球會資訊

Banana

國內名稱: Banana

經理: bananajohn

J. Gurdon

比賽: 859

搶截: 2,1

C. Sanburne

比賽: 562

效率值: 16,2

得分: 10,6

籃板: 8,9

封阻: 1,2

搶截: 1,7

I. Findern

比賽: 531

效率值: 16,6

得分: 10,0

籃板: 8,6

兩分球: 68%

資訊

球會無人管理

活躍期間	2013-01-06 - 2024-12-14
國家	United Kingdom
曾經管理的球會	Banana(Closed) (23 - 33 賽季)
當前球會	South Carolina Gamecocks

統計數據

全部勝場/比賽

348/635 55%


國際錦標賽	4	3	7
國內錦標賽	10	18	11
合計	16	21	18

3.2 4.2 a-ramune

遊戲新聞: Economic model of BasketPulse

-- 81 賽季 7 天

Answers to the most frequent questions related with the game's economics.

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+13

GOD神

I prefer the previously guaranteed scouting system -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+10

fourkings

聯盟志願者或管理員隱藏的新聞訊息 -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 事出无常必有妖

Can it be understood that we don’t have to pick up potential players anymore, we just wait for others to train and grab them directly from the market. It’s better than saving money, right? -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

If we can't benefit from it, why should we train players? We spend money and time to find players and train players, and then we can't renew our contract because of high wages, and we can only let them go? Then everyone will use all the budget to grab players. -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

6.32 7.30

Hello, dear competitors. My opinion is different than yours. We should try to see whole picture instead looking only four our interests. We are 32 in 1st WL, but there is 1000 managers who are below us. -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

Ha ha ha, I'm not allowed to say anything. Democracy and freedom of speech. Shame! -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

bananajohn

some of modders are too much trigger happy on post deleting... -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

evinelis

And what about old (without health) and overly expensive players? If a player has not been extended and has not been selected in a restricted player market, perhaps such a player would need to lower the minimum wage and be given the opportunity to play rather than simply ruin his career as skills fall out without being at the club (which is important for smaller national teams). I think such players could really still play in the lower leagues, but wages are too big for such teams, and here in the higher level teams they no longer have anything to do or simply such players take the place of a younger player of a similar level. At least with teams in their own country (or with teams with 6-7 image) such players who have not received contract offers in the limited player market could sign up in the simple market for less than the minimum wage -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+18

1.1 1.1 Gudrioji Lape

One comment - there would be more players in market for top leagues if released players skills would not immediatelly deteriorate. Maybe up to ~33 years released players skills do not change, but for older it falls more rapidly? -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Stormtrooper

Lape, smart, but as it said in the topic - the game is going the opposite direction, so this one will still be just a nice dream :)) -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

dkerrigan

This post sums up to "nothing is wrong with the games financial system" Which is odd because there are massive problems with the game financial system.

A WL3 teams is handed 18K more in sponsor revenue (minimum) than a WL4 team. That is a massive advantage. An advantage that helps keep a WL3 team where they are and is a barrier to a WL4 advancing.

I hear all these complaints about "giving away money" when a large amount of the income of every team is sponsor money "just given to them". The game has just decided to give more sponsor money to some teams as opposed to others.

Narrow the gap in sponsor money between the leagues. That will increase competition and teams will move between leagues more effectively. Going up won't be a crushing jump in competition and going down won't be a financial death sentence. -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

In general, I agree with the financial model that is being applied.
It also seems to me that what Evinelis proposed could be a good improvement. -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Wilt100

Great detailed response, agree with the suggestion, special "loyalty feature" would be interesting though shouldn't be at the top of the priority list :) -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

Evinelis:
Why we cannot decrease the minimum salary is explained in the article (1. Minimum salary should be decreased (or removed))

Gudrioji Lape
If I remember correctly now in the market only players with age 30 and above have skills decreasing. Younger players' skills decrease was removed a few seasons ago. So this is not very far from your suggestion :)

dkerrigan
We don`t think that the gap between divisions is a problem. The smaller gap is between divisions, the more often teams will use “tanking” strategy to save money.
Also reducing the gap (increasing the amount of money in the game) would create huge inflation in players' prices (increase prices) . -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

LOLCITY

i know what the article is trying to say but i also agree a little with evinelis. Because if a player hasn't played in 2 seasons and is over 30 shouldn't the minimum go down at least a little? -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.2 andronikos

when Rt increases, so do wages. but the revenues do not increase accordingly :) -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

dkerrigan

a-darius Your posting because you said there have been a lot of complaints about the financial system.

