Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [IDEA] Reduce injury time (doctor)
The problem is that we would all be able to "buy" recovery with doctors at the same cost but with different value. It would always be more profitable to heal more valuable players. So basically, rich clubs would always use this option and poor clubs only if it is valuable to them. So, by introducing this option, comparably you would give less injury time for more valuable players.
This is good for the rich clubs very bad for the poor clubs it just an another cost for the club the way it is now is the same for every club
now a player has a "general" injury.
what about players can have different injuries, like a Head injury, Knee injury, Ankle injury, Broken leg or a Hamstring injury.
than a Doctor can have also different skills like players have now.
for example;
Brilliant Doctor:
Brilliant on Hamstring injuries
Unearthly on Head injuries
Outstanding on Knee injuries
Brilliant on Ankle injuries
etc.
the higher the skill, the faster the specific injury heals
what about players can have different injuries, like a Head injury, Knee injury, Ankle injury, Broken leg or a Hamstring injury.
than a Doctor can have also different skills like players have now.
for example;
Brilliant Doctor:
Brilliant on Hamstring injuries
Unearthly on Head injuries
Outstanding on Knee injuries
Brilliant on Ankle injuries
etc.
the higher the skill, the faster the specific injury heals
The problem is that we would all be able to "buy" recovery with doctors at the same cost but with different value. It would always be more profitable to heal more valuable players. So basically, rich clubs would always use this option and poor clubs only if it is valuable to them. So, by introducing this option, comparably you would give less injury time for more valuable players.
Yeh, every manager can choose to use the doctor the way it suits him/her. Some managers will choose to keep the doctor and heal all players at any time, while other managers will choose to only recruit/buy a doctor the moment a (valuable) player is injured. But these options are to all managers the same, only the choices will be different. And because all managers have the same options how to use a doctor makes it fair to everyone.
And if you compare this idea to reality, amateur clubs won't have doctors working for them at all times as this will be way to expansive so only when needed, while professional clubs do have doctors working for the club at all times because they can afford it.
Yeh, every manager can choose to use the doctor the way it suits him/her. Some managers will choose to keep the doctor and heal all players at any time, while other managers will choose to only recruit/buy a doctor the moment a (valuable) player is injured. But these options are to all managers the same, only the choices will be different. And because all managers have the same options how to use a doctor makes it fair to everyone.
And if you compare this idea to reality, amateur clubs won't have doctors working for them at all times as this will be way to expansive so only when needed, while professional clubs do have doctors working for the club at all times because they can afford it.
This is good for the rich clubs very bad for the poor clubs it just an another cost for the club the way it is now is the same for every club
The general appraisal isn't linear (as far as I know) so poorer teams also benefits, but less because they can't afford the best doctor, just as they also can't afford the best coaches. But I've never heard someone complaining about the fact that poorer teams can't afford the best unearthly coaches and because of that not have the same benefits of (junior) trainings as richer teams.
And yes, it will cost money if a manager choose to buy/recruit a doctor, but managers don't have to buy/recruit a doctor (players still heal as they do now), and it's a free choice, the same as assistants and junior coaches isn't required.
But yeh, manager can only spend money if he/she have that money, just as it is now.
The general appraisal isn't linear (as far as I know) so poorer teams also benefits, but less because they can't afford the best doctor, just as they also can't afford the best coaches. But I've never heard someone complaining about the fact that poorer teams can't afford the best unearthly coaches and because of that not have the same benefits of (junior) trainings as richer teams.
And yes, it will cost money if a manager choose to buy/recruit a doctor, but managers don't have to buy/recruit a doctor (players still heal as they do now), and it's a free choice, the same as assistants and junior coaches isn't required.
But yeh, manager can only spend money if he/she have that money, just as it is now.
The general appraisal isn't linear (as far as I know) so poorer teams also benefits, but less because they can't afford the best doctor, just as they also can't afford the best coaches. But I've never heard someone complaining about the fact that poorer teams can't afford the best unearthly coaches and because of that not have the same benefits of (junior) trainings as richer teams.
And yes, it will cost money if a manager choose to buy/recruit a doctor, but managers don't have to buy/recruit a doctor (players still heal as they do now), and it's a free choice, the same as assistants and junior coaches isn't required.
But yeh, manager can only spend money if he/she have that money, just as it is now.
I like that way too!
And yes, it will cost money if a manager choose to buy/recruit a doctor, but managers don't have to buy/recruit a doctor (players still heal as they do now), and it's a free choice, the same as assistants and junior coaches isn't required.
But yeh, manager can only spend money if he/she have that money, just as it is now.
I like that way too!
-1, cause it all is better for clubs, which are playing this game long time, but for new user, like my second team, it is not fair :l
Your point is that you, as a new manager, can't own the same as a team that's making more money ... sorry, but that's a bad argument.
Everything is better for teams that are playing Sokker for a longer time and make more money ;) But that has absolutely nothing to do with being fair or not, only with making more money and because of that be able to spend more money.
Everyone can make the same doctor decisions with this idea, depending of the amount of money a manager makes. So this idea is just as fair as head coaches, assistants, junior coaches and even players and stadiums. Ofcourse new managers can't own the best of these coaches, players and a large stadium, that's completely normal, so why should it be unfair with doctors but not with all the other things?
It would be unfair if you have 10 million and can't buy/recruit doctors but someone else can, but that's not the case.
