Training and money interest changes

[Il Padrino]

It has always been like that. But you're right, I can't seem to find it in the Wiki myself
I'll add it.

[NikeBoy]

captagon said:

I really can't see how this new interest implementation will make difference between rich and poor smaller...
I think we can all agree that buying a cyclist will cost the same for a rich as for a poor team, and that both will want to be able to buy cyclists. thus, they will both have to set some money aside to buy with, over which they won't receive any interest. Let's call this amount B (buying money). So the amount of intrest you receive will be 10% over your T (total money) - B, in which T is variable, and B is fixed. The smaller T is, the larger B will be relatively.

Let's have an example, in which we compare a rich team(1) with 20.000.000 and a poorer team(2) with 2.000.000. Both are in the same division and competing against each other. They have high hopes for this season, and are thinking about buying one or more cyclists, for which they set 1 million aside.

In the old situation, their interest would be 3.450.000(1) and 345.000(2), so 10 times as much for (1) as for (2)

In the new situation the interests will be:
(1): 10% of (T-B) = 10% of (20.000.000 - 1.000.000) is 1.9 million
(2): 10% of (T-B) = 10% of (2.000.000-1.000.000) is 100.000

You might say that in stead of the 3m, the rich team only makes 1.8 million more, but this is only because interest rates dropped in general. now he makes 19 times more money, in stead of only 10 times!

This system really penalizes the poorer teams in this game. Either they receive hardly any interest, or they wont be able to buy cyclists to compete with the other teams.

You may have a point here

Our initial thought was to put a limit on the interest. If we convert it to this idea, we got have something like this :

Let's say the maximum amount per investment is 1M. So you can invest up to 10M.
The result of this would be that extra money on your account will have no interest, and can be used to explore the transfer market.
In this way, the fear of the marketcrash due to the traininglimit could be somewhat compensated.

Comments please ;D

[pottel]

Very good suggestion, think it would be wise to work in this kind a way to make sure rich teams are there to stil invest in the transfermarket. Can only oplaud what you are saying

No very good idea to limit a share to 1M and maximal 10 shares at a time. Thus the rich earn some money but not the amount they do today and their is still enough liquidity to prefent eventual marketcrashes. This has a fair aspect (limit to intrests) and an economic aspect (more cash nearby in stead of dead money on the bank)

This is an idea that has my support in the way you presented it here

PS: thaught you didn't fear that (market crash) from happening

PS: decided to follow the english topic also, so i wouldn't miss any key information

[NikeBoy]

I didn't say I personally had a fear , but some others might

[pottel]

nikeboy said:

I didn't say I personally had a fear , but some others might

and then my a-lexy comes into play again

so you had a fear

No serious like the idea 10 times 1M is the maxima

And happy to see you are taking into account possible transfermarket problems

[stefkeswoon]

nikeboy said:

You may have a point here

Our initial thought was to put a limit on the interest. If we convert it to this idea, we got have something like this :

Let's say the maximum amount per investment is 1M. So you can invest up to 10M.
The result of this would be that extra money on your account will have no interest, and can be used to explore the transfer market.
In this way, the fear of the marketcrash due to the traininglimit could be somewhat compensated.

Comments please ;D

I don't get the point of limiting intrests. Intrest earnings are already diminishing due to our new change. Why increase that effect?
Plus, I don't think such an unclear incentive to be active on the transfer market will have succes. You don't change a manager's behaviour like that. If he wants to buy someone, he'll do it. If he doesn't want to spend his money for whatever reason, he most probably won't do so.

I say nay.

[droopy]

nikeboy said:

You may have a point here

Our initial thought was to put a limit on the interest. If we convert it to this idea, we got have something like this :

Let's say the maximum amount per investment is 1M. So you can invest up to 10M.
The result of this would be that extra money on your account will have no interest, and can be used to explore the transfer market.
In this way, the fear of the marketcrash due to the traininglimit could be somewhat compensated.

Comments please ;D

In that case: just delete the interest.


It might be a better idea to think about systems without absolute maxima and minima.

-maximum training: Is it that hard to create a system that a lot of cyclists will cost too much to train them all.

-investements: create a system that the interest changes with
the activity on the transfer market. When there is a lot of activity on the transfermarket, a lot of money is invested. That means the value of shares will increase. When everybody keeps his money, shares will drop (even negative), and people will loose a lot of money and will invest again in the transfermarket...etc...
It's just an idea, a bit more complicated. In my opinion a lot better than set a maximum of investments.

The best way to think about those changes is the question: why isn't this realistic in real life?


Another idea to invest:
-high risk: sometimes you win a lot, sometimes you loose a lot.
-medium risk:
-normal risk:
-low risk:
-very low risk: you always win a small amount of money

[pottel]

I think their is a diverence in perception

If a manager has 40M money on the bank and no free money he will live of his interest rate and be happy

If he on the other hand only can have 10M on the bank he has 30M money that isnt dead cash, and the incentive to use that money to improve his team will be higher.

