Reducing Banner Income?

Here you can talk about wanted and upcoming game features

Moderators: Moderator, Programmer

Locked
Paul_G
Team Board Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:28 am
Location: Delaware, USA

Reducing Banner Income?

Post by Paul_G »

To avoid confusion: We have now added a 'cheap' Sanmax-banner. So don't wait for it to generate about €200 000. We have done this to keep control over the global economy, our relationship with Sanmax has never been better.
I'm currently trying to buy a player for $45,000,000, and you guys are worried about a $200,000 advertising banner?

Noooooooo, guys! Advertising isn't the problem! Advertising income is too LOW, not too high! We need a lot of advertising income that varies by division!

We need some kind of money sink in this game, somewhere where you can spend money consistently to improve something. My recommendation would be the quality and/or quantity of youth players, but it could be anything. The problem isn't income. The problem is that the upper division teams have nothing to spend money on other than players!
Image

At one brief point in the past, America...
At one brief point in the future, the world?
kjekspakke
Team President
Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:06 pm
Location: C:\World \Europe \Norway \Østfold \Fredrikstad \Rolvsøy
Contact:

Re: Reducing Banner Income?

Post by kjekspakke »

Paul_G wrote:
We need some kind of money sink in this game, somewhere where you can spend money consistently to improve something. My recommendation would be the quality and/or quantity of youth players, but it could be anything. The problem isn't income. The problem is that the upper division teams have nothing to spend money on other than players!
True, and I agree.
Image
Image
Michal Kejchal
Team Board Member
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:15 am

Post by Michal Kejchal »

I dont think that its neccesary to build something all the time. Its not sustainable and ecological :wink:
I prefere to implement "amortization factor". Dont mind to let "big clubs" earn a lot (rather from tickets than from advertisement). But if we want to have the game more realistic they should be also forced to spend part of income on stadium reconstruction.
Paul_G
Team Board Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:28 am
Location: Delaware, USA

Post by Paul_G »

Michal Kejchal wrote:I dont think that its neccesary to build something all the time. Its not sustainable and ecological :wink:
I prefere to implement "amortization factor". Dont mind to let "big clubs" earn a lot (rather from tickets than from advertisement). But if we want to have the game more realistic they should be also forced to spend part of income on stadium reconstruction.
Isn't there something already that causes people with bigger stadiums to make less money?

Anyway, when you talk about 'forcing' people to do stuff then you're talking about something that, while realistic, doesn't add to the enjoyment or strategy of the game. You don't want anyone to feel that they're just being penalized for being successful.

When I say dropping money into youths, I was talking about investing into something like a scouting network or developmental teams. Kind of non-specific things that a team can put money into if they so choose. Myself, I have always been very keen on having a way to influence the quality and quantity of youths as they come in, beyond the very simplistic youth center system that we have right now.

You could even have it be as simple as - for each $1,000,000 invested, the minimum skill value of an incoming youth player is increased by one. So a generated player has a range from 55-100 for skills, right? Someone who invests 20 million will create a player whose skills will range from 75-100 instead - someone who will be a very good player, but still not guaranteed to be world class.

We can set it so that no more than 20 million can be spent in this way per incoming youth.
Image

At one brief point in the past, America...
At one brief point in the future, the world?
Frrfrr
Team Board Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:13 pm

Post by Frrfrr »

good way to slow increasing inflation is to

1. stop cheating, which brings a lot of money to the system

2. stop allowing brand new teams to sell majority of players and buy one for whole amount + loan from bank (i simplified it and i dont say now anything about rootcause)

3. with +10000 new players a season multiplied by 2M loan + 1M startup money we have over 20 billion of fresh cash which is circulating not disappearing ... - put some higher fee on transfers ...

4. increasing offer of players proportionally decreases demand. however new players from H get some shity players and they create demand for better ones ... the trend of increasing prise for better players is unstopppable ... top players get extremly expensive more and more as in reality ... while there is no adquate increase offer - they the best with increasing demand
in this case stability may bring only, that noone may join SP further and noone from existing players from now on will ask for better players and sticks to his shity ones :)

i wrote like 5 additional points but i had to delete them :)
i am not to say, while all of them i have in mind now are against rich teams and my team is rich :)
Michal Kejchal
Team Board Member
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:15 am

Post by Michal Kejchal »

Paul_G wrote: You could even have it be as simple as - for each $1,000,000 invested, the minimum skill value of an incoming youth player is increased by one. So a generated player has a range from 55-100 for skills, right? Someone who invests 20 million will create a player whose skills will range from 75-100 instead - someone who will be a very good player, but still not guaranteed to be world class.

