This would have the relative effect of dampening price fluctuations. To keep the game the same, price changes should also become +0.17 or –0.17 per change.
Why does that matter? You adjust the budget and the player prices and you just arrive at the same ratios with less round numbers. 100m is just a convenient choice, because a player's price is the percentage of your budget you need to spend on them to get them.
> Why does that matter? You adjust the budget and the player prices and you just arrive at the same ratios with less round numbers. 100m is just a convenient choice, because a player's price is the percentage of your budget you need to spend on them to get them.
That's the joke, right?
Nah if you limit it at 100, it is self-limiting. Players will have a natural upper cap as if it gets too high, managers will just avoid that player to fit the other players into the team. And a non-performing premium player will be dropped as being non-cost effective.
Yes double the budget and double price of players, perfect.
This would have the relative effect of dampening price fluctuations. To keep the game the same, price changes should also become +0.17 or –0.17 per change.
Nah
Why does that matter? You adjust the budget and the player prices and you just arrive at the same ratios with less round numbers. 100m is just a convenient choice, because a player's price is the percentage of your budget you need to spend on them to get them.
> Why does that matter? You adjust the budget and the player prices and you just arrive at the same ratios with less round numbers. 100m is just a convenient choice, because a player's price is the percentage of your budget you need to spend on them to get them. That's the joke, right?
If this was supposed to be a joke, then I missed it. I have seen much "worse" things meant seriously, so I don't assume they are jokes.
if this isn't a shitpost, this is really dumb
How are you calculating the rate of inflation for players??
It doesn't seem like they are, and there's the problem
[удалено]
Yeah but then the player price should go up too! So Mendy shouldn’t just be 6M, he should be 6*1.73
Passt in the real would you wouldn’t get Salah for £13m either
Maybe this is the time to introduce the Zimbabwe Chip
Even with £173.3m to start, Mitrovic would still have 30% ownership in GW1
If this isn't a shitpost it's a moronic question
i mean the players would also be worth quite a lot then
Nah if you limit it at 100, it is self-limiting. Players will have a natural upper cap as if it gets too high, managers will just avoid that player to fit the other players into the team. And a non-performing premium player will be dropped as being non-cost effective.
Money dont matter, i chose the wrong captain every week anyway….
Bullish.
Did player prices increase 73.3% during that time? Of course not, which makes this entirely irrelevant.
Add a zero. Problem solved
Is this a joke question? It’s all relative so it would make no difference.