Gabriel, thanks for your feedback! However, you can see Welington’s good example with the numbers that this will create a big distortion in the game. To illustrate that, now I’m trying to buy a 20 year old player, who has 79 shooting skill and is asking for 16K wage. Since I don’t know whether he is going to be a good player, I will not buy him from the small team (he is too expensive for his age and skill and I’m not sure if he is going to give me any return). This is what gonna happen: the small team will not get the sales money and will not improve squad or stadium, I will not renew my squad, I will not pay 400M in a good player, my players will get old, my country has 2 managers and hardly increase its position on the countries ranking, my youths probably will never reach the top skills, I will have to sell all the players that ask me for an unreal wage, I will stop making money, my squad will suck, my chances of wining will decrease and I will know that there’s not much I can do about it and then I leave. I really like Ruby, but I think Welington is right about the player prices and the way CPU takes decisions on buying players. I made a lot of money out of the dumb CPU decisions. Its easy money and the good players’ prices are unbelievable (because of this inflation). If we want to simulate real life, OK, players make a 130K/week, but clubs that pay this make 600M/year. You can google it. I hope this doesn’t create a distortion and discourage people to play the game. Best, Bernardo

Now, My suggestion:

Every Brazilian near to 30 years remember the old economic situation in our country (80’s and 90’s).

The player potential value, the transfer market and the managers money are really inflated.

The income/outcome since I’m playing never changed, and in this way I believe that is not perfect, but is quite fair. If you manage your balance you wont be rich but you can play without any problem and enjoy the game.

The first step I believe that need to remove an 0 from player value and from the bank account from everyone. In this way, we go back near to the reality with the best player in the game for max. 200M.
This first step can be improved after more seasons in order do define the maximum value that one player can be transferred (dont know.. 50M, 100M?? will be defined by GM seting the maximum potential value that one player can reach).

“Ah, but the game will keep unbalanced and I want to balance the money in the entire game”
The second step is define the minimum and maximum value that one manager can have inside his bank account in this moment and set these values in the entire game. e.×. 10M and 50M

“Damn, but I worked so hard to make this money and now I will lose everything. It’s not fair”
The third step is create one option to not make this decision unfair. you can create 2 options to balance this. for those that received money you can create the bank loan payment and for those that you took the money, the bank investment receipt.

How to clear this value and create the possibility to the manager choose what do? define the minimum and maximum number of season to pay and receive this money. e.×.: min 10 seasons, max 50 seasons.

Also, set the maximum value that will pay/receive per week. e.x: 200K per week.

To make it more interesting, you can set many options for this. ex. less time to pay the bank loan, less interest you need to pay. more time you pay, more interest you pay. The same situation from bank investment.

This way, will balance the game, create another option for fun and wont harm or benefit any manager. Not perfect, maybe not the best, but one way.

Thanks a lot for the feedback guys. I appreciate you’ve taken the time to write such long opinions and suggestions. The rationale behind the change was charge more from rich teams, but not from average or poor teams. I knew from the beginning it wasn’t going to be the solution to the economy problems and definitely not a very popular change.

I was hoping to gradually reduce the amount of money available so that when we implemented more fundamental changes to the economy things would not be that unbalanced anymore. Now I see we will have to rely on a hard reset on bank accounts when the time comes. I liked some of the suggestions in this topic and I’ve also had some new ideas.

If you have more, keep them coming: http://www.rubysoccer.com/forums/3/topics/2226

Cheers

“If you have 10 coaches and 3 physios and spending around 60K to stadium maintenance, you will spend 380K”

I’ve stopped reading after that. How many cpu-teams you see with 10 coaching? And why 3 physio? I’ve always played with 0 physio, if I can, so can you.

Now, another example. My midticker team (who made the CL finals this season) has 29 players, Player Wages $327,212. With a smaller squad, 300k per week is a normal amount for wages.

When the wages are doubled, the extra money spent per season would be $14.4M.

Now look at the prices in the player market. Is 14.4M a lot of money? Doesn’t seem so…. I make a lot more than that in a season by just selling players. And I see managers of ‘poor teams’ doing the same.

