|
Post by sammysosa on Apr 3, 2012 20:51:01 GMT 1
I browsed the suggestions forum to see if this was suggested before, but couldn't find it, so here it goes;
Althuigh I'm a newbie on Peloton, I'm not a newbie in Managementgames. Every managementgame suffers from "traders", manager that only buy and resell for profit. As it normally isn't in any managementgame's goals, to make a game based on trading, since it is more about training, riding and winning, the games search for ways to make it harder to trade sufficiently.
My suggestion is as follows; why not install a 14 day limit to trading. If you buy a rider, you'll have to wait a minimum of 14 days before you can sell him again.
I'm looking forward to any comments.
|
|
|
Post by rarau on Apr 3, 2012 22:38:47 GMT 1
something near your suggestion was suggested before something like 70% after 1 day, 75% after x days , etc like in hattrick but no matter what you put will be always some traders. And i think is good for game health to have traders. In rugbymania is almost inpossible to trade and market is near dead
|
|
|
Post by kurtinsc on Apr 4, 2012 15:16:40 GMT 1
I like the idea of a window.
Once you sign a player from the market, you cannot put him back on the market for 2 or 3 weekly sims.
There will still be trading, it will just slow it down a little. But I am biased on the issue... I was very annoyed when I had a rider who I sold for 95K immediately get put back on the market and have him sold for 256K three days later.
Heck, I'd be okay with a rule that a rider can only be on the transfer market once a season (though he could still be cut to appear there a second time). In reality, cyclists almost never switch teams more then once a year. It's rare to see it happen in real life.
|
|
|
Post by Genomico on Apr 4, 2012 15:55:37 GMT 1
Because managers can find out future abilities of riders within 1 or 2 weekly updates it can be that people for other reasons than making profit buy a cyclist and sell them immediatly because the future ability of the cyclist on the skill they train was very bad. It doesn't make sense that that the cyclist has to stay in the team and cannot be sold again. I've done that with a cyclist; I sold him 3 days after I bought him for $260,000 less. So it's not always to get profit
|
|
|
Post by kurtinsc on Apr 4, 2012 18:20:51 GMT 1
I don't think the reason for buying/selling a cyclist multiple times during a season really matters.
Is the game supposed to be about maximizing your team based on figuring out the formula for the game or is it supposed to simulate real cycling?
Teams don't sign a cyclist then transfer him to another team because he doesn't develop over those weeks like they expected. They may do it at the end of the season, but not DURING the season. The only time I know of where cyclists are "sold" in the transfer market tends to be the end of the season. Occasionally it will happen ONCE for a cyclist during season (When they are signed with a small team and a big team comes calling at some point... I remember that happening to Allan Davis one season), but I can't think of many times where a cyclist is traded from one team to another during a season in real life.
If we are trying to simulate that... maybe one transfer per season would be the most realistic. It wouldn't hamper new teams that much... the riders they can afford tend to be so cheap that other owners wouldn't care to much about simply dropping a cyclist of that level rather then selling them on the cheap.
|
|
|
Post by sammysosa on Apr 4, 2012 18:24:06 GMT 1
Genomico; I totally get that, FA and all. But communication with the seller would prevent that. I'm merely pointing out the pure traders.
|
|
|
Post by kingstown on Apr 4, 2012 22:17:53 GMT 1
@ kurtinsc:
Gameplay over realism as far as i'm concerned. Don't know why things have to be as realistic as possible since we're playing a game and there are so many aspects that are not realistic, because otherwise the game wouldn't be playable.
Trading is a part of many managementgames and although i don't do it myself , i don't really care tbh. Just find a balance that fits in this game, so that traders get their share without having an extreme advantage.
Buying a maximum of X riders a season would be a very simple solution, without making a lot of extra (and/or complicated) rules with percentages etc.
|
|
|
Post by lee1950 on Apr 6, 2012 16:44:49 GMT 1
Another option is to adjust the Transfer Fee %:
5% if cyclist is with team 4+ weeks. (As it is currently) 15% if cyclist is with team 3-to-4 weeks. 25% if cyclist is with team 2-to-3 weeks. 40% if cyclist is with team <2 weeks.
Numbers are for illustration.....
|
|
|
Post by SeanCages on Apr 9, 2012 16:55:31 GMT 1
You want to kill the market even more? Give me 1 good reason why trading shouldn't be allowed?
You're a managar of a cycling team, your one and only goal is to make profit. That's how it works. If you want to make profit winning races, fine, if you want to profit on the market fine.
