Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »[info] Dev Diary #76: Nothing is Certain Except Taxes
@Raul
"Yes, it's true that with this change, users who have a large budget but don't invest it will be "penalized" – but that's logical. If we have a league where teams are fairly evenly matched, it's a mid-level league, and one of the managers has a huge frozen budget – why shouldn't fans expect championships from them?"
Yes Raul.
That's very, veeeery logical,
All supporters have a knowledge about club budget.
It's logical.
L
O
G
I
C
<facepalm>
This is the stupidest explanation you could produce. I'm a supported of a huge club and guess what - i have no idea what is his budget.
What makes supporters expectations? Last season stand, current team level, club reputation and incoming transfers. But I understand that in Sokker, budget should have some impact on the "expectations" (say 25% of the 60% mentioned in pressroom announcement, so 15% total). But as I read some of the forum posts, currently, budget is the MAIN factor. In fact, the new mood system punishes managers for maintaining a healthy budget balance and rewards managers for being close to the bankruptcy. This is unfair and not logical at all and you should revise it ASAP.
(edited)
"Yes, it's true that with this change, users who have a large budget but don't invest it will be "penalized" – but that's logical. If we have a league where teams are fairly evenly matched, it's a mid-level league, and one of the managers has a huge frozen budget – why shouldn't fans expect championships from them?"
Yes Raul.
That's very, veeeery logical,
All supporters have a knowledge about club budget.
It's logical.
L
O
G
I
C
<facepalm>
This is the stupidest explanation you could produce. I'm a supported of a huge club and guess what - i have no idea what is his budget.
What makes supporters expectations? Last season stand, current team level, club reputation and incoming transfers. But I understand that in Sokker, budget should have some impact on the "expectations" (say 25% of the 60% mentioned in pressroom announcement, so 15% total). But as I read some of the forum posts, currently, budget is the MAIN factor. In fact, the new mood system punishes managers for maintaining a healthy budget balance and rewards managers for being close to the bankruptcy. This is unfair and not logical at all and you should revise it ASAP.
(edited)
yes, additionally the problem is, that we can invest all our money into 16 year old trainees that cost all our money. Now the supporters in sokker for some reason would not expect us to win anymore, because the 16y olds will be a lot more expensive on the market then what they are valued by the club or the fans.
Changes like this thus may cause a hike in price for the most expensive trainees.
I'm also not sure, how it will be for new clubs like mine in terms of catching up with the fanclub size of big clubs. Growth of the fanclub is limited for us down here, while big clubs will probably either stagnate (for clubs with not much money) or shrink (clubs with lots of money). But I would think it just got harder for new clubs to reach those stagnating clubs unfortunately.
Changes like this thus may cause a hike in price for the most expensive trainees.
I'm also not sure, how it will be for new clubs like mine in terms of catching up with the fanclub size of big clubs. Growth of the fanclub is limited for us down here, while big clubs will probably either stagnate (for clubs with not much money) or shrink (clubs with lots of money). But I would think it just got harder for new clubs to reach those stagnating clubs unfortunately.
I don't think there is really any practical solution to speed the game up.
This game has been around for almost 20 years. Other than wiping everything and starting everyone new...which would never fly...
The fact new users are even trying the game at this point is kinda amazing. Giving new users a sokker-inflation adjusted starting income would be something not overly intrusive to the game. Also, give them a better starting stadium also - perhaps 10k benches or something like that. The fact the league is twice a week is a positive for player engagement. That's a good change.
I played a hockey game similar to this - for like 20 years. The past 7-8 years or so growth was poor , same reasons as here. Ownership was largely absentee. Actually much worse than here.
This game has been around for almost 20 years. Other than wiping everything and starting everyone new...which would never fly...
The fact new users are even trying the game at this point is kinda amazing. Giving new users a sokker-inflation adjusted starting income would be something not overly intrusive to the game. Also, give them a better starting stadium also - perhaps 10k benches or something like that. The fact the league is twice a week is a positive for player engagement. That's a good change.
I played a hockey game similar to this - for like 20 years. The past 7-8 years or so growth was poor , same reasons as here. Ownership was largely absentee. Actually much worse than here.
Taxes Curve should have been leaner (longer) and 15.5 % should have been week 20, thus increasing the taxation period with 1 week.
Tax money should go to the Club of Origin no matter the age of the player... or at least until 25..27...y.o.a.
Just an opinion!
Best of luck!
Tax money should go to the Club of Origin no matter the age of the player... or at least until 25..27...y.o.a.
Just an opinion!
Best of luck!
That would irritate more of the population (longer period of high taxes).
Also, the whole point AFAIK is to be a money sink, not a redistribution of existing insane amounts of wealth (of which I have none, lol)
Also, the whole point AFAIK is to be a money sink, not a redistribution of existing insane amounts of wealth (of which I have none, lol)
50% is okay :D
It will make a balance between players like you and BlueZero, because he is playing the game 17 years more than you and you finished 940 transfers versus his 1000. That's the point of these taxes.
It will make a balance between players like you and BlueZero, because he is playing the game 17 years more than you and you finished 940 transfers versus his 1000. That's the point of these taxes.
So if an ordinary user buys a player for 10M and then sells him 4 weeks later for 8M, he will receive only 4M? And we implement the rule to protect this user from wild traders? Seems legit -.-
I agree, this change is good.
The mood one was bad (it was targeted against teams like mine, but had 0 effect)
The mood one was bad (it was targeted against teams like mine, but had 0 effect)
Thats true. The higher taxes should apply after X transfers. For example first 5 transfers in the season would be 10% (or was it 8%?).
Hi all.
How about the freshly pulled juniors?
They will have 50% tax when we put them straight in to transfer list?
How about the freshly pulled juniors?
They will have 50% tax when we put them straight in to transfer list?
In fact, day traders are a healthy regulator of the market.
1. They are a price balancer. It's annoying to see your player sold to a trader for 70-80% of the expected price, but obviously without the trader's involvement the price would be at least one bid lower. And usually one bid isn't enough, and very often just as the auction is prolonged other players get involved and the price reaches expected levels.
2. They help burn money. The more transfers a player has, the more he helps burn money through the 10% fee.
Beyond traders, other users will also not be able to buy players short term as replacements for injured or before key games. By buying a player, you will lose less if you keep him for one season than if you sell him asap - the loss in market value per season will usually be less than the difference in fees. Which may be an intentional result, but overall there will be less choice of players on the market and more fluctuating prices.
1. They are a price balancer. It's annoying to see your player sold to a trader for 70-80% of the expected price, but obviously without the trader's involvement the price would be at least one bid lower. And usually one bid isn't enough, and very often just as the auction is prolonged other players get involved and the price reaches expected levels.
2. They help burn money. The more transfers a player has, the more he helps burn money through the 10% fee.
Beyond traders, other users will also not be able to buy players short term as replacements for injured or before key games. By buying a player, you will lose less if you keep him for one season than if you sell him asap - the loss in market value per season will usually be less than the difference in fees. Which may be an intentional result, but overall there will be less choice of players on the market and more fluctuating prices.