Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »[info]Dev Diary #82: Automatic release of NT-players from
One week later also will be with bugs, and one season later also, so... :P
Everyone knows that the only time important in sokker is server time.
I would like Raúl to be able to read this post.
I was thinking about this from the dev updates of our beloved game. And i am very grateful for all your effort and time to improve sokker
I think the first rule that devs should follow is: what works well, don't touch it. Focus on modifying what does not work so well.
The other rule should be: in any update, make sure that the solution you have found is the one that best suits your final goal.
I give examples:
1- financial reform: the devs tell us that they have thought of a reform in which three possible solutions are proposed: adjust the number of fans who want to come to the stadium, increase the wages of the top players and increase some taxes.
On this question, I say, if the problem is the increase in weekly income caused by having more income due to the number of games per week at home, why don't we solve the only real problem in the whole situation and leave the rest as it was? Just focus on adjusting the number of fans willing to come to the stadium (that we have to reduce stadium prices in order to fill the stadium) until full season incomes per stadium is similar to what it was before the reform of the League 12 teams. Forget the rest of the solutions, they are not necessary, and they already worked within a logic: a 5x15 player earns about 20,000 e per week and a 5x17 player about 45,000 e, more than double with only a 10% increase in skills (on a scale of 18 levels). I repeat, do not modify what works well, and focus only on what works badly. Everyone could understand that incomes was increased by more home games during a shorter season, and it seems logical that this disproportionate income would be addressed by reducing income from home games. You don't need to touch anything else. Well, don't touch it, so you will reduce the number of dissatisfied users after that reform, if you touch other things like player salaries. In addition to saving time for the devs, because if you have to touch more things like wages or taxes, that will force the devs to spend more time on this reform to adjust everything. time that devs, we agree, don't have.
2- one of the goals of the devs with the sokker reforms was to get the teams to have more players. That you could no longer compete by playing all the games with the same 11 players. The devs thought that the key was in the injuries. Seasons were reduced from 16 to 13 weeks and went from 2 to 3 games per week (without champions or NT). But the risk and the duration of the injuries were not reduced in the same proportion. This measure, which many users have not liked, has not achieved the ultimate goal of the teams with more players either (at least not as the devs would have liked). The clearest example is the current Champions Cup champion who has played the last 5 or 6 official matches with the same 11-12 players until winning the CC. Players could have been injured, but it was not. He risked with luck and it turned out well. In the end the injuries are random. a user can take a risk with them and it can turn out well. But it's a good example to see that the devs didn't really achieve their goal.
If the ultimate goal seems to be getting teams to have more than 11 players in order to compete and win games, why not use a system that better guarantees this goal? The solution was given by the devs with the training reform: that the stamina was like a loss of energy. It would be something like this: a player who plays 2 games in a row maintains maximum stamina, but starts the third in a row with 25% less stamina and if he plays a fourth his stamina drops to 50%. (The numbers are revisable). But the idea is that the great Romanian champion, after the second match in a row, would have had a problem in the third with the stamina of his boys 25% lower and it would have cost him more to win his match. Obviously if he had continued in a fourth game, with the same 11 at 50% stamina, he would almost certainly have lost the game and, we could add, with more risk of injury. This would lead all teams to have more players in our clubs, not because of injuries but because of loss of energy. It would also allow us to reduce the probability of injury to players who play fewer games per week and increase it for those who always want to play with the same 11. Because less stamina could mean more risk of injure
More logical solution and one that achieves the main objective that the devs had: more players in the clubs
And I add a "bonus track" XD apart from these general comments: if a player plays 2 games during a week, he plays the first one completely without problems, and the second one is injured at min 70. He plays 160 min that week and the injury At the end it doesn't allow you to train anything? At least that week he should be able to train the minutes played that he has been healthy or, at least, the first complete game without injury. Later I can understand that as long as he is injured, he does not play and cannot train. But the first games before the injury, at least the first full one, should help him train because he was healthy and played without problems. I find it difficult to understand in this example why the player should not train the first week
(edited)
I was thinking about this from the dev updates of our beloved game. And i am very grateful for all your effort and time to improve sokker
I think the first rule that devs should follow is: what works well, don't touch it. Focus on modifying what does not work so well.