Furthermore it will come to a conclusion that everybody in the long term has his buffer of 10M money generating money and the rest for the transfermarket.

It generate the same liquidity as the one that we know now. If you dont limit the amount of money on the bank that generates interest you will give managers a strong incentive for the intrest and buy players later. Hence its a good tool to improve liquidity and neaded in my modest opinion to make sure transfermarket doesn't dry up as everybody else will invest all his money in the bank

[NikeBoy]

stefkeswoon said:

nikeboy said:

You may have a point here

Our initial thought was to put a limit on the interest. If we convert it to this idea, we got have something like this :

Let's say the maximum amount per investment is 1M. So you can invest up to 10M.
The result of this would be that extra money on your account will have no interest, and can be used to explore the transfer market.
In this way, the fear of the marketcrash due to the traininglimit could be somewhat compensated.

Comments please ;D

I don't get the point of limiting intrests. Intrest earnings are already diminishing due to our new change. Why increase that effect?
Plus, I don't think such an unclear incentive to be active on the transfer market will have succes. You don't change a manager's behaviour like that. If he wants to buy someone, he'll do it. If he doesn't want to spend his money for whatever reason, he most probably won't do so.

I say nay.

I just want to prevent that every manager invests all his/her money to have the maximum interest.
When the max. amount of money is invested and he has still money on his account, he can do 2 things :
- leave it there
- invest it on the TM

[NikeBoy]

droopy said:

In that case: just delete the interest.

Why ? In HT, for instance, there is also an interest maximum ...

It might be a better idea to think about systems without absolute maxima and minima.

-maximum training: Is it that hard to create a system that a lot of cyclists will cost too much to train them all.

Who decides what is "too much" ? If I have 40M on my account, I will be able to train as much as I want (and thus earn more money)
If it becomes sooo expensive to train (let's say) over 50 cyclists that even with 40M I am not able to pay, then it is the same as setting a hard cap on these 50, because no one will ever be able to train them.

-investements: create a system that the interest changes with
the activity on the transfer market. When there is a lot of activity on the transfermarket, a lot of money is invested. That means the value of shares will increase. When everybody keeps his money, shares will drop (even negative), and people will loose a lot of money and will invest again in the transfermarket...etc...
It's just an idea, a bit more complicated. In my opinion a lot better than set a maximum of investments.

Nice, very nice, but as you say, try to implement such a thing.
This method is also strongly depending on the number of active managers.

The best way to think about those changes is the question: why isn't this realistic in real life?

In real life, the more money you have, the richer you become. This unbalance we want to prevent as much as possible

Another idea to invest:
-high risk: sometimes you win a lot, sometimes you loose a lot.
-medium risk:
-normal risk:
-low risk:
-very low risk: you always win a small amount of money

Like in real life
But in real life you can do research to "avoid" high risks (knowing when to buy which stocks ...)
In this case it would just be a lottery, if you're lucky, you'll win a lot of money (in case of high risk)

[gelies]

yesss let's make it a banking game!!! I like the idea!

[NikeBoy]

For such games, please visit :
compsimgames.about.com/od/online/tp/fronstockmarket.htm

;D

[stefkeswoon]

nikeboy said:

I just want to prevent that every manager invests all his/her money to have the maximum interest.

Fine by me. But I think this isn't a good way to achieve that goal.

nikeboy said:

When the max. amount of money is invested and he has still money on his account, he can do 2 things :
- leave it there
- invest it on the TM

1. Teams with more than 10M on their account often have experienced players. I think they do know what's best for their team and when to buy new cyclists. An incentive like this is probably unnecessary.
2. Remember you can invest 10 times! That means, assuming maximum spread of investments throughout the season, that you'll regain 1.1M every 11 days. That means your bank account stays flexible throughout the year.
3. I can't imagine people will put every penny in the bank. Every manager will probably keep some millions 'cash' for special purposes.

In sum, I think this new proposal is completely unnecessary. It's only use is to reassure some anxious worriers.

[CableGuy]

Stefke, allow me to disagree.

If you don't put a limit to the interests, there will always be people that (after a while) only focus on saving money and get richer and richer season after season, without doing anything.

The 1M was just an example, maybe it should be 2M, or 2,5M per account ... but no maximum at all would result in an internal unbalance when teams get much more from interests than from race money, sponsoring (which is already too low) and merchandising.

Main reason why I believe we should not encourage people to save as much as possible, is because the money must turn around to keep the economy alive. So having lots of money which doesn't bring you financial profit because all your accounts are used up to your maximum, might increase your will to spend (part of) that money instead of keeping it forever:

- More action on the transfermarket (shifts money to other teams)
- Decision to spend more money on weekly wages of trainer and scout which would logically be a kind of investment also.
- Decision to spend more money on weekly wages for (some of) your cyclists, to increase their chances in races, to gain money, but more importantly also to gain points. (this will get money out of the game, which is necessary too).

[box]

looking at the tranfer-topic it seems the changes have their effect... everyone is dumping their cyclists... I myself have already sold 15 cyclists and now 'only' hold 27 cyclists...