read don't ignore anything MG. I'm worried about DA but I'm also interested in new tools in the game.
As the bank only works through the team, the same managers would make their police power in denouncing a mismanagement of the funds.
|
|
|
|
You couldn't be less interested in listening could you?
In what way did the new driver energy give any managers an unfair unadvantage? In what way did the new driver energy create more problems with DA's? In what way does the new driver energy give teams the power to give teammates unfair boosts against their opponents? In what way did driver energy completely overall the balance in fairness, equal chance for all managers?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Guido Simonetta @ September 7th 2017,20:12:40 ) And we do believe that the game has principles of progress. Or was the energy bar not a fairly revolutionary change?
I think there are misunderstandings when you think about "principle" and "basic principle of gpro"
The whole point I'm trying to make is any and all suggestions should not compromise the principle of "equal opportunity". That should be the first and foremost important thing when considering any change.
Energy feature does not compromise that principle.
The "transfer of money" between managers would compromise the principle of "equal opportunity". The chances of winning would become highly dependent to being in a team which "pumps up" your finances.
Maybe by this you'll understand better what I mean by "basic principle"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Guido Simonetta @ September 7th 2017,20:17:33 ) As the bank only works through the team, the same managers would make their police power in denouncing a mismanagement of the funds.
This is why I say you're not listening, completely ignoring peoples justifiable concerns.
|
|
|
|
I cited the energy bar as a change in the game. Not about your questions about it.
Energy bar was revolutionary. Or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now understood your idea of "basic principle" Mikka.
Through economic assistance well raised (and not with a loan),
the principle is maintained.
I think MG you picked up the thread later and only think that we don't listen
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Guido Simonetta @ September 7th 2017,20:12:40 ) There are many arguments. In any case, the criticisms are only based on the DA.
Because the DA argument is completely enough to make this idea unfeasible. However, even if there weren't DAs involved, exploiting would be easy nonetheless, by using amateur team members as money mules for the managers in the upper leagues.
Hell, this idea would even bite you in the ass (unless you propose it to be the beneficiary of such rule). You're already witnessing first hand how Pro finances aren't the easiest thing to manage. It would be way worse if your contenders were fueled by amateur teamies (or DAs), unless, again, your plan would be to exploit the rule yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok,juSt a feW thingS aS im buSy and dont have time.....Think thiS idea aS it WaS preSented yeS haS a lot of doWnfallS aS many people haS already eXpreSSed.But i alSo think that hardly anybody haS taken the time to think if all thoSe doWnfallS that certainly eXiSt could be Solved.Before agreeing or diSagreeing With it So eaSily one Should take the time to think if it can be improved.
ThiS in juSt a projecty of an idea;but in my opinion WorthWhile Studying it a little to See if it could be good or bad.Of all the doWnfallS that people have Said,itS not So difficult to find a Solution for moSt of them,otherS not So eaSy but think that poSSible,at leaSt trying...
About changeS....I honeStly think that a game like thiS one needS to be in continouS movement With neW thingS and minor or big changeS.If not it becomeS rutiny and monotonuS,and in the end boring.ItS quite hight the amount of good and not So good managerS that retire,and the State of Rookie and Ama at the moment iS really bad.I knoW that lotS,better Said moSt managerS fall in a comfort zone,but many alSo needS a Spark and neW thingS to keep the challange and the intereSt.
And im not talking about thiS particular change,but changeS in general.ThiS iS an abSolutely fantaStic and very Well thought game,but aS any game it can be improved.Not draStically,but SloWly iS going doWn,you only have to have a look at Rookie and Ama to See that,and i hope that it doeSnt reach Pro Soon....So,for the benefit of the game,not matter if it benefitS or itS againSt me particulary,im in favour not of all,but With moSt changeS.....Sorry about the capital S,X and W,but my keyboard iS ScreWed....
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ September 7th 2017,20:33:13 ) Quote ( Guido Simonetta @ September 7th 2017,20:12:40 )
There are many arguments. In any case, the criticisms are only based on the DA.
Because the DA argument is completely enough to make this idea unfeasible. However, even if there weren't DAs involved, exploiting would be easy nonetheless, by using amateur team members as money mules for the managers in the upper leagues.
Hell, this idea would even bite you in the ass (unless you propose it to be the beneficiary of such rule). You're already witnessing first hand how Pro finances aren't the easiest thing to manage. It would be way worse if your contenders were fueled by amateur teamies (or DAs), unless, again, your plan would be to exploit the rule yourself.
I would not let me use as a mule and when I started this thread was good balance. And since you looked at my profile you could have seen that my economy has no seasons in red. That now has negative balance doesn't mean that I raised the thread today. In addition, the thread was raised after a discussion in the team
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