The other rule should be: in any update, make sure that the solution you have found is the one that best suits your final goal.
I give examples:
1- financial reform: the devs tell us that they have thought of a reform in which three possible solutions are proposed: adjust the number of fans who want to come to the stadium, increase the wages of the top players and increase some taxes.
On this question, I say, if the problem is the increase in weekly income caused by having more income due to the number of games per week at home, why don't we solve the only real problem in the whole situation and leave the rest as it was? Just focus on adjusting the number of fans willing to come to the stadium (that we have to reduce stadium prices in order to fill the stadium) until full season incomes per stadium is similar to what it was before the reform of the League 12 teams. Forget the rest of the solutions, they are not necessary, and they already worked within a logic: a 5x15 player earns about 20,000 e per week and a 5x17 player about 45,000 e, more than double with only a 10% increase in skills (on a scale of 18 levels). I repeat, do not modify what works well, and focus only on what works badly. Everyone could understand that incomes was increased by more home games during a shorter season, and it seems logical that this disproportionate income would be addressed by reducing income from home games. You don't need to touch anything else. Well, don't touch it, so you will reduce the number of dissatisfied users after that reform, if you touch other things like player salaries. In addition to saving time for the devs, because if you have to touch more things like wages or taxes, that will force the devs to spend more time on this reform to adjust everything. time that devs, we agree, don't have.
2- one of the goals of the devs with the sokker reforms was to get the teams to have more players. That you could no longer compete by playing all the games with the same 11 players. The devs thought that the key was in the injuries. Seasons were reduced from 16 to 13 weeks and went from 2 to 3 games per week (without champions or NT). But the risk and the duration of the injuries were not reduced in the same proportion. This measure, which many users have not liked, has not achieved the ultimate goal of the teams with more players either (at least not as the devs would have liked). The clearest example is the current Champions Cup champion who has played the last 5 or 6 official matches with the same 11-12 players until winning the CC. Players could have been injured, but it was not. He risked with luck and it turned out well. In the end the injuries are random. a user can take a risk with them and it can turn out well. But it's a good example to see that the devs didn't really achieve their goal.
If the ultimate goal seems to be getting teams to have more than 11 players in order to compete and win games, why not use a system that better guarantees this goal? The solution was given by the devs with the training reform: that the stamina was like a loss of energy. It would be something like this: a player who plays 2 games in a row maintains maximum stamina, but starts the third in a row with 25% less stamina and if he plays a fourth his stamina drops to 50%. (The numbers are revisable). But the idea is that the great Romanian champion, after the second match in a row, would have had a problem in the third with the stamina of his boys 25% lower and it would have cost him more to win his match. Obviously if he had continued in a fourth game, with the same 11 at 50% stamina, he would almost certainly have lost the game and, we could add, with more risk of injury. This would lead all teams to have more players in our clubs, not because of injuries but because of loss of energy. It would also allow us to reduce the probability of injury to players who play fewer games per week and increase it for those who always want to play with the same 11. Because less stamina could mean more risk of injure
More logical solution and one that achieves the main objective that the devs had: more players in the clubs
And I add a "bonus track" XD apart from these general comments: if a player plays 2 games during a week, he plays the first one completely without problems, and the second one is injured at min 70. He plays 160 min that week and the injury At the end it doesn't allow you to train anything? At least that week he should be able to train the minutes played that he has been healthy or, at least, the first complete game without injury. Later I can understand that as long as he is injured, he does not play and cannot train. But the first games before the injury, at least the first full one, should help him train because he was healthy and played without problems. I find it difficult to understand in this example why the player should not train the first week
(edited)
Chapeau
And about "the bonus track" it makes a lot of sense and that would ease the issue of injuries a bit. In the end, if it were that way + the reduction in injuries (in the part that is already implemented) + the benefits of having selected players, I think people would start to see it differently.