Is’t the only distorition in the game created by this change between good and bad managers?

dimitri u manage a team in a mostly cpu managed league …please

ya and you make that money by over pricing shit players

the exact problem.

in real life a team with an attendance of 50k a game would make more than this game currently is coded.

the income is bs and im starting to think that this game is just being ruined

i say have a salary cap ( max amount your squad can be combined worth)

OR

increase income
lower the est value of players
create a top limit a player can be sold for. meaning a max amount any team can sell any player no matter his est value
i say max anyone can sell any player should be 200m

do this and game will be fixed

Making the finals of the CL is easy if you are in a league with only six human managed teams? Strange logics.

I make money by developing youth players and selling the ones I don’t want to keep. And I make money by winning games. And I don’t spend money on big wages, things I don’t need (scouting, physio) and I only put my coaching on 10 when I could afford it. I do spend money on making my stadium bigger. I hardly spend money on buying players.

If you have money problems, even with the doubled wages, you’re doing something wrong. Don’t blame the game, but improve your game.

I really dont think that make the game more expensive is a good solution. the true is that it is a desperate solution trying to fix some problem, but will create another problem.

The same way that the game is too easy to make money, as it is right now, make you lose the motivation inside the game. do the game in a way that is unfair or impossible to manage just to try to balance the game is even worse.

The teams are increasing their stadium, becoming richer and richer and have no way to control this? of course.. you have no option to spend this money to improve your team, so the best solution is save money and use the game machine to get richer.

Want to fix the money amount without make a distortion and make the game less interesting? create new tools to spend money and get some benefits.

Example?
You have goals from board to be champion on cup, league and international but you dont have the possibility to offer any premium bonus to your squad to put them more motivated for this.
You dont have the possibility to offer a victory bonus per game.
You dont have the possibility to invest money in the professional academy to make your player spend less stamina per game.
You dont have the possibility to invest money in youth academy to work with more youth players.
You dont have the possibility to invest money in youth prospection to increase the possibility to receive better youth and the possibility to get a star player.

the true is that you have a lot of options to make the rich spend their money trying to get more benefits (that is not 100% that he will really receive what he expect) and also make the game a lot more fun without make in the way that seems that those that learned to play the game how he is being right know is the problem and force them to lose more money spending money for the same players than others that dont have the same amount. this is a unfair system.

Another problem that came up: if you have a 30 year old player with 40K wage, who is going to buy him for this inflated prices and pay such wage?
CPU will not and humans definetly not. So if you buy a good, expensive player at around 27 years old, u can expect it to be a lost investment? If you start thinking he is a weight in your monthly payment, u just drop him off or maybe a fucked up CPU team will buy him cheap and pay him half of this wage, which is a lot of money for its income? This inflation came naturally when CPUs started to buy players. This was actually a good improvement, however I think the way CPU decides for the investment and the cap it pays is the key for what happened.
How can we revert that? Limiting the amount paid by CPUs on players might be a good start (ex: taking into consideration the players actual value and his age). Prices will go down a little bit. For the money excess problem in some teams, it is more complex to solve. We have to think it in a way that will not affect all the game (like the wages thing), but at the same time, will be done in a smooth way. Maybe instead of simply reseting accounts, u can make a credit for these really rich teams, who will receive a better income througout the seasons until the money is paid back. They will still enjoy a better status, because they worked hard for it, but they will not have all this money to spare at one time, since they will have it back in a long term (the money was never corrected by inflation anyways). Taking liquidity from the market is the best way to correct inflation (as well as cutting the zeros – which is the psycologychal solution). Cheers!

I think this change was a good thing, maybe Gabriel hasn´t explained it well… From what I understud players would ask more money from richier teams… So what if you are paying double wages if teams with 500M will pay triple or more… It is realistic and it is good for the balance.

As usually some managers can only see their team, in time this wages would become regular and I think it would help to reduce the rising of prices from the last CPU buying change. Without any change wages will continue to be irrelevant in the game.

People have to think about real life and this game. If i bought a player at 27 there’s no way you should make profit by selling him when hes 30! Once players stats start decreasing their wage demands should too.

No manager should go bankrupt with double wages, if your going broke sell one of your good players, this makes the market move etc.

Things need to change and now that they are people complain, the game needs to become harder to succeed.

then a full server reset of ppls money is due all ppl get 100m end of discussion

That won’t fix much ¹, and it a much worse solution than doubling the wages, but if money is reset, players should be reset too ², then you might as well reset stadiums, then you might as well reset the whole game.