There are complaints because teams want to advance. But the goal of the game doesn't appear to be advancement. It appears to be avoiding bankruptcy.

You can say that the financial system is fine. But from me you have one vote that its not any fun. And since it was felt there was a need to make this thread at all, other players might feel the same. -- 81 賽季 7 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.2 andronikos

The rt reached God, so the salaries went up as well. but the revenue of the teams is the same. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Darius I do not agree with your findings 100%. Anytime a person looking for a job is unable to secure one with the wages they think is fair, they start to lower their demands just to eat and have a place to stay. The demand is not to lower all minimum wages, but to those that are not worth the average of other better trained or height advantaged players. And the gap between WL teams is ridiculous and needs to be reduced. Have you forgotten how I advised you my team was not one of the richest in the game when I had a few hundred k and soon after the 'rich tax' came into being? Obviously there is an issue. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 mancuso

It is not understood what logic is applied in anticipated renewals, because clearly the prices in the market do not fall, but are increasingly higher. And a team that trains a player for several seasons and that must let him go because he can no longer afford his salary, what benefit does he get? -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

mancuso This is actually the logic of a robber. They don't understand how much money we put into discovering players and training them. They will only be surprised, wow! Why do you want so little pay for your excellent players? It's not fair!

We're looking at creation, and GM is looking at destruction because of complaints from players who don't want to cultivate players. Next, I'll gradually cut back on the money I put into the training system, put down my hoe and sickle, take up my arms and fight them. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

7.24 nacho_uni10

https://www.basketpulse.com/uy/Player/1952630/description how is this player minimum wage 25k? this is a not even a reserve for wl1 teams, I believe the "formula" used to come up with market prices is just not right. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 mancuso

If a player is on the market and is offered 80k of salary and it is not worth it, it is the problem of whoever pays it. The explanations do not make sense, the reality shows something very different and it is an obvious punishment to those teams that invest in the training of players -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

mancuso It's obvious that some clubs who don't pay attention to training players are complaining again. They don't have the patience to train players, so they want other people's players. People at the bottom of capitalism have this mentality. They don't think about how to create, they just think about how to share the results. But it's very simple. As long as the rules are consistent with everyone, the loser will always be the loser. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

GM told us that ‘Players’ salaries are not set by some “formula” but they are determined by the demand (by the community).’, and then used the minimum wage to restrict everyone to sign players at the right price. Don’t you think this is ridiculous? Since wages are determined by the demand (by the community), why set a minimum wage? Isn’t this a contradiction? -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

GM told us'Reduce the prices of extending contracts (early extension) would lead to less good players in the limited market. So prices in the market would go up even more. Our goal is quite the opposite. We believe that it should be easier to find a player in the limited market. So that teams which advance to the upper league would have more chances to improve their rosters.'
I can't help but ask, are good players born good players? We have been training them since they were fourteen or fifteen years old, so that they have the best training coach and plenty of playing time. Then just let them go for nothing when they can help the team? So who will spend money to train young players in the future? We just save the money used to train players and go to the market to plunder. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

evinelis

One more thing, I think in calculation of average and mininal wages there should be included skill of health -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 Gudrioji Lape

Agree on health skill inclusion,
For market salaries is it only market included or extension as well? One way to keep extension prices more reasonable is to include extension prices in market calculations. Or give a bigger doscount for extrnsion. Lets say if soneone buys center for 60k, it is no chance others could pay as much for extensions -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Petrovic

Salary min. Its good
Better salary min. and salary máx. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

dkerrigan

One simple change that could bring salaries down across the board without giving anyone a dime would be to set a minimum roster size of 10. I run into teams often enough running with only 7 or 8 players on their roster. Why not? There doesn't seem to be the slightest reason not to.

How many 8 man rosters are seen in real basketball? 9 looks like its about the average roster size in game but in real basketball a team with only 9 can't even practice 5 on 5. To prevent teams from signing bums to fill out their roster who they don't play either have a penalty on future signings or just set a minimum player RT per league (or both). If minimum salaries are OK, I don't know why minimum RTs wouldn't be.

