Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: rules against excessive transfers
well market is extremely crazy these days something needs to be done
Any points 1st post on trading reform clearly help to limit transfer. Is it something you can understand about "excessive" ?
"excessive" maybe subjective, but when very high trading frequency leads to an unfair competitive advantage, something must be done ... https://sokker.org/team/teamID/77854
@Juytt : It seems that the team you (and I...) quoted stop using the arcade bug to buy / sell since we started discussing publicly these kind of cheats. Now that nobody can ignore that exploiting the arcade bug is against the rules, why the admins simply just cannot stop the ones who keep cheating ? What are the rules for ???
(edited)
@Juytt : It seems that the team you (and I...) quoted stop using the arcade bug to buy / sell since we started discussing publicly these kind of cheats. Now that nobody can ignore that exploiting the arcade bug is against the rules, why the admins simply just cannot stop the ones who keep cheating ? What are the rules for ???
(edited)
Think the majority or cause of this thread is envy. Many simply do not have the time or want to do something else. It's probably not all trading, but mostly testing. Even if you want to have a certain squad and the necessary coaches, it just goes into the money. The sponsorship payments are no longer enough. It is not for everyone to cope with such a minus.
I, too, often offer up to a certain limit. If a player doesn't fit into my training, the limit is deep etc.
Find it worse when teams push like https://skker.org/team/teamID/34619
there are others, especially on the weekend.
Krass, I'm more likely to find the engine that's calling sanctions to life! It should be a game and not inhibit it with blatant sanctions. As long as one does not use fraudulent means, the inhibitions are rather fraudulent. I lost a lot of €million as a result, which wouldn't have to be.
I, too, often offer up to a certain limit. If a player doesn't fit into my training, the limit is deep etc.
Find it worse when teams push like https://skker.org/team/teamID/34619
there are others, especially on the weekend.
Krass, I'm more likely to find the engine that's calling sanctions to life! It should be a game and not inhibit it with blatant sanctions. As long as one does not use fraudulent means, the inhibitions are rather fraudulent. I lost a lot of €million as a result, which wouldn't have to be.
Devs are aware about arcade exploit. It will be fixed.
On the top of the list will be repairing several errors (such as the impact of arcade matches on the ranking or the desire to place a player on TL) (Devs diary #9)
For this moment, there are no clear rules and communication to limit transfer using arcade; teams can continue to use this exploit because that's a "feature" of arcades and not considering as a "bug" but a side-effect. Just like there re no rules to limit transfers by seasons, or refusing to sell new players...
Of course that will not solve all market troubles.
(edited)
On the top of the list will be repairing several errors (such as the impact of arcade matches on the ranking or the desire to place a player on TL) (Devs diary #9)
For this moment, there are no clear rules and communication to limit transfer using arcade; teams can continue to use this exploit because that's a "feature" of arcades and not considering as a "bug" but a side-effect. Just like there re no rules to limit transfers by seasons, or refusing to sell new players...
Of course that will not solve all market troubles.
(edited)
Imo, you can only partially solve the market "problem", and imo, only with a limited amount of transfers each season...
Thing is, it's not a problem, but an issue... Many teams have lots of money or want to train toptalents and are willing to pay insane amounts of money for it. Is that a problem? Well, I'm sure all sellers are equally happy with it. Fact is that it has became almost impossible for "poorer" teams to buy good or great prospects. But it's quite logical, since most "rich" teams are saving money for around 45 seasons...
It is a huge advantage to have comparing to newer teams, but then again... it's normal too.
If you start a business from scratch, you can't compete instantly with multinationals...for the same reason.
I think, if you're going to increase expenses for transfers, it'll be even harder for new(er) teams to actually buy players from the market... There simply has to come limits on:
A: Amount of transfers each season for each team (in and out)
B: Amount of players in a team
only these things can slightly control the market, but never the prices... because teams will be even more willing to pay bigger amounts of money for the elite players... It's a logical consequence from a building team economy in sokker...
Maybe... and I'm just thinking about this, but could it be a good idea to have different levels of botteams" to increase the divisions and to give teams more reason to be willing to fight for their place in the league.