It doesn't make sense that if training is based on minutes played, if he plays 160 minutes during the week and gets injured, those 160 minutes don't count.
(edited)
And about "the bonus track" it makes a lot of sense and that would ease the issue of injuries a bit. In the end, if it were that way + the reduction in injuries (in the part that is already implemented) + the benefits of having selected players, I think people would start to see it differently.
It doesn't make sense that if training is based on minutes played, if he plays 160 minutes during the week and gets injured, those 160 minutes don't count.
(edited)
Your post is logic, so i guess Raul and 70% of forum users (not users in general) may not like your proposals.
may not like your proposals
I like them, good post.
If there will be less spectators, I will probably have to shrink my stadium - lower prices and remaining maintenance won't solve it. But why not, it's a chance to optimize the distribution of seats.
I like them, good post.
If there will be less spectators, I will probably have to shrink my stadium - lower prices and remaining maintenance won't solve it. But why not, it's a chance to optimize the distribution of seats.
+1
I totally agree about the finances and the solution you propose
and I would be happy, if RAUL also agrees.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" In the end the injuries are random."
This is a point were most users are wrong and you are also wrong.
On the news from 2012-05-24 one can read:
"Other modifications in match engine include:
...
- Added possibility of injury while dribbling, but, in exchange, lowered probability of other injuries"
(You can find the news on https://sokker.org/news/action/morenews/page/13, if you switch to english language.)
I can verify, that in seasons, where I used tactics with a lot of dribbling, I had 200 % more of injuries, than on seasons without dribbling. (e.g. instead of an average of 4 injuries per season, I had 12 injuries per season)
Do you realize what's the problem?
It's not total random and this is a fact.
A fact is also, that most users are not aware of the news from 2012-05-24 and that's why I wrote about it for the fourth time in the international forum. If you don't spread this information in your communities, people will continue using dangerous tactics (like some managers do in real life) and afterwards they will complain about the match engine (In real life such managers get sacked)
.
(edited)
I totally agree about the finances and the solution you propose
and I would be happy, if RAUL also agrees.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" In the end the injuries are random."
This is a point were most users are wrong and you are also wrong.
On the news from 2012-05-24 one can read:
"Other modifications in match engine include:
...
- Added possibility of injury while dribbling, but, in exchange, lowered probability of other injuries"
(You can find the news on https://sokker.org/news/action/morenews/page/13, if you switch to english language.)
I can verify, that in seasons, where I used tactics with a lot of dribbling, I had 200 % more of injuries, than on seasons without dribbling. (e.g. instead of an average of 4 injuries per season, I had 12 injuries per season)
Do you realize what's the problem?
It's not total random and this is a fact.
A fact is also, that most users are not aware of the news from 2012-05-24 and that's why I wrote about it for the fourth time in the international forum. If you don't spread this information in your communities, people will continue using dangerous tactics (like some managers do in real life) and afterwards they will complain about the match engine (In real life such managers get sacked)
.
(edited)
+Infinity :)
And for those who complain about stadiums that are already buld: they (the devs) don't need to reduce the attendance to the matches, only the money that the fans are willing to pay for a ticket, forcing us to reduce the prices to the half
(edited)
And for those who complain about stadiums that are already buld: they (the devs) don't need to reduce the attendance to the matches, only the money that the fans are willing to pay for a ticket, forcing us to reduce the prices to the half
(edited)
Bug ...
i have three players on TA. When i click to delete advers got this message
i have three players on TA. When i click to delete advers got this message
Your response Borkos is showing that despite how long you have been in the game, you don't understand the basic mechanics of how money is generated in the game.
Because all calculations for sponsorship are based on Fanclub, then than is what comes first and having a massive userbase of people who have had teams for a long time (whether active or not) is what creates stability.
Once you have high fanclub average, you have a higher sponsorship and then you can buy players.
Sorry, Achmid, but you're the one who after so many years doesn't understand this game
You don't make money on sponsors. You make money in transfers and people have given you lots of examples.