But, that does beg the question, if there is a minimum salary and everyone has to bid that or over to get a player. And every time a bid is won, the minimum salary goes up (or at best stays the same). How mathematically is it even possible for the minimum salary to trend down? -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

dkerrigan Excellent point on the last sentence. There is no way for minimum to drop, and hence a huge reason why salaries continue to inflate. The release players fee when it became an item was originally to prevent sniping other players. So why is it that I must pay the penalty when I release players that have always been on my team? Lots of things are not even considered in reality. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

Two American brothers, GM's main purpose is to attack training clubs. You think the problem is too complicated. In fact, it's very simple. It's just that we have worked hard to cultivate some excellent players, but the best part will never flow out, so their performance will never be good. They don't want to copy this training mode, but they want to rob. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

I agree with

fourkings here. If there is no benefit for training your talent then no one will train new talent. Keeping 1 player every other year on a cheaper than market deal is not really significant / will make a team. The only middle ground is maybe limit the number of scouted players from 3 to 1 per season (does not account for denom). At the rate we are going, the situation as it stands for players will soon reflect what is currently going on with the cost of coaches..... -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

In the original game of this type, managers have been training players for a long time and getting personalized excellent players is the greatest pleasure for managers. It's great fun to watch the players who have been trained for 630 days finally gallop on the field as they wish. But what does GM want to do now? He wanted to take away the pleasure of the manager after 630 days of waiting. Just because some managers are complaining. He has to watch the players he has trained for two years leave. It was 630 days and nights

Although I have always said that I don't want to train young players under this system, if I don't train young players, I will not have fun in this game.

I'm very ambivalent and I don't know what made GM make this decision. -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.4 Movida

dkerrigan
Playing with only 8 elements becomes a necessity in this game. And the reason is always the same, you have to pay the strong players / coaches. With a limited budget and guaranteed minimum salaries I am not able to play with 9 valid elements !! -- 81 賽季 8 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Hollywood

Agree with bloomis and fourkings. I play to discover and develop my own players. If I cant do that, I wont play. -- 81 賽季 9 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

We used not to have early extension at all, and even then teams scouted and trained players. Let’s not forget that in the limited market there also are discounts. So I believe that even if prices for early extensions are more similar to market prices - ability to grow your own player will not disappear from the game.

The minimum salary might not look logical. But in the same way early extension is not logical and many other things but each of these have their own purpose.

As for health skills - that is a bit more complicated. Average salary formula is based on “similar players prices in the market”. Right now there are not many players with bad health and including this criteria would lead to not-logical numbers.
The other option would be to somehow re-make the calculation of RT and include health. Probably someday in the future we will come back to this question and investigate possible options more deeply.

About players in the team I personally don't like this situation at all.
But the reason for that is not economical. If in real life team owners would be 100% sure that their players will not get any injury and will not have “bad shape” during all season - we would see a lot of teams with 7-8 players, too.
But this is a big topic for another time - it is not related to economics. -- 81 賽季 9 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Palme

There were like 30 other suggestions but lets just stick with the ones you (or like the chinese like to call you - GM) like, right? :) -- 81 賽季 9 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Wilt100

Darius, one suggestion which could help reduce minimum salaries would be introducing an "effective RT" which would be based only on actual skill values, discounting any reserves. E.g. older players, who hit the market drop skills, and their 12 skills become 11.9, which are far less effective but the player costs almost the same as prior to skills drop. Effective RT would always be lower than actual as 11.9 skill would count as 11.0 for effective RT calculation purposes. If minimum salaries for 30+yo players were calculated on "effective RT", this could help make the minimum salaries more sensible. -- 81 賽季 10 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

Game manager, production capacity has been the driving force of development. And you're punishing producers and encouraging robbers. In the next game career, I will always observe the early renewal amount of similar players in different countries, and be a robber according to your wishes. As for my player who has only 8 potential, trained for 630 days and needs 29000 euros to renew his contract, I just think it's a joke.

As for your changing the rules again and again, it reminds me of table tennis. As long as I can't win, it must be a matter of rules. -- 81 賽季 10 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

Out of curiosity, I opened a one month standard membership and inquired about 24-year-old players with five season contracts. I was surprised to find that there was only one player above 29000 euros and no more than 10 players above 20000 euros. Now you tell me that the salary for renewal is calculated according to the average salary, and their average salary is 29000 euro. It's so interesting. -- 81 賽季 10 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

dkerrigan

Well its pretty clear from the original post and the subsequent posts from the game that pricing a certain tier RT player right out of the game is the intention in order to lower league RT averages across the board.

