Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [idea] Game economy
You are completely right here.
Moreover, implementing auto-bidding would reduce the profit for users who use the arcade bug.
Ir is an easy fix, that could close some gaps and reduce market transfers
Moreover, implementing auto-bidding would reduce the profit for users who use the arcade bug.
Ir is an easy fix, that could close some gaps and reduce market transfers
The problem was cummulation of money in 50k teams and then this money floated to 9k teams nowadays. If you plan to attract thousands of new users, why could not you do it the other way around? Take the money accumulated in 9k teams and distribute it between new users?
2020-12-23 15:44:03
Raul to Dtox9
i think that real problem is acumulating money in sokker (inflation).
Its coused by team rotation (new users leave their starting money and quit) combined with current base of users (money is cumulated in 9k teams, while in the past similar money was spreaded for 50-70k teams).
there are not to many solutions to reduce money in sokker - probably one of the best now is coach recruitment - but most of users have great trainers, and no need to recriuit new (as there are no retirement, thats why we need to introduce it finally), taxes are a bit low (maybe we should introduce higher taxes from expensive transfers), or our idea with youth school is also a solution to introduce more options of spending money.
(edited)
2020-12-23 15:44:03
Raul to Dtox9
i think that real problem is acumulating money in sokker (inflation).
Its coused by team rotation (new users leave their starting money and quit) combined with current base of users (money is cumulated in 9k teams, while in the past similar money was spreaded for 50-70k teams).
there are not to many solutions to reduce money in sokker - probably one of the best now is coach recruitment - but most of users have great trainers, and no need to recriuit new (as there are no retirement, thats why we need to introduce it finally), taxes are a bit low (maybe we should introduce higher taxes from expensive transfers), or our idea with youth school is also a solution to introduce more options of spending money.
(edited)
Tax the Rich could easily be done.
Tier 1 (some countries also tier 2) teams could pay for heat in field (this is actually a requirement in many countries Real life)
Tax to the Nations football federation. The higher tier the more. This is for reeferes, officials etc.
Tier 1 (some countries also tier 2) teams could pay for heat in field (this is actually a requirement in many countries Real life)
Tax to the Nations football federation. The higher tier the more. This is for reeferes, officials etc.
Take the money accumulated in 9k teams and distribute it between new users?
Good Ground philosophy since gab between Rich and poor is getting getting bigger and bigger
Rich taxes could be redistributed into junior School fundings to new teams. For instance 1 year free incredible coach or first 12 spots free ...
Good Ground philosophy since gab between Rich and poor is getting getting bigger and bigger
Rich taxes could be redistributed into junior School fundings to new teams. For instance 1 year free incredible coach or first 12 spots free ...
I'm sure this has been mentioned and argued for and against before, but the two ideas I feel could really help are:
1. Add x% to a players weekly wage based on their transfer price.
This would make people second guess spending stupid amounts on a player and would be easy to adjust if needed in the future. I think a good starting point would be 2/1000 added to the wage.
2. Ability to build more spots in youth school at an extremely high price. Currently there are 30 spots. With enough money, this could be increased to 40 spots, but at a huge expense (like 10x or 20x the current cost). And because you are overloading the current coach, you must also buy another youth coach for the final 10.
For this 2nd idea, I have previously posted a much better, thought out idea, but the general idea is making youths a true money sink, where you get an advantage, but at a huge expense
Either way, this game needs to make money sinks, and if they can do it in a way that we have some control over it, I think people would prefer that to just a straight tax on things
1. Add x% to a players weekly wage based on their transfer price.
This would make people second guess spending stupid amounts on a player and would be easy to adjust if needed in the future. I think a good starting point would be 2/1000 added to the wage.
2. Ability to build more spots in youth school at an extremely high price. Currently there are 30 spots. With enough money, this could be increased to 40 spots, but at a huge expense (like 10x or 20x the current cost). And because you are overloading the current coach, you must also buy another youth coach for the final 10.
For this 2nd idea, I have previously posted a much better, thought out idea, but the general idea is making youths a true money sink, where you get an advantage, but at a huge expense
Either way, this game needs to make money sinks, and if they can do it in a way that we have some control over it, I think people would prefer that to just a straight tax on things
1. It doesn’t touch young’s with low wages but height price. A rare young players is around 10M now and could be sell at 15 to maybe… 20M in future due to inflation. Above that, it doesn’t matter, only richer club can reach top players, we can add taxes (or wages based tax) prices on market will adjust to include these taxes, and top players will stay unreachable for the ‘poorer’. It always the same in economy, if you don’t set prohibitive taxes nothing really change, and if you set prohibitive taxes we have an economic crisis that solve nothing for no ones.
2. Richer clubs would be ok to spend much money to increase the chance to get better young’s (and get their money back), but if it doesn’t increase the chance this clubs will stop this money sink. Your proposal is an economic no sense.
Actually there is a money sink : bots.
If we released all the players in bot teams, in live, it will be sometimes a massive run in the market to buy cheap top players and it will stop the price inflation. Inflation doesn’t hurt richer club (they just spend more money to resell at higher price too), so that should be a good strategy : flooding the market !
But, as always, does richer club really want that? No :-) They just say : give more money to the beginner s but don’t touch to our capital. The real life :-)
2. Richer clubs would be ok to spend much money to increase the chance to get better young’s (and get their money back), but if it doesn’t increase the chance this clubs will stop this money sink. Your proposal is an economic no sense.