I'm thinking about low and midrange usernumber-countries up to 200 users in a country
To have "botteams" for each division...
1st class botteams: rating around 65
2nd class botteams: rating around 55
3th class botteams: rating around 50
4th class botteams: rating around 45
5th class botteams: rating around 35
This way, you give sort of a "challenge" for playing against botteams.
Why it's no fun, playing against botteams?
Either it's a worthless team, so no challenge at all, or it's a high ranked team, too strong for your team to beat.
With this, you make it "challenging", nothing more, nothing less.
Also, you increase the divisions to 5 so it's more enjoyable to promote to a higher level.
Also the difference between levels are smaller...
(edited)
Thing is, it's not a problem, but an issue... Many teams have lots of money or want to train toptalents and are willing to pay insane amounts of money for it. Is that a problem? Well, I'm sure all sellers are equally happy with it. Fact is that it has became almost impossible for "poorer" teams to buy good or great prospects. But it's quite logical, since most "rich" teams are saving money for around 45 seasons...
It is a huge advantage to have comparing to newer teams, but then again... it's normal too.
If you start a business from scratch, you can't compete instantly with multinationals...for the same reason.
I think, if you're going to increase expenses for transfers, it'll be even harder for new(er) teams to actually buy players from the market... There simply has to come limits on:
A: Amount of transfers each season for each team (in and out)
B: Amount of players in a team
only these things can slightly control the market, but never the prices... because teams will be even more willing to pay bigger amounts of money for the elite players... It's a logical consequence from a building team economy in sokker...
Maybe... and I'm just thinking about this, but could it be a good idea to have different levels of botteams" to increase the divisions and to give teams more reason to be willing to fight for their place in the league.
I'm thinking about low and midrange usernumber-countries up to 200 users in a country
To have "botteams" for each division...
1st class botteams: rating around 65
2nd class botteams: rating around 55
3th class botteams: rating around 50
4th class botteams: rating around 45
5th class botteams: rating around 35
This way, you give sort of a "challenge" for playing against botteams.
Why it's no fun, playing against botteams?
Either it's a worthless team, so no challenge at all, or it's a high ranked team, too strong for your team to beat.
With this, you make it "challenging", nothing more, nothing less.
Also, you increase the divisions to 5 so it's more enjoyable to promote to a higher level.
Also the difference between levels are smaller...
(edited)
We are removing bots, that's not to introduce bots again imo :-) But thats another subject.
The topic is about limiting numbers of trade by season. I could say 15 (the initial proposal) but 22 as an arbitrary total number sound better because that mean a complete team (11 team A + 11 team B ). 22 sells + 22 buys max by season.
The topic is about limiting numbers of trade by season. I could say 15 (the initial proposal) but 22 as an arbitrary total number sound better because that mean a complete team (11 team A + 11 team B ). 22 sells + 22 buys max by season.
Limiting the number of trades in season is a no brainer. This would halt the market activity and users' activity alongside.
Potential adjusting of settings by which players decide if they want to go on TL is a way to go. I would consider modifying the settings in a situation when a user has no (or very few) transfers recently and a player is willing to go on TL even without playing any games. The minimum of two games played in a new team could help to balance the things out.
Potential adjusting of settings by which players decide if they want to go on TL is a way to go. I would consider modifying the settings in a situation when a user has no (or very few) transfers recently and a player is willing to go on TL even without playing any games. The minimum of two games played in a new team could help to balance the things out.
"excessive" maybe subjective, but when very high trading frequency leads to an unfair competitive advantage, something must be done ... https://sokker.org/team/teamID/77854
Yes it does and I'm very much against trading instead of normal number of transfers. But you never can say, 5 is okay but 20 isn't.
If someone wants to replace the whole team and want to sell 22 players he/she owned for many seasons and buy 22 new players it is fine by me. But if 15 is considered excessive, this manager won't be able to do this and that is not how daytraiding should be stopped. This is restricting managers how to play the game and that is wrong.
So there should not be a limit on the number of sells and buys, but on how willingly players are to leave.