So, instead of the top teams throwing all their money at 9 and 10 potential players, they will throw it all at 7 and 8 potential players so prices on those players will skyrocket.

And all the lower tier teams who have been carefully developing the players the top teams didn't want previously will get priced right out of all their work on the market.

Going back to basics, this is a game and its supposed to be fun. None of this is fun. Doubt that was much of a factor in whatever went into making this ridiculous plan. -- 81 賽季 10 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

The average health of the top 10 RT Lithuanian players is 70%. 3 of them are 50% or less. Who would pay good money for these players? How can you say there is not many players with low health? Darius you need to be a bit more open eyed on what is actually the problems. To be sure, here is a short list that I consider big issues:

1-Minimum wages calculated on forced values, not actual market value of players ( since we are forced to bid at least x EU ).

2- Teams being able to operate with 7 players and never foul out. Totally ridiculous, and obviously blatant cheating going on due to this fact.

3- Draft players that come out with high potential always have either very low RT and or health compared to scouted players with same potential. Differences in payouts per league tier is too much, stifling advancement opportunities.

4- Giving teams that promote free draft points in the 1 to 3 thousand range. I had 440 and teams got free 3000? What a joke.

These are just the glaring things, IMHO. -- 81 賽季 10 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 2.2 dwyane3

I have fun playing this game and I haven't seen inadequate prices yet except for 25k for Kreivaitis but he plays in the youth team so he's cheap. -- 81 賽季 10 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 5.11 el buitre

I was promoted to the first division of my country, I lost more than 20k of sponsors compared to the lower league .. result? forced to fire the best players ... how can you be competitive if you don't give financial possibilities? -- 81 賽季 10 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

@el buitre: income from sponsors depends on international league -- 81 賽季 10 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 mancuso

What is clear Darius is that you do not care the least about the club that spends time and money in training a player, the logic that good players come to the market is ridiculous, so only those managers who have money are favored and take advantage of the work of others who end up feeling stupid for working players for others to take them -- 81 賽季 10 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 5.11 el buitre

a-darius I have been relegated other times in the International League but I have never lost 20k of sponsors ... I have never had as little money as this season ... I can't explain it -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

bananajohn

el buitre you relegated.
4wl sponsors you can have 60k
5wl sponsors you have now 41k
your image is down to lvl 1, you relegated so popularity is down also. what's here to explain? -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

mancuso:
This is not about “caring” or “not caring”.
Everybody can grow their players in the game and teams get discounts for that.
We want this game to be available for playing in a few ways.
Teams that want to raise players - they get discounts in the market and for most important players they can use early extension.
Teams that do not want to invest in raising players - they should be able to find decent players in the market for a bit bigger price.

If somebody does not like this model - there also are many other games with different models.

But we do not plan to change the main points of the game just because teams always want to have cheaper contracts. -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.2 pippo

Darious, you want that people play in few ways, but just be sure that wage Is related to real ability and not on RT only. You made single skills potential for difference them, but are wages considering that? Not all are useful same way After that -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

If the clubs that train young players can get a big discount in the restricted player market, then this amendment is reasonable and acceptable.

What I want to say here is that the discount must take into account the amount of money invested by the clubs that cultivate young players. It is not only the salary of the players, but also the relevant trainers and the time cost.

In addition, the current number of early contract renewal is really meaningless. If it is feasible, my suggestion is to reduce the number of early contract renewal (for example, one player and one coach can be renewed every season, and one foreign player can be renewed every other season), and reduce the salary of early contract renewal. -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 mancuso

Darius seems unhappy with his comment that if I don't like it I'll go to another game, it's no way to respond. Regarding the point we are dealing with, here the trainer of players with high salary increases is harmed and there comes a point that he must let them go because he cannot keep them and the one who does not invest is rewarded, and benefits from the work of those managers -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

benislovas

Nepatinka - eikit kitur. Tikras verslo požiūris į savo klientą:) -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+17

fourkings

Respect. What else can I say? I knew it was useless -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.4 joancrumor