Actually there is a money sink : bots.
If we released all the players in bot teams, in live, it will be sometimes a massive run in the market to buy cheap top players and it will stop the price inflation. Inflation doesn’t hurt richer club (they just spend more money to resell at higher price too), so that should be a good strategy : flooding the market !
But, as always, does richer club really want that? No :-) They just say : give more money to the beginner s but don’t touch to our capital. The real life :-)
this game needs to make money sinks
I disagree.
I can understand it's frustrating for lots of clubs to see players being sold for high(er) prices but it's also a part of the game's development and core system.
You cannot compare sokker with IRL clubs because of the training system and let that be the main reason why extra money sinks are not a good idea.
What this game needs is a system where managers needs to be Team Coach in first place, so it needs the league and cup to be much more important for the survival of the club as a whole.
If clubs have lots of money, it's because of the game design as it was / is and because they put years of effort into training, buying and selling players.
Imo, clubs should not be able to buy players when they have reached the cap of 30 players. You can ad that amount with own youth players, but the buying cap should be 30 players! Also, if you, as a manager, put 0% effort in sportive goals, the board of directors (should be new feature!) should limit your expenses on the transfer market!
And this means, not being able to buy young trainees, who are too weak to help the club being sportive again. So they should ''make'' you buy players of a certain level, provided you have sufficient money to do so.
They should also be able to force you to sell some players to increase your financial status, to be able to buy players who are more competitive for the increase of your sportive status.
Sokker is / has been too much of a trading game. Yet it IS an important part of the game. But it should be limited far more as it is now.
Managers should be people who try to balance sportive and financial status on both short and long term.
With promotion, the board should lower the seasonal expectations so you have the time to build onto your team to get stronger, as well as not decreasing your financial status with more than x%
With relegation, the board should increase the seasonal expectations and the probability of an increase of short term goals.
The game economy should not artificially being adjusted with the introduction of extra money sinks, just to make teams less rich, cause it will affect the less rich teams much more!
A good introduction could be if your team does not reach it's longterm goals, the board might react with the resignation of your main coach, since they ''feel he was not the right man for the job''
Off course, we all know, WE are the responsible factor, but this will certainly make pure traders, who don't care about sportive results, think twice about playing corner tactics with 22 very young pace trainees in both friendlies and league / cup matches...
I disagree.
I can understand it's frustrating for lots of clubs to see players being sold for high(er) prices but it's also a part of the game's development and core system.
You cannot compare sokker with IRL clubs because of the training system and let that be the main reason why extra money sinks are not a good idea.
What this game needs is a system where managers needs to be Team Coach in first place, so it needs the league and cup to be much more important for the survival of the club as a whole.
If clubs have lots of money, it's because of the game design as it was / is and because they put years of effort into training, buying and selling players.
Imo, clubs should not be able to buy players when they have reached the cap of 30 players. You can ad that amount with own youth players, but the buying cap should be 30 players! Also, if you, as a manager, put 0% effort in sportive goals, the board of directors (should be new feature!) should limit your expenses on the transfer market!
And this means, not being able to buy young trainees, who are too weak to help the club being sportive again. So they should ''make'' you buy players of a certain level, provided you have sufficient money to do so.
They should also be able to force you to sell some players to increase your financial status, to be able to buy players who are more competitive for the increase of your sportive status.
Sokker is / has been too much of a trading game. Yet it IS an important part of the game. But it should be limited far more as it is now.
Managers should be people who try to balance sportive and financial status on both short and long term.
With promotion, the board should lower the seasonal expectations so you have the time to build onto your team to get stronger, as well as not decreasing your financial status with more than x%
With relegation, the board should increase the seasonal expectations and the probability of an increase of short term goals.
The game economy should not artificially being adjusted with the introduction of extra money sinks, just to make teams less rich, cause it will affect the less rich teams much more!
A good introduction could be if your team does not reach it's longterm goals, the board might react with the resignation of your main coach, since they ''feel he was not the right man for the job''
Off course, we all know, WE are the responsible factor, but this will certainly make pure traders, who don't care about sportive results, think twice about playing corner tactics with 22 very young pace trainees in both friendlies and league / cup matches...
My brief ideas were not to personally penalise rich clubs, or help broken clubs, but give people an option or two to actually spend their money, whilst also taking some money out of the game.
As a player gets better, their wage really should reflect more accurately how much they bring to the club. I have literally never taken in to consideration a players wage, because it is such a small number.
As far as the youth idea, again, it's to give a fun aspect to the game that shouldn't be too hard to implement.
Anyway, I don't really mind either way what ends up happening as I can't see any major game changes to deal with the economy actually happening any time soon, and feel there are bigger issues in the economy that need fixing anyway.
It's good a lot of people throwing in ideas though, because then the devs can (hopefully) read through them, see what they like the idea of, and adapt it to be part of their vision for the future of the game
As a player gets better, their wage really should reflect more accurately how much they bring to the club. I have literally never taken in to consideration a players wage, because it is such a small number.
As far as the youth idea, again, it's to give a fun aspect to the game that shouldn't be too hard to implement.
Anyway, I don't really mind either way what ends up happening as I can't see any major game changes to deal with the economy actually happening any time soon, and feel there are bigger issues in the economy that need fixing anyway.
It's good a lot of people throwing in ideas though, because then the devs can (hopefully) read through them, see what they like the idea of, and adapt it to be part of their vision for the future of the game