We can set it so that no more than 20 million can be spent in this way per incoming youth.
Yes, it should be interesting feature. But anyway we are still moveing in a circle. In your first post you wrote:
"The problem is that the upper division teams have nothing to spend money on other than players!"
And your suggestion is completely about players... :P

to Frrfrr: You forgot to suggest higher salaries :wink:
Rinus
Team Manager
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Utrecht, Nederland

Post by Rinus »

The only simple and effective way to fight inflation is to let the game generate players imo.

It makes it possible to retract money from the game, and to influence the market by increasing supply;
the number (and even the quality) of the generated players can be adjusted according to the current inflation rate.

Best of all: It wouldn't make the gap between top teams and lower divisions even greater, like the Youth Player idea would :twisted:
Image
livio
Assistant Manager
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 1:27 pm

Post by livio »

This is my suggestion:

At end of every season you got to give some percentage off your current bugdet(in the order of 1-5%) to the investors of the club. You did get a starting capitale that didnt came from you... those investors invested in you so they could make money for them selves...


the investors is SP itself and lots of cash will be pulled out of the game...
Howl
Team Manager
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:02 am

Post by Howl »

Paul, read my reply to your original thread about this exact same topic. But, just in case you did read it and did not understand it, let me try to make things even clearer for you.

If you are concerned about inflation, just take some time to ensure that you are actually running your team well and making sound investments. Inflation is a really beautiful thing because inflation has to lead to deflation. This is one of the few hard and fast economic laws. I really do not want to take the time to explain the intricacies of this to you (as you appear bent on complaining about this issue and most likely do not want to learn anyways), but when prices get too high, there is not enough money left to support high prices. Thus prices fall dramatically.

If you are managing your team well, you will make a killing once prices fall dramatically. This is precisely how Donald Trump made his money and also how he lost it!

If left to their own, economies will follow a sine wave, but if the developers keep making changes, the trough will never come and all of us who practice sound financial management policies will never get our chance to shine.

It may be interesting to find a way to actually limit how frequently people can start new teams, but that would be next to impossible (unless the developers want to travel on the slippery slope called 'allowing only one person from each educational institution to play')
Paul_G
Team Board Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:28 am
Location: Delaware, USA

Post by Paul_G »

Howl wrote:I really do not want to take the time to explain the intricacies of this to you (as you appear bent on complaining about this issue and most likely do not want to learn anyways)
That statement is a little unfair, don't you think? Since...

1. I haven't posted for a few days, since I haven't been online. Hardly the behavior of someone who is, "bent" on something.

2. I think my posts, however opinionated, have always been centered around suggesting solutions rather than simply bashing the game (which is what the term complaining implies).

and

3. This thread started as a post about advertising income being too low and not primarily about inflation.

It's 2:30 am here and I want to head to bed, but I'll start with this and add to it later...

What I'd like to see is an income based more on the division you are in and success of your team, rather than just the ability to work the transfer market. This is more realistic in terms of soccer, don't you think? I don't want to see the game dominated by grocery clerks and used car salesmen, but by people who best know how to manage a soccer team.

My main issue is that upper level teams have nothing to do with their money other than spend it on the transfer market. This is a one-dimensional rendition of what owning a soccer team entails. I don't know much about economics and I wouldn't hold my own in an in-depth discussion about it, but I do know that giving players more stuff to do, (outside of the stadium building which is finished in the first few months of play) would make for a more interesting and deeper gaming experience.

Hopefully my reply makes sense. There's probably holes in what I've said and if so, well, it's 2:30 am, I'm old, and I did my best. I'll be back to review it when I'm more awake. :oops:
Image

At one brief point in the past, America...
At one brief point in the future, the world?
Paul_G
Team Board Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:28 am
Location: Delaware, USA

Post by Paul_G »

A little bit more about economics... here's the problem.

You're looking at the big picture of a global economy and how cool it will be to watch the sine wave of inflation do its work, whereas I'm looking at just playing the game from an individual basis. I don't doubt that eventually the market will hit some kind of roof, but when? I've been playing for two years, and I haven't seen a drop in prices yet.

I think we haven't come close to hitting the apex of what a top player will go for yet. The richest teams probably don't buy more than one, maybe two starting players each year, and the number of rich teams is increasing all the time.

Let's say a top player rated 90+ will go for 175,000,000 at the very top of your sine wave. I'm just throwing out a number. As the price of top players moves past 100 million or whatever point you want to place it at, intermediate teams like mine will no longer be in the running for them.