I believe that some aspects of the game can be improved, it is not to argue but we must analyze the situation of the game.
It is very easy to go bankrupt for various reasons, usually due to ignorance and others due to greed, how many times a player is hired in the market for a very high salary and a month the team goes bankrupt, I have seen it a lot.
For those teams that try to create homegrown players, in contract renewals there may be a discount bonus to the salary, for example -10% on the average salary, the nationality of the player can also be entered for that bonus, there are many possibilities to alleviate the rise progressive salary for modest teams.
From my short experience in the game, the last changes have not improved the game, for example the draft.
I think that before modifying more things in the game, you would have to think about this very well, so as not to make a serious gameplay error. -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+11

Well I'll put my two cents , first scouting sucks now, just remove it at all , unless im extremely unlucky, in a year i've invested over 300k and got 5pot talent, now im standing with bunch of draft points that I'll probably use in 5 seasons at best with current draft updates. and agree , that health should be added in calculation for minimum salary. another thing like review salary ceilings , i do not think a 4wl club needs 150k, make a 100k and then above give them taxes, just like nba. Could also put ceiling on how much you can offer to a player, maybe if it's top tier talent like 50k, and then in the end if 5 clubs offered him 50k he could look into, popularity, winning percentage and other shit . -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

dkerrigan

Almost all of this goes back to how teams acquire players and how much should they cost.

I thought

fourkings made an excellent point that for teams that develop players the benefits given have to match the costs, time and patience.

And his point is in direct conflict with what

a-darius said that teams that choose not to develop talents should be able to find decent players in the market ... for a bit bigger price.

Why exactly should teams that ignore an entire portion of the game only have to pay "a bit" more?

Teams developing players spend a lot more than "a bit" developing them. A team can save a ton of money ignoring scouting and training completely. That savings gives them a lot more "bits" to use in the market than the teams who do. -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

Dkerrigan: what do you think how big “discount” (in percentages) player should give for his first team compared to other offers? -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

6.32 7.30

I have an offer for scouted players in market: calculate average from two highest bids (from different managers), then add discount. Example of formula:
1st bid - 25k, 2nd bid - 15k. Discount 10% (I will use this amount of discount for ex). (25+15)/2*0,9=18k.
What's the point? It will decrease impact of crazy offers.
Two more examples for this idea:
1. 10 offers around 20k and one offer for 40k. Probably this player isn't worth 40k, because only one thinks that (he could have some reasons to overpay). In these days you will extend him for 36k. My offer is let extend contract for (20+40)/2*0,9=27k.
2. 1st highest bid - 42k, 2nd bid - 38k. It means that there is not one manager opinion, it's something near player worth. So calculations could look like: (42+38)/2*0,9=36k -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

During the last few days I investigated quite a lot of different statistics and examples (early extension prices, bonuses in restricted market, prices in free market).

Let's go with one example (one of the team that complains about this situation a lot)
Weekly salary of the main team players + coaches: 363k Eu/week
The same salary without discount in restricted market: 428k Eu/week (18% is the minimum discount that teams get for their own scouted players in restricted market)
Difference: 428 - 363 = 65k saved every week (585k saved in a season)
Such numbers would be if restricted market is used.
As in many cases an early extension is used - the amount of the saved money is even bigger.

I understand that scouting and growing players cost money. But the discounts in the restricted market are quite big now.

Not to mention the fact that teams with their own players save a lot of money because they avoid expensive mistakes in the market.

Now almost all top players never reach the market and that is not OK. So if there is a need for correction - it should be in a completely opposite direction.

We used to have situation when early extension prices were similar to the market prices. In that case the amount of “early extensions” decrease (now we do not see that) -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

dkerrigan

a-darius I know this is counter to what you just said, but I think the advantage to teams developing players should be given through the extension and not discounts in the limited market. I think the savings should be dramatic and be applied regardless of whether its a 2 or 5 year extension. Adjust the benefit based on the players opinion of the team and the personnel sector.

I think it should be extension based because the number of extensions is limited. With discounts applied in the limited market every scouted player sees the benefit. If it is extension based, the team who scouted the player gets to keep their pick of players but not everyone. Choices have to be made and players have to be risked.

I think the benefit should be dramatic because (a) the costs and time to develop players is dramatic and (b) higher tier teams have a dramatic financial advantage due to the disparity of revenue between league levels. This makes the market fundamentally inequitable in a game where the goal is to climb a ladder. The top teams get the most money so they get the best players and stay on top indefinitely. Keeping some players off the market completely acts as a check on that.