Besides, the time it will take for a player to heal will stay exactly the same as it is now, if a manager decides not buy/recruit a doctor, but with a doctor the healing will go a bit faster. It's not that players of new teams won't heal at all anymore. And how often do new managers have to play against rich teams? Almost never ...
Everything is better for teams that are playing Sokker for a longer time and make more money ;) But that has absolutely nothing to do with being fair or not, only with making more money and because of that be able to spend more money.
Everyone can make the same doctor decisions with this idea, depending of the amount of money a manager makes. So this idea is just as fair as head coaches, assistants, junior coaches and even players and stadiums. Ofcourse new managers can't own the best of these coaches, players and a large stadium, that's completely normal, so why should it be unfair with doctors but not with all the other things?
It would be unfair if you have 10 million and can't buy/recruit doctors but someone else can, but that's not the case.
Besides, the time it will take for a player to heal will stay exactly the same as it is now, if a manager decides not buy/recruit a doctor, but with a doctor the healing will go a bit faster. It's not that players of new teams won't heal at all anymore. And how often do new managers have to play against rich teams? Almost never ...
Yeah, but the top teams opponent can do the same.... dont see how this influence big/little strenght that much.... top teams play against top opponents... so i also see it as possible to do it NOT LINEAR in effect, but even more rapid increase in wage per level then for coaches. So that it would cost very much money to heal high, but is possible to make it a priority, where as some of the top teams would choose to save the money (or weak teams vs weak teams there would be different solutions)
As the idea is proposed now, everybody would choose almost the same solutions as there league rivals.....
Another thing... people would hire and fire a lot compared to numbers of injuries... so either high recruitment, 5 weeks salary when fired or hired for 1 season length....
I would really like psysios in this game, but not as proposed, as it would just be a no brainer pick.
As the idea is proposed now, everybody would choose almost the same solutions as there league rivals.....
Another thing... people would hire and fire a lot compared to numbers of injuries... so either high recruitment, 5 weeks salary when fired or hired for 1 season length....
I would really like psysios in this game, but not as proposed, as it would just be a no brainer pick.
Oeh and by the way... all this "little club buhu buhu".... the wage should be rather high, so big clubs hiring an unearthly physio might even cost them a bit on their lead...
That's exactly the point. You said it very well. As proposed it would be a no brainer pick and that doesn't add any fun to the game. It only introduces less injury time. And on top of that, it's a much better cost/benefit for richer clubs.
Economy part of the game is crucial and at the moment it seems well balanced meaning that it's possible to catch higher level clubs because they have upper league strain on their finances. Any introductions to the equation will surely influence current balance and should be well analyzed before going for it.
As proposed it would be a no brainer pick
An unearthly head coach is also a no brainer for everyone, but only the rich(er) teams have these. The other managers have to make decisions what coaches they can afford to buy/recruit. So it won't be a no brainer but a difficult decision as everyone can spend their money only 1 time. Same for large stadiums, best players, best trainees, max size of junior school, these decisions are also no brainers to have the best of the best... Besides, the more choices there are how to spend money, the less teams will exactly look like each other (as they often do now).
it's a much better cost/benefit for richer clubs.
And 'it's a much better cost/benefit for richer clubs' is not an argument but only a fact and therefore useless to mention. Ofcourse they can because they are richer, also exactly the same with coaches, stadiums, players, trainees, size of junior school, but no 1 is complaining about that, so why should everything else that will be introduced in the future be exactly the same for rich and poor teams?
I even think it would be unfair to rich teams to make everything the same for everyone. Rich teams are working their ass off to make more and more money, but in the end it won't make any difference if poor teams, playing 2,3 or 4 divisions lower, will have exactly the same as they have.
Economy part of the game is crucial and at the moment it seems well balanced
Only those who are playing Sokker for a longer time will have to adjust to a new spending, new managers won't know any better and will make it in balance. It is really a short-term vision to use 'now it is ok' as an argument why something, that isn't even tried before, won't work.
(edited)
An unearthly head coach is also a no brainer for everyone, but only the rich(er) teams have these. The other managers have to make decisions what coaches they can afford to buy/recruit. So it won't be a no brainer but a difficult decision as everyone can spend their money only 1 time. Same for large stadiums, best players, best trainees, max size of junior school, these decisions are also no brainers to have the best of the best... Besides, the more choices there are how to spend money, the less teams will exactly look like each other (as they often do now).
it's a much better cost/benefit for richer clubs.
And 'it's a much better cost/benefit for richer clubs' is not an argument but only a fact and therefore useless to mention. Ofcourse they can because they are richer, also exactly the same with coaches, stadiums, players, trainees, size of junior school, but no 1 is complaining about that, so why should everything else that will be introduced in the future be exactly the same for rich and poor teams?
I even think it would be unfair to rich teams to make everything the same for everyone. Rich teams are working their ass off to make more and more money, but in the end it won't make any difference if poor teams, playing 2,3 or 4 divisions lower, will have exactly the same as they have.
Economy part of the game is crucial and at the moment it seems well balanced
Only those who are playing Sokker for a longer time will have to adjust to a new spending, new managers won't know any better and will make it in balance. It is really a short-term vision to use 'now it is ok' as an argument why something, that isn't even tried before, won't work.
(edited)
lool the same thing is a new user cant afford to have a good coach :) at the begining ....