Not many…very few actually, all in FastTicker of course. I suppose you meant $100M, that’s what I’m answering. Everyone has 100k…some are dangerously close to that number though :-)

I wanted to check with other managers how they see the changes after these few months.

My take is that it is much better in general. Now teams have an incentive to sell good players – they are expensive but can be bought. The incentive to spend all your money before season end is over, which makes the game more realistic. Transfer budget helps keep the transfer prices somewhat limited to max of $20m (have not seen deals larger than that)

Salaries are also more down to earth. As expected, estimated value does not mean much (means as much as it did before the change…)

I also like the fact that we do not need to wait for those 12 ticks without buying players early in the season. That period concentrated a lot of good players being sold by the computer and everyone knew it, so there was fierce competition and salaries offered were crazy.

In the Medium Tick the new system seems to be working perfectly.

In the Fast Tick, however, building a team became too easy. I am not sure why but there are tons of players 90+ transfer listed for the estimated price or lower, plus other many free listed. It took me 1/3 of a season to build a team from scratch that is arguably as good as the one I was managing before. If this goes on, considering the low transfer price and low salary, it will be a better deal to buy +32y old players every 2-3 seasons and then discard (rebuild your team every 2 seasons) them then buy youths and wait years for them to develop, running the risk of making a wrong bet…

Anyway, wanted to get your views

Haven’t noticed what you said about FT. In general I’m positive about the changes.

I agree with FT, there are far too many good players on TL. Ok they are not great players but they add quality to lower teams, I’m actually wondering if it would be worth resetting FT?

Maybe the GMs could lower the stats of each player a little more so less great players show up.

Mediumticker seems to be working really well.

It’s always been interesting to observe how FastTicker seems to have better quality players overall than MediumTicker. We have not put anything specific in the game to make them different in that aspect, so I can only blame the fact it’s been running for twice as many seasons and that’s a long term side effect of our player evolution model. Lowering the stats a bit could help with the issue in the short term, but to be honest we plan to review the player evolution model soon (maybe after player star rating and one extra player feature) so it’s worth waiting. It could make sense to reset it then.

Back to the topic’s subject, I think economy makes more sense since the changes. I haven’t checked how rich the richest teams have become in a while, but hopefully the next player related game improvements will help to control it in some interesting ways :-)

As I predicted, too many good players around. Just too many. My mystake was to think this was due to the economy – it was not, it was an effect of how the players are improving (without needing to play)

Now you look at an attacker Sho 97 and think “eh…but his Control and Dribble are below 85…”

Just to put some statistics behind my point, it would be nice to know the % of players in the game with Sho >90 (or keeping, tackle, passing) vs. 6 months ago (if the database is still available)…

Completely agree with you Fabio and I’ve posted my findings and plans in the other topic about Recent Changes. This is not due to players improving without playing (even though this speeds up player improvement for sure), but due to an old change to allow lower ranked countries to generate good players that had a bad impact over the years. This change has been now partially backed out but it would take another few years for us to see it take effect, that’s why we are going to act soon and shake the player evolution model as it is.