In general, I don't think the game should be balanced around teams who don't scout and develop anymore than it should be balanced around teams who don't have a coach. Developing players should be a requirement for a certain level of success. Sure, you don't have to if you really don't want to, but your only going to get so far if you don't. A team that primarily relies on the market to supply its roster should find life difficult. -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.4 Movida

a-darius I do not find this statement correct : "Now almost all top players never reach the market and that is not OK. So if there is a need for correction"
Why?
These strong players if they go on the market it is assumed that they will go to those few clubs that can spend. thus forming few all-star teams that raid the best talents of the poorest teams.
Consequently, no one wastes time and money to train a player that as soon as he goes on the market he loses him.
The current early renewal system works and must remain unchanged. These renewals are already limited in number by regulation. -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

It is not an easy situation to figure out exactly how it all needs to work. However I want to say I know Administration will look at every angle and try to make the best choices for the game. They have an inherit investment to do so.

Thanks for listening to our points. -- 81 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 mancuso

what you did not take into account in your investigation Darius, that is why I ask you to continue in the limited market, that in practice much of that saving that you say is obtained, is lost because the wages that are paid at that stage many times They are much higher than the average, today many even mediocre players have several offers that raise their contracts a lot, so today the one who invests and trains is harmed and the one who only comes out to hire in the markets benefits. On top of that, many times later they fall into bankruptcy because they cannot afford those salaries, but the damage they have already done. -- 81 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 Gudrioji Lape

Maybe good suggestion will be to give 10% discount for extension if player played 8 seasons in club, but 20% if he played more? -- 81 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 mancuso

Gudrioji Lape, if a player does not ask you for a 50 to 80% increase in his salary for the anticipated extension as happens now, a bonus would not be necessary -- 81 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

I just checked the top players Darius mentioned all the time and found that among the top 10 players in the game, eight are Chinese players, and among the top 30 players in the game, 17 are from China, which is more than the sum of other countries. I think before considering whether the strongest players should always play for a club, Darius should first consider why other countries can't produce so many excellent players. Don't we play the same game under the same rules? Why can't clubs in other countries cultivate their own players, but ask those clubs that have the ability to cultivate the best players to share their players? I can tell you that the best players can only be produced under the best system. These clubs have invested a lot of money and painstaking efforts. These clubs can enjoy the peak period of these excellent players with preferential prices, which is completely a financial sharing. During the growth period of these excellent players, the club's funds have already been injected into their careers. If these clubs can't control the best players, then these clubs can not invest the money and effort. I love the game, but I don't like the one-sided change of Darius. So far, if Darius continues to make such one-sided changes, I will run my club in a different way. I will show you that a good manager is different from others under any rule. -- 81 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 mancuso

is that that is the point, you do not have to fill the market with good players, but rather that each team invest in scouts and form their own, there you see a good manager -- 81 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

You missed the point of the article. The article is not about changes we did or changes we plan to do. It is just an explanation of how the economics work in the game.
We do not change the direction of the game. The same economic model we use throughout the entire history of the game and we plan to maintain it in the future.

Even in game`s help section it is written that early extension is similar to market price:
“Players from scouts want to prolong contracts for average salary of similar players (also depends on contract length) and denominative player - for smaller than average salary. “

Now the average price is growing - so the early extension price is growing together with it.

And after reviewing the situation (by your request) I have a completely opposite opinion about what changes are needed.
However right now the game is in transition period (creating less supertalents compared to previous version). So probably the best way would be to wait and let everything settle down a bit before doing any drastic changes -- 81 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

4.1 4.4 Formatas

Geriausia sistema - uždirbti pinigai. Reiktų naujų rėmėjų ir fanų davimo sistemų. Arenos turėtų būti tobulinamos. Bilietų kainos reguliuojamos. Žaidėjai parduodami. -- 81 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

KaunoMeras

Nieko nereikia -- 81 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 mancuso

The only thing we ask managers who train youth to nurture our main team with them and not have to go to the markets is a little consideration in their renewals, because it is frustrating to work a player for several seasons and have to let him go because not salary can be paid. It is not something drastic -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

https://www.basketpulse.com/cn/Player/2051309/description

Darius, can you explain how the player who almost gets the highest salary is explained by the average salary. You know, this player needs 29000 euros to renew his contract in advance. If the price is the same, no matter how you explain it, I will think you are attacking the club that trains the players. As I have said before, young players can't produce any value in training players, but they have started to receive high salaries. After more than ten seasons of training, do you still have to pay such a high salary? I say you can't be too one-sided. -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Hollywood

