View forum thread

This is one for the Finance discussion as well, but I can see merit in having a sliding scale for taxation.

@okgillette.

One of the main drivers for ditching a blind bidding system is that its dull. Its fair alright but dull. You could add autobid to it, but its still dull.

There are so many more opportunities for the managers to engage and be engaged in the market. This system provides a fair interactive market which doesnt disadvantage those that cant log in.

It wont promote inflation in the market, a manager will still get the player for the minimun winning bid. The Agent system will also have the effect of keeping prices down. Your not going to over spend in the market if you can geta similar player for less from the agents.

So bear in mind the goal here is to provide an entertaining TM, whilst being fair and respecting the different ways managers access the game.

To answer your last point. Auto bid ... A manager places a bid for the max he is willing to pay. If thats the highest bid when the sale closes, then he wins. He doesent need to keep bidding or wait around. The system will manage his bids. Not only that he will get the player for the least amount required, sounds like a winnerto me.

Ron

So we are ditching fair for entertainment?



If your bid is always locked in and can't be withdrawn how will this create more opportunities? If you set a max and it goes higher would you not have to be at your computer to see this and place another bid?



Now that I see the price of the highest bid and the minimum increment is 250k for expensive players doesn't this increase it dramatically? Yes it will be the minimum winning bid but will still on average be higher than before as now their is more competition because it can be seen what the highest bid is. There are countless players where I would have spent an extra sum just to have them on my team but with blind bidding I wanted to try to save money and hope I finished first.



I believe my system had this integrated into it so I understand the process. Thanks.

sounds excellent. Good work guys!

When will all this happen?

Remember, the older a player the lower he can sell for thus increasing their value to certain teams.

No, we aew trying to achieve a fair but entertaining TM



If you set a max and it goes higher then why didn't you set a higher max to begin with?





I'm not sure i understand your point here Ok. The better players are always going to attract the higher prices regardless of the system in place.

Let's all just be yes men. Great job everyone. I see no problem with the transfer market now and nothing is changing anyways as this is this is about the 4th proposal of the same system you have decided on ages ago. I see no point commenting any more.

First you ask general, next paid, then advisors and now back to general. Come on...

You will do as you like anyways so why ask if not to get a bunch of nodding heads.

Can't please everyone i guess. Surely you agree that putting these proposals out for discussion is a good idea?

the point of this is to get rid of the old "bid one credit above the previous bid" which used to drive many mad.
I think this is a good idea

Hi

Just giving you the chance to comment ... and your comments are welcome.
You are correct. This is a refinement to the transfer proposal I put together a while ago. Its been reviewed as part of the wider changes. In that sense it is quite mature.

At this point I'm looking for opinions and concerns around the proposals..... Things that we havn't considered. I've tried to answer your concerns, but perhaps not making myself clear.

We all have an opinion, but I don't have time to get into a detailed debate over every point. If it helps, but you haven't raised anything that has not been considered. I could also argue this for days, but I sense that wouldn't be productive. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

On the whole, I'm am really happy with the TM proposal, nonetheless I welcome feedback. Already there have been posts in other threads that will be taken into consideration when its time to implement the changes.

So thanks for taking the time to comment.
I'm not going to agree with everyone, that's not possible, but I appreciate your input.

So lets all remember, this is about improving IAG, we are on the same side after all. Please try and keep the debate on track rather than making derogatory comments.

Thanks,
Ron

Surely the issue is people "camping out" all day rather than the actual increment. By using a % of the current highest unit, this has potential to escalate very quickly, which cannot be good for the inflation in the game.

And isn't the "camping out" issue being addressed by the bids being throttled?

Sorry ozzymac, I don't understand what you're saying here.

Not sure you understand the meaning of positive discussion, buddy.

They are slightly different, bid throttling forces a manager to consider his next bid more carefully, the min increment is there to keep bidding sensible. Auto bid comes into play also.

The design is such that it will be very simple to tune or disable the min bid % and the throttling rate. My intention is that those are tuned as required, based on our experience of how the new system is used. If we find we can relax them we will.

Ron

Fair enough Ron, providing it is carefully managed I'm prepared to see how it goes. I do, however, think that you're doing a bit too much "belt and braces" in places (like the sales tax that I mentioned in the other thread), but if you're prepared to relax some of the "rules" over time, then perhaps it could work. Although I do have concerns that regularly tweaks or changes to rules would make it difficult to plan ahead.

Some tweaks like changes to bid throttling or to the next bid amount have no impact on managers long term planning.

Sales tax, would of course.

The goal here is to take so cash out of the game.
We are doing if for the economy. But again its a tunable feature, any ongoing changes to it will be come with plenty of notice.
If we find its not required, it will be set very low.

Its another lever we have to help control the economy of the game and the TM activity too.

Ron

Understood. Thanks Ron.

But I do think the sales tax is a bit much, and will only result in managers compensating in the asking price, and therefore is effectively redundant whilst artificially increasing inflation.

+1

But the PA will inhibit that inflation. As said, the design is that its tunable.
We will find the correct level for it.

Ron

Hmm, ok Ron, I'm not convinced on this one, but I've aired my thoughts, so let's see how it goes.