You made around 200m euro from transfers in 5 years, yet you are in the red because You paid more. You don't create any profit, that's your problem and the problem of many other users - bad transfers, bad training.
I gave you an example of Xineon. Latvija is as small as Australia.
Yet, he plays for 84.1 and top Australian teams don't reach 70.
Where's the difference? Well even after buying his current TOP level team, Xineon still has +75m euro in transfer profits. And he is playing in same sponsor/stadium etc. conditions as you.
Now let's look at top of Australia
Chelsea F.C: -70m euro
Team Moose Power: -122m euro
Achmids Soul: -1.75m euro
Ukmerges: -102.5m euro
cisco spurs: -68m euro
Do you see the difference? Between Xineon and Team Moose you have a difference of 200m euro in transfers, that's crazy money
That's the clue to sokker, improving team by transfers and training, not losing money all the time
Because all calculations for sponsorship are based on Fanclub, then than is what comes first and having a massive userbase of people who have had teams for a long time (whether active or not) is what creates stability.
Once you have high fanclub average, you have a higher sponsorship and then you can buy players.
Sorry, Achmid, but you're the one who after so many years doesn't understand this game
You don't make money on sponsors. You make money in transfers and people have given you lots of examples.
You made around 200m euro from transfers in 5 years, yet you are in the red because You paid more. You don't create any profit, that's your problem and the problem of many other users - bad transfers, bad training.
I gave you an example of Xineon. Latvija is as small as Australia.
Yet, he plays for 84.1 and top Australian teams don't reach 70.
Where's the difference? Well even after buying his current TOP level team, Xineon still has +75m euro in transfer profits. And he is playing in same sponsor/stadium etc. conditions as you.
Now let's look at top of Australia
Chelsea F.C: -70m euro
Team Moose Power: -122m euro
Achmids Soul: -1.75m euro
Ukmerges: -102.5m euro
cisco spurs: -68m euro
Do you see the difference? Between Xineon and Team Moose you have a difference of 200m euro in transfers, that's crazy money
That's the clue to sokker, improving team by transfers and training, not losing money all the time
Even look at Team Moose Power last transfers...
Instead of trying to create value and improve his team in the long run by investing in good youths, he decided that these transfers are a good idea:
2022-11-09 Rodrigo Tardy East Padulj city Team Moose Power 6 000 000 zł
(3 546 000 zł)
2022-11-09 Dariusz Kanar East Padulj city Team Moose Power 10 500 000 zł
(6 303 000 zł)
2022-11-09 Cyryl Borodycz K.S. Polonia Team Moose Power 19 403 788 zł
(6 047 000 zł)
2022-11-09 Maciej Skorupa F.C. LANUS Team Moose Power 22 000 000 zł
(6 775 000 zł)
2022-11-05 Alexander Collina Melbourne Mongrels Team Moose Power 31 250 000 zł
(7 003 000 zł)
ALL OF THEM are 30+
Yet he has only THREE players that are under 28 - 23, 25, 26. He paid for them in total... 1.5m euro
He has 11 players that are 31-37 years old
Do you see the problem now Achmid?
Instead of trying to create value and improve his team in the long run by investing in good youths, he decided that these transfers are a good idea:
2022-11-09 Rodrigo Tardy East Padulj city Team Moose Power 6 000 000 zł
(3 546 000 zł)
2022-11-09 Dariusz Kanar East Padulj city Team Moose Power 10 500 000 zł
(6 303 000 zł)
2022-11-09 Cyryl Borodycz K.S. Polonia Team Moose Power 19 403 788 zł
(6 047 000 zł)
2022-11-09 Maciej Skorupa F.C. LANUS Team Moose Power 22 000 000 zł
(6 775 000 zł)
2022-11-05 Alexander Collina Melbourne Mongrels Team Moose Power 31 250 000 zł
(7 003 000 zł)
ALL OF THEM are 30+
Yet he has only THREE players that are under 28 - 23, 25, 26. He paid for them in total... 1.5m euro
He has 11 players that are 31-37 years old
Do you see the problem now Achmid?