I wouldn’t like a game reset though.

¹ You’ll still have managers bad with money and managers that know how to make money. What you want to do, reset to 100M every season?
² If not, how is it fair to a club that just sold a 300M player to another club?

tough shit tbh. if you are saying the poor teams have to take a hit then the rich ones should too

the 3 times the bullshit est value is the problem
the games income to teams is the problem
big stadiums dont mean you get money even if sold out yet other selling out teams get more
no cash rewards for winning cups, leagues, ect
no game winning incentive for players to get payed per win if that coach chooses boosting performance
i can go on and on. but the more this issue is neglected the more people leave the game

get rid of the estimated value, cap the market to max selling price of 200m of anyplayer , reset money to scale of stadium size

if i knew that stadiums building didnt do shit for income i wouldnt have invested in the uselessness it is.

a team in real lifes income doesnt rest on selling players. it rests on income via marketing tickets consessions, merch, sponsers, tv, ect ect ect

people were allowed to abuse the flaw for a year now and i told you all that it would end up like this but no i was shunned and told to shut up in so many words
well dimitri my turn is now. i know wtf im talking about your motives only modivated by your own greed and inflated dealings to continue

the excuse everyone else is doing it is also bullshit ( charles) too long for exploited and now the game crash due to deaf ears

and another thing. if i want to buy back a player whom i havnt had for a long time. i think i should be able to. i understand the business between to managers cannot happen more than once a season and im fine with that. but wanting to buy a player you cant after 2 seasons or more should be allowed

I typical example of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect :

“i know wtf im talking about "

“if i knew that stadiums building didnt do shit for income i wouldnt have invested in the uselessness it is.”

“no game winning incentive for players”
If the problem is some teams having to much money and others strugling to have some I can’t see how that would help, we all can see the most rich teams in the game are the same teams wining leagues and cups… Giving more money to them would be fair in my opinion, but the gap between rich and poor would only grow…

“if i knew that stadiums building didnt do shit for income”
Again, if you have good resuts you’ll have full stadium every league match. If you’re not sure about that you should stop raising the stadium seats at some piont, it depends on how much time you plan to stay in the team and how well you believe your team will performe.

“a team in real lifes income doesnt rest on selling players”
The two gretest portuguese teams (in real life) made something like 100M€ with sells this season. Guess what, they still have major finantial problems…

About the selling to CPU those were the changes and they were made for eveyone, naturaly some got better with it, some didn’t… Personaly I’m more concern with results than with the bank account, most of the time my team has less than 20M just to pay wages :D

I have been thinking about some drastic changes in the economy. We all know how hard it is to balance the money in any kind of game and the focus of RubySoccer is not (or should not) be the economy. That said, my idea was to get rid of the concept of money balance altogether and have the board of each team define the season budget for transfers and total wage cap. These 2 numbers would be based on performance, achieving goals (we could add new goals other than final result on competitions), managing the money well, etc. When you sell a player a % of the value would be added to your transfer budget. This % could also be variable and defined by the board on season start.

We could also have more complex team departments or investment areas. For example, let’s say we have levels for coaching, scouting, physio, youth academy and stadium. These levels would not be controlled the way they are now (where you can increase or decrease at any time), instead they would be fixed for the whole season and the board could give you extra points to spend on whatever you want on season start (depending on your performance in the previous season). For example, let’s say you had a good season and the board gives you 3 points to spend. You could then improve your coaching department 3 levels…or maybe 1 level for your stadium, 1 for physio and 1 for youth academy.

There is still a lot to think about and discuss between us, but basically my idea is to give more control of the economy to the board and let the manager use whatever the board provides to manage the team and focus on squad management, investment decision and budget management.

What do you think? Have I gone too far? :-D

Cheers

All those concepts sound really interesting.
I’d be curious to know though, would mechanisms be put in place so that richer teams get penalized more (by making them pay more based on their bank roll) so that the economic balance can be closer than it is now? I really don’t know how it would work, i’m just throwing an idea out there. It’s nice if the board wants to put more restrictions (or whatever you want to call it) on how much we can spend per season or how much more we’d have to spend on certain things compared to smaller bankroll teams, but the key point i’m taking away from this whole thread is to reduce the difference between the big money teams and the lower teams. As long as these new concepts can bring more parity to the Ruby world, i think most would be happy with it. Obviously big payroll GMs might be put off by this and would just want to manage a small market team just to avoid paying all these fees… In the end, we’re talking about a salary cap on spending, plus more $$$ towards ongoing investments for big teams correct? this way, big teams can only spend so much in order to allow for smaller teams to catch up? I might be getting the theory all wrong, please correct me if i am.