The only reasonable suggestion I see is doing it like hattrick. Selling team only gets 90% to 95% of the transfer, motherteam might get some money (which would make having a YS just a tiny tad more profitable). I wouldn't make money dissappear out of the game just yet, so giving money to like a middleman (the % could decrease over time) might be an idea for the future, but maybe just not yet.
edit: and this is a very important issue. This entire game at the moment is balancing on a very thin rope. Managers are going bankrupt just because the transfermaket isn't profitable. Imaging being a new trainer and trying to get out of your debts by selling your only 5+ rider. You would get about 70k for him, while the good riders will always only be sold for about 300k, 1 season ago I sold a 4 rider for about that amount, now I'll sell a 7 rider for that amount, and next season it's a 10 rider for that amount, until the FA really kicks in. Or more managers join, but that's not happening just yet.
|
|
|
Post by kurtinsc on Apr 9, 2012 17:13:52 GMT 1
You want to kill the market even more? Give me 1 good reason why trading shouldn't be allowed? Because it doesn't happen like this in real cycling? I know that's not necessarily the defining factor on if it should be done or not, but in real life how often do you see mid-season transfers? Not firings or signings, but one team paying money to another for a rider to transfer over? It happens a little during the off-season, but not much at all during the season. Now I understand it's a game, and gameplay should trump realism to some degree. But "day trading" riders isn't really a great thing either. If anything, limiting a rider to one or two transfers a season will lesten the TALENT on the market, which in your example would make the price an owner can recieve higher for the riders they do develop and sell. (less supply with the same demand). I think it's silly to expect a certain regular profit from the transfer market to be honest. Maybe I'm in the minority with that, but as a cycling fan, I don't see teams using the transfer market as an expected source of profit. Yes, occasionally a Garmin will hit on a Brad Wiggins and sell his rights for a huge profit or Cadel Evans will decide to leave his team and his new club will pay money to buy him out, but it's much more common for a breakout cyclist to complete his contract, then sign with the new club rather then get paid as a transfer. That's not the norm. Even developmental teams don't expect that sort of thing as part of their revenue streams. Cyclist transfers is not really a revenue stream cycling clubs count on in real life.
|
|
|
Post by kingstown on Apr 9, 2012 17:32:26 GMT 1
edit: and this is a very important issue. This entire game at the moment is balancing on a very thin rope. Managers are going bankrupt just because the transfermaket isn't profitable. Imaging being a new trainer and trying to get out of your debts by selling your only 5+ rider. You would get about 70k for him, while the good riders will always only be sold for about 300k, 1 season ago I sold a 4 rider for about that amount, now I'll sell a 7 rider for that amount, and next season it's a 10 rider for that amount, until the FA really kicks in. Or more managers join, but that's not happening just yet. Managers are going bankrupt for several reasons. Not only because of the tm. You're only talking about selling, but forget about the buying part....1 season ago you had to pay 100k for a level 3 rider which you can pick up now for almost free....the new managers i know do have a decent amount of money within no time. Tbh...they don't make the typical mistakes that some starters do make, but that's another issue.
|
|
|
Post by lee1950 on Apr 13, 2012 8:59:17 GMT 1
Some other options (i.e.: more suggestions that people won't like!):
- Restrict team roster size to 30 riders. Or 35 riders. Setting a roster cap won't prevent buying and selling, but will prevent hoarding. Don't know if that's a serious problem, but most pro cycling teams don't have more than 30 riders. This would slow some of the trading down, although not much.
- Allow unrestricted transfers during the first 3 weeks and last 3 weeks of each season. Restrict teams to listing only 1 player per week during weeks 4-11 (except for new teams - no restrictions for new teams for their first 10 weeks). There will be an exciting feeding frenzy for the unrestricted 6 weeks each season (right when many managers are cleaning out riders they don't want and stocking up for the new season). And listing one rider a week means the marker won't be completely dry during the restricted 8 weeks (and prices might be higher since supply will be lower). New managers can still stock up on riders from Botteams, which will continue to hit the market just as they do now. This will also make the EOS much more interesting!
|
|
|
Post by NikeBoy on Sept 21, 2012 12:39:42 GMT 1
Another suggestions for the transfermarket : Making bids in closed envelopes ! The cyclist is on the transfermarket for 3 days (just like now) and can have a minimum bid (just like now). Only you don't see if there are any bids. Anyone can place a bid. At the end of the 3 days the one with the highest bid will buy the cyclist. In this way : - there are no bid wars - you don't have to be online at the deadline moment - trading is harder I would even go 1 step further : the price paid by the highest bidder is the price set by the second highest bidder ! This will make it harder to cheat. You can't make a deal with another team, saying, if you bid 3M on my cyclist, I will buy yours for 3M, because you don't know the price of the second highest bidder Don't panic, the TM will not be changed to this proposal. I just want to know what others think and discuss it ;D
|
|
|
Post by Genomico on Sept 21, 2012 16:08:22 GMT 1
Nothing wrong with bid wars And transferring shouldn't be a lotery
|
|
|
Post by lee1950 on Sept 21, 2012 21:39:46 GMT 1
Another suggestions for the transfermarket : Making bids in closed envelopes ! The cyclist is on the transfermarket for 3 days (just like now) and can have a minimum bid (just like now). Only you don't see if there are any bids. Anyone can place a bid. At the end of the 3 days the one with the highest bid will buy the cyclist. In this way : - there are no bid wars - you don't have to be online at the deadline moment - trading is harder I would even go 1 step further : the price paid by the highest bidder is the price set by the second highest bidder ! This will make it harder to cheat. You can't make a deal with another team, saying, if you bid 3M on my cyclist, I will buy yours for 3M, because you don't know the price of the second highest bidder Don't panic, the TM will not be changed to this proposal. I just want to know what others think and discuss it ;D Both are workable ideas that I have seen elsewhere. I know I'm probably in the minority but I like to build my riders and hold on to my favorites. (Yes - if you look at my recent transfer activity, I know that's hard to see!)
|
|