What would you do in my situation at that time? Try to develop your own players, right? So you'd put your emphasis on buying quality youths with high hidden skills... etc. With intermediate level teams placing more of a premium on quality youths, the price of those players will go up and eventually be too expensive for lower league teams. That hurts the game IMO. Unlike some people, I don't think lower league teams should be able to bid for world class players - but I do think they should be able to buy quality youths.

I keep hearing how transfer market prices going up somehow helps new players... I'm no economist, but from where I'm standing all I see it doing is making the distribution of money more random.

Youth centers pop out young players at random positions, of random quality. Owner X might get a new player who develops into someone who has a GR of 94 - someone who at the top of your wave would give Owner X enough money to propel him several divisions. Whereas Owner Y, who is a better SP owner, might not get a new player at all - it's completely random and based almost solely on luck. Where's the skill and strategy in that?

Likewise, the distribution of new players to new teams is also random. One owner might get a bunch of players who are basically worthless, making him unable to compete with luckier owners.

Also, we're assuming that there is no cheating going on with H division teams. Let's go out on a limb and assume that some people are cheating using multi accounts... as the stakes get higher, people who play like that are going to get very powerful in this game very quickly. I think combining random distribution with high stakes would be a breeding ground for cheating.
Image

At one brief point in the past, America...
At one brief point in the future, the world?
luko
Assistant Manager
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:53 pm

Post by luko »

Howl wrote: ...Inflation is a really beautiful thing because inflation has to lead to deflation. This is one of the few hard and fast economic laws.
In real life maybe, but not in this game as long as there are new teams being created constantly with 1M-2M. A lot of these teams won't pass H division and are more likely to disappear for lack of interest, having increased the amount of money circulating in the market. As the offer of money increases constantly, the prices will increase too.

I agree with Paul_G on how the game depends too much on the market, this is the other reason that explains the inflation. I think somehow it gives an oportunity for lower teams to improve fast, but right now its disproportionate. Its not a bad idea to diversify the way players have to spend their money.
GatesOfAss
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:17 pm

Post by GatesOfAss »

page 1 Of 1
visje69
Member of the Soccer Project Association
Posts: 16939
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:04 am
Location: Gent (Belgium)

Post by visje69 »

in another game, you have stadium repairs, things that break because of some cercomstances(or however you write that word lol) like something that has been broken (lights for example) and you need to repair them

also the youth and improvements would be ok :)
Lesbuffalos - Oh father tell me, we get what we deserve... And way down we go...
Winner of the Beneliga Season 78, 80, 103, 104, 105, 106 & 107!
A-league winner of Season 104 & 105!
SP-Cup Winner Season 106, 107 & 108!
Since S1 - August 27 2004
GatesOfAss
Assistant Coach
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:17 pm

Post by GatesOfAss »

A little bit more about economics... here's the problem.

You're looking at the big picture of a global economy and how cool it will be to watch the sine wave of inflation do its work, whereas I'm looking at just playing the game from an individual basis. I don't doubt that eventually the market will hit some kind of roof, but when? I've been playing for two years, and I haven't seen a drop in prices yet.

I think we haven't come close to hitting the apex of what a top player will go for yet. The richest teams probably don't buy more than one, maybe two starting players each year, and the number of rich teams is increasing all the time.

Let's say a top player rated 90+ will go for 175,000,000 at the very top of your sine wave. I'm just throwing out a number. As the price of top players moves past 100 million or whatever point you want to place it at, intermediate teams like mine will no longer be in the running for them.

What would you do in my situation at that time? Try to develop your own players, right? So you'd put your emphasis on buying quality youths with high hidden skills... etc. With intermediate level teams placing more of a premium on quality youths, the price of those players will go up and eventually be too expensive for lower league teams. That hurts the game IMO. Unlike some people, I don't think lower league teams should be able to bid for world class players - but I do think they should be able to buy quality youths.

I keep hearing how transfer market prices going up somehow helps new players... I'm no economist, but from where I'm standing all I see it doing is making the distribution of money more random.

Youth centers pop out young players at random positions, of random quality. Owner X might get a new player who develops into someone who has a GR of 94 - someone who at the top of your wave would give Owner X enough money to propel him several divisions. Whereas Owner Y, who is a better SP owner, might not get a new player at all - it's completely random and based almost solely on luck. Where's the skill and strategy in that?

Likewise, the distribution of new players to new teams is also random. One owner might get a bunch of players who are basically worthless, making him unable to compete with luckier owners.

Also, we're assuming that there is no cheating going on with H division teams. Let's go out on a limb and assume that some people are cheating using multi accounts... as the stakes get higher, people who play like that are going to get very powerful in this game very quickly. I think combining random distribution with high stakes would be a breeding ground for cheating.
Locked

Return to “Requested / Upcoming features”