Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Auto-Bidding System in Sokker
So, having postponed bidding only for plus users is in your opinion not a pay to win feature?
For countries like Australia for example, they should either pay to bid with PLUS or with the sacrifice of sleep... so yes...pay to win for regional benificials...
For countries like Australia for example, they should either pay to bid with PLUS or with the sacrifice of sleep... so yes...pay to win for regional benificials...
I think I responded quite clearly so I don't really see why you're asking again
It's less pay to win than the ability to watch games of opponent and adjust your tactics to his tactics - and that's possible only with plus
It's as much pay to win as training graphs - you can do both manually, it's easier and less time consuming to do it automatically
Pay to win gives you an advantages that is impossible to achieve without paying. Automatic bidding does not give you anything that you can't do yourself, you just don't have to be online and to it manually.
It's less pay to win than the ability to watch games of opponent and adjust your tactics to his tactics - and that's possible only with plus
It's as much pay to win as training graphs - you can do both manually, it's easier and less time consuming to do it automatically
Pay to win gives you an advantages that is impossible to achieve without paying. Automatic bidding does not give you anything that you can't do yourself, you just don't have to be online and to it manually.
I'm not asking anything, but I knew you couldn't resist to give another answer :-p
Anyways, I don't think it's fair for countries with a 10h time window difference from the server.
But to be honest, I don't like the idea of postponed bidding in this game at all.
But for me, it should be given either to everyone or to no one and I like the latter the most.
Anyways, I don't think it's fair for countries with a 10h time window difference from the server.
But to be honest, I don't like the idea of postponed bidding in this game at all.
But for me, it should be given either to everyone or to no one and I like the latter the most.
I don't think autobid would make bargains impossible. It would make it more snaggy. Everybody would still have the same needs and resources, and you'd get a reading on a possible final price sooner, but with much more hassle (of outbidding all autobids of the players who started earlier than you). An early shill bidder would be able to set up an invisible asking price for everyone. But whether people would decide to freeze their resources out on a prospect isn't easily forecast, you'd definitely get closer to the final price sooner, but exactly how close? No telling. And that's the only important thing really, the final bid. And you would know the earliest bidders would get dibs on the nominal value of the player, so you'd have an incentive to fork out that one peg extra.
Then an Australian bidder would see a couple of similar players and decide whom to bid for on base of the current autobid state. But so would the players further west, and in the end it would be about who committed with the highest final value, and players initially cheaper could get more such attention than the competing ones. And this final state would be less clearly inducible from the situation than nowadays if there was to be a simple order of prevalence, because among the bidders ahead of you there could be someone hiking the price up while your attention is disinvested from other opportunities. So you might be made to forgo a chance for what you were made to think was more realistic.
New features change things not only for their proponents.
By the way, there are games with an autobid system. But in these you usually sell your player to the bank for their nominal value, and then the bank tries to sell the player at their own gain or loss. So the buying and selling processes are separated.
Then an Australian bidder would see a couple of similar players and decide whom to bid for on base of the current autobid state. But so would the players further west, and in the end it would be about who committed with the highest final value, and players initially cheaper could get more such attention than the competing ones. And this final state would be less clearly inducible from the situation than nowadays if there was to be a simple order of prevalence, because among the bidders ahead of you there could be someone hiking the price up while your attention is disinvested from other opportunities. So you might be made to forgo a chance for what you were made to think was more realistic.
New features change things not only for their proponents.
By the way, there are games with an autobid system. But in these you usually sell your player to the bank for their nominal value, and then the bank tries to sell the player at their own gain or loss. So the buying and selling processes are separated.
I play a game with an autobidder (limited to 1 active at a time) and what it does is allow everyone access to a player regardless of time of day that person sells.
The person online when the player is actually sold still has an advantage, as they see the price right near the end and can react, but it does give others at least a better chance.
Bargains are still present as there is just the 1 autobidder (I personally feel free-to-play should have 1 and pay-to-play have 2). The best players in the game still garner the most attention, so there is almost no change in their price, but the next next couple of levels, their prices become more consistent, which is in everyones favour.
It works well when implemented properly, but if they make a mess of it, as has happened with other implementations in the game due to being short-sighted about it, then it will also mess up the market even more.
The person online when the player is actually sold still has an advantage, as they see the price right near the end and can react, but it does give others at least a better chance.
Bargains are still present as there is just the 1 autobidder (I personally feel free-to-play should have 1 and pay-to-play have 2). The best players in the game still garner the most attention, so there is almost no change in their price, but the next next couple of levels, their prices become more consistent, which is in everyones favour.
It works well when implemented properly, but if they make a mess of it, as has happened with other implementations in the game due to being short-sighted about it, then it will also mess up the market even more.