As I already wrote, if players don't want to leave clubs that easily, then daytraiding will stop. What do you want to do with 35 players if just 1 or 2 are willing to leave and just 10 can be trained and 22 can play?
Then there are 12 useless players in a team, who will all cost wages, so wasted money. Daytrading will stop right away if you get stuck with so many players that do nothing but costing money.
(edited)
Yes it does and I'm very much against trading instead of normal number of transfers. But you never can say, 5 is okay but 20 isn't.
If someone wants to replace the whole team and want to sell 22 players he/she owned for many seasons and buy 22 new players it is fine by me. But if 15 is considered excessive, this manager won't be able to do this and that is not how daytraiding should be stopped. This is restricting managers how to play the game and that is wrong.
So there should not be a limit on the number of sells and buys, but on how willingly players are to leave.
As I already wrote, if players don't want to leave clubs that easily, then daytraiding will stop. What do you want to do with 35 players if just 1 or 2 are willing to leave and just 10 can be trained and 22 can play?
Then there are 12 useless players in a team, who will all cost wages, so wasted money. Daytrading will stop right away if you get stuck with so many players that do nothing but costing money.
(edited)
there are the same teams (at least in romania) which reach top division by a rotation, tons of transfers, the game might die, but at least it's not a fraud
LOL. 22 is enough? Why the hell we need more than 22 players reselling for another reason than optimizing profits with short trades opportunities.
22 will kill this "game of trading", a very bad news for traders, at the same zero constraint for 'normal' coaches that dont need to change more than 2 team players during one season ^^
But anyway, as i said many times, any points from @rebel on trading reform topic could be a good news too. 22 max buy + 22 sell is just the simpler and the one-shot solution for me..
(edited)
22 will kill this "game of trading", a very bad news for traders, at the same zero constraint for 'normal' coaches that dont need to change more than 2 team players during one season ^^
But anyway, as i said many times, any points from @rebel on trading reform topic could be a good news too. 22 max buy + 22 sell is just the simpler and the one-shot solution for me..
(edited)
+1 it's not a fraud :) Many teams, if they dont abuse of high frequency trading, using trading system for (only) profits on swapping :)
It's funny to see few teams complain about high frequency trading : they already used it but less intensively because they just dont have script or enough times to BUY/SELL at high frequency :)
Anyway. Sokker should stop this for all users . Just put constraint.
It's funny to see few teams complain about high frequency trading : they already used it but less intensively because they just dont have script or enough times to BUY/SELL at high frequency :)
Anyway. Sokker should stop this for all users . Just put constraint.
If you mean by constraint, a max number of buys and sells, then here is a situation:
So you sold your whole team to start over, all 22 players and bought 20 new young players, and 2 older good players to not fall back all the way, a good keeper and striker and both get injured 30+ days .....
Now you have a problem. You never been a trader, you play the game as it should be played, but now f***ed because Sokker has some new crazy rule not to be able to buy players you really need, or sell when the other 2 are recovered.
In rl a club can hire 2 players for half a season (or less), in Sokker this is impossible so you need to buy 2 replacements and sell them when not needed anymore.
So you sold your whole team to start over, all 22 players and bought 20 new young players, and 2 older good players to not fall back all the way, a good keeper and striker and both get injured 30+ days .....
Now you have a problem. You never been a trader, you play the game as it should be played, but now f***ed because Sokker has some new crazy rule not to be able to buy players you really need, or sell when the other 2 are recovered.
In rl a club can hire 2 players for half a season (or less), in Sokker this is impossible so you need to buy 2 replacements and sell them when not needed anymore.
hey its is 11 players + 11 subs^^ Team B are usually for youngs training but that's on your own risk if we dont have enough subs.
With a restriction on number of buys and sells it's not your own risk, it is a Sokker rule.
At your own risk is to buy 2 extra players who are really needed for a number of weeks, but might not want to leave the moment you want to sell them. That is own risk, not a forced rule that makes it impossible to sell, or even buy in the first place.
(edited)
At your own risk is to buy 2 extra players who are really needed for a number of weeks, but might not want to leave the moment you want to sell them. That is own risk, not a forced rule that makes it impossible to sell, or even buy in the first place.
(edited)