I have some considerations: i think that the players should have a rank with how much money they made (salaries) and titles won. So just being the cheapest player possible is not an advantage for him.
We have something in the works to track player income over time. Not sure how it helps address the advantage of being a cheap player. Nevertheless, it should add good value to the league, so we plan to track this. Will reveal more, as things get clearer.
If im not wrong, the total money a season will generate is 675 nohhams, what means that teams cant use more then that for salaries (or 112.5 each team). But a good team can make 175 nohhams and a bad maybe only 50. The good will buy better players and will pay them, the bad will lost the good players and will have bad replacements. I think that maybe after 2 or 3 seasons we come to a very unbalanced situation (although i think that every team receiving 50 each turn helps a lot, probably something more needs to be done).
On an average, teams should earn 112.5 Nohhams under the current model. I think you are looking at a very extreme case here. For a club to make only 50 Nohhams(from the base income) they would have to lose EVERY game. Given that all clubs start off on an equal footing, I think it is safe to say this will not happen :)
I would expect something around a 30% win rate for the worst performing club, and 70% for the best. That means the best club would get something around 127.5 and the worst 87.5, which seems reasonable. The base income is designed to bring some sort of stability and ensure that the top clubs don't run away with the league. However, we'll have to observe if the current model will achieve a good balance. Worst case, if things don't work out, we can always quickly correct the economy in season 2. I'm not too concerned here.
There is an update to the economy(altered income on wins/losses and base income) based on a good suggestion by Fleecemaster. Will make that public sometime tomorrow.