I understand how perhaps higher bankroll GMs might get put off at the fact that their money making will take a dip (by forcing them to put more money into the team + a cap of some sort), heck i’m one of them, but i think if our ultimate goal is to bring more parity, ECONOMY wise, to the world then i think i’d be up for it. Although, some GMs might not like the fact that their being penalized for knowing how to make money vs others who are having a harder time. But i think it might be perhaps important to balance this with another factor in order to keep these big payroll teams attractive to other GMs…

Gabriel,

I believe that can be interesting give more control to the board, it’s more realistic in this way. They can control how much money we can spend, how many scout, coaches and physios we need and according to how many fans do we have (whether it’s increasing or decreasing, and according to the last season tickets) whether we need to expand or not the stadium.

I also believe that these decisions and season goals can not be based only in the the squad average (as seems to be nowadays), last season position or how much money do you have, but an composition of these 3 variants and the manager goal for the whole season. This is what happens in the reality and maybe can also be used in ruby world.

About to have fixed coaches, scouting, physio, scout and stadium, with level points to invest according to your perfomance seems not so good to me. I believe that you can have a fixed structure (minimum possible), but that can be improved according to board and manager goals and investments. not reseting every season, but keep improving or decreasing according these goals and investments until reach some limit. (there are managers that like to play making investments into youth academy or in youth players and and improve their teams slowly, making their structure very strong and others that the only goal is to be champion)

To complement the changes would be good to have some staff market. You can hire your staff according to your plans and limited to some quantities defined by the board. You can hire directors, executives, coaches, assistant coaches, trainer coaches, 1st team coaches, youth coaches, physio, scout, etc..

About players contract, would be good to give more inteligence to the players. They can have goal/assist/presence/match win bonus, with all this interfering into the standard salary. Also can include some transfer clause, that define the maximum value for the player, and every team can take the player offering this value. This transfer clause can also have some impact into the salary (higher clause, higher salary).

:)

Thanks for the input guys. Here are my comments:

@Charles: I’m not sure it will reduce the gap between rich and poor teams, the idea is that a poor team will initially have lower budget and cap and not so good facilities, but if they have a good season they will have better conditions in the following season and so on. What will be better in the following season will be the manager’s choice. My idea is that at season start the board will give you some “points” to spend if you did well, and you can decide where to put those (higher transfer budget, better facilities, better youths, etc).

@Welington: the decisions will be based on current team status + last season performance, so it will be incremental (or decremental), not a hard reset every season. I like the idea of having a manager goal for the season, if the manager aims higher the board can give him more resources (but also penalize him harder if he fails) and the opposite if he aims lower. Staff market was my initial idea before having the departments, but then we moved away from that…we’ll probably keep things as they are initially, if we go ahead with these economy changes (too many things changing already). Regarding players contract I agree with you, but again we may implement economy changes first and leave that for when everybody is familiar with the new model.

I’m thinking with this new model the player’s estimated value doesn’t matter any more…you (and everyone else) will have a transfer budget and it’s up to you to decide how much you want to pay for a player and how much you think others are willing to pay.

Cheers

in managersim you could hire your staff like you do players if i remember correctly we should do that

also for youth we should be able to set focus of improvements like work on passing ect what ever is selected for that tick and have actural training days in the schedule for not just hte youth but 1st squad. players in real life get hurt in training :) so the manager would have to set intense, medium, light, none ect

economy i say get rid of est value all together. and only be able to sell player for 100% + % increase for raiting, goals and performance. Board will set this value and have the Boards consider scouting reports for example. a player with what looks to be good attributes. is really shit when he plays in games with low raitings no production ( 94 shooting only 4 goals in that season ? thats shit)

what do you think Gabriel ?

also attributes id like to see on players is

Moral ( low for not enough wage, game time, homesick, and if it gets too low request transfer and if denied no renew of contract accepted)
WorkEthic low, avg, high
adaptability ( can learn new positions)

You’re right, in MS you could hire your staff like players and we may eventually do that in RS, but we need to focus on the other changes first. I like the training schedule idea and I believe that this idea with some other changes to player development should help us get rid of playing lots of friendlies during the season.

I’m more and more inclined of getting rid of estimated value, even though once it’s adjusted could server as a starting point. My idea is to still let the managers set the transfer price to whatever they want, but given the new transfer budget to be introduced there is no point in setting it too high as even rich teams may not be allowed to spend what the selling manager is asking. Bottom line is, if you are unreasonable in your prices you will not be selling.

From the new attributes you mentioned for the players I believe morale is the top priority, and that would certainly influence the willingness to renew the contract and match performance.

Cheers

a collaboration of both our ideas i like

Having player’s value depend on player’s performance makes no sense with the current player’s performance rating. It makes no difference to me if a 95 tackling midfielder has a 6 pts average career… I can still pay 300M for him, wouldn’t like if the board didn’t let me pay because of his performance…

Yeah, the ratings don’t always reflect the player abilities…especially cause it also depends on how he’s being used in the squad (position, strategies, etc).

Gabriel and Danilo, there are problems that can be solved and there are problems that can not be solved by you.

Here are my general (and business-wise important) suggestions:
1. Move over to Facebook, the forums, the game, everything, use marketing there to get bigger crowd of managers.
2. Realistic player/club/economy model – do a research or get few students who do master thesis on statistics or similar
3. Tie knowledgeable people to key positions in RS project, as MS once did, responsible persons in areas as Data, Game Masters etc.
Do not think about the ownership too much, or you will end up with having the whole of a non-existing cookie, instead of a big slice of a big cake.
4. Have a (business) plan about what you intend to do with this game.
Most of you might not know this but MS HAD such a plan. I’ve seen those documents, they were very detailed and interesting, and keep in mind that those were written like 10 years ago. I might be wrong but it looks to me like you don’t know what/where to go with this project. At the moment it is as good as dead. If I was in deciding position with this I would end it sooner than later. It is as bad as this, sorry. I want to give you a reality check.

Not to be just negative, there is still some chance to get things right, if you do this properly. You have to do the right things though.
I would suggest that when starting to do something, start with a ‘WHY’ rather than ‘HOW’. Do not take one or two individuals opinion as a common rule on things.

Another thing:
Apps – you should consider this, in-game purchases are very interesting economy model in many “free” games today.

MS = ManagerSim

/BK

Just some ideas:

1.Like in national teams, if the board objectives are not fulfilled, a manager gets fired. For example, if a manager for two/three successive seasons doesn’t reach the board objectives (position in national league) he gets fired. The focus should be in the position in the national league (not in cups).
2.Player clause: for example, some players may demand minimum numbers of official games played (example, play half of national league games). If not, the player decides not to renew is contract.
3.Player contracts: players may decide not to renew his contract if the club doesn’t achieves the board objectives (during the length of is contract).
4.In my opinion, these improvements will allow good players to move around and also good teams will be available to coach.
5.The maximum CPU teams may offer for a player his is estimated value. This will prevent crazy transfers

ok so whats the current timeline. is this just being spoken about or being worked on ? how soon can this be moving forward ?

It’s being worked on. I’m finalizing the new concepts and will discuss them with Danilo. The initial idea is that there will be no concept of money balance any more, the board will provide a transfer budget and total wages cap. The level of coaching, scouting, physio and stadium as well as the level of transfer budget, wages cap will be determined on season start based on past season performance and country ranking. The manager will have to decide which of those areas to improve or worsen. Oh, and there is also a level of return on players sold, which is a % of money earned selling players that will be added to the transfer budget.

The stadium will have a different role. The level of stadium will determine the amount of pressure on opponents (currently it’s always -3 on all attributes except for players 31 years old and above) and will provide a bonus for the transfer budget.

Player values and wages formulas will be updated and adjusted according to the new model. The estimated prices won’t be dynamic any more but will always follow the same formula. Managers will continue to be able to decide the transfer price for a player.

I guess that’s it for now. As I said, it’s still being finalized and is subject to changes, but I’m looking forward to putting it in place :-)

Cheers