I have a couple suggestions. Most managers don't like the limited market and hate losing young talent on it.
1. Compensation if you lose a player. In the US, the NFL is king. When a football team loses a player to the market that team gets compensation. I suggest if a team loses a player on the limited, they get cash compensation equal to one years salary of the lost player.
2. Make it easier to trade players for young talent. Most managers know when they will have a tough time keeping a player. The current trade system makes it impossible to trade players for prospects. My suggestion is, instead of basing the rt match on current rt, base it on predicted rt. Also, base the wage match on what a player with that predicted rt would make.
This wouldn't eliminate player movement, but it would make it easier to move players a manager knows they will lose. Plus, it would give managers compensation for their investment if they do lose a player. -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Hollywood

Just to clarify my above suggestion, the compensation funds for losing a player wouldn't come from the team signing the player. It would come from basketpulse. This is key as forcing a signing team to pay additional cash would be prohibitive to player movement. -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.4 Movida

Hollywood :
tip number 1 is not feasible.
tip number 2 would be fair compensation for the club. a bit like what happens in the nba where to get Davies / Harden you have to give promising youngsters in exchange -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Extension prices weren't increased on purpose. It increases because extending was too cheap and was considered a bug that many exploited for a quite long time. Now when it is patched and reflects real prices of a player - we complain. Those prices are from the market to similar players (taking in the account not only current RT of a player, but also it's future prediction of potential and RT).

Majority has to understand that prices were not increased to do so on purpose but it was a bug fix. All the crazy offers some players receive during free/limited market adds to increased prices of those extension.

And I will repeat myself for the third time - it wasn't increased on purpose, it was done by fixing a bug.

So please stop attacking administration for a wrong reason. Article was written to explain how economics work in this game, not to ask suggestions on how economics should be run in it. -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Mariusha

聯盟志願者或管理員隱藏的新聞訊息 -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

fourkings

HeyHoudini
From now on, I will not say even one more word about this shit like economic policy. You can cover it up in any way, and I will have my countermeasures. I'll see you on the court. -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

GOD神

It costs a lot of time and money to train a player. In real life, clubs spend a lot of money on training youth teams, because they can sell players to make money. But in BP, once a player enters the restricted market and is bought by other teams, it means that all the previous investment is gone. GM should consider how to protect these training clubs.Unfortunately, GM is moving in the opposite direction. If no player is willing to train players in the future, the price of players will only be higher -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Fourkings,
I understand disappointment, but it wasn't done to hurt users. Increased prices are basically fault of managers that waste huge money in the market. That's why extentions prices has so dramatic increase after a bug was fixed. In the end, this is rough times for everyone as transition period is going through. After it is over and managers understand that their market decisions effect everyone, situation with salaries should bring some stability and crazy spendings will go down. -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.2 andronikos

Maybe it would be right when you do not have players from your academy, to pay a good enough salary to the team that trained. -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Hollywood

movida - with regard to my suggestion to financially compensate clubs losing players on the limited market, I disagree. IRL this is what happens when pro teams lose players to free agency, restricted or not.
IMHO Compensation and altering the trade system would not only give managers a tool to avoid losing guys for nothing, but also give them something for the time and effort that manager put into scouting and development. -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

7.24 nacho_uni10

Houdini,
" After it is over and managers understand that their market decisions effect everyone, " So as long as couple of users splash a lot of money in free market we're struck on this? -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.2 pippo

As Always Will be some Crazy wage offer Is It so hard to exclude couple of higher offers and couple of lower offers for calcolate the medium average for similar players? -- 81 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+1 pippo -- 81 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.4 Movida

good idea pippo -- 81 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

RaZeev

The big issue is that these days there's a quite some tams who buy serious amounts of ingame money with credits. They can and do pay every price in the market, rising prices for everyone. This is something that is not reflected in the description of the economic model above. As long as huge amounts of money are pumped into the game by some of these bigtime buyers, all others will suffer. -- 81 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+16

Y 5 a-darius

RaZeev: yes we know that BasketPulse has this feature. This is one of the reasons why you and others can still play this game.

We have about 1000 users who play daily and only a few of them buy money.
And as recently we increased credits prices - we have even less money purchases now.
So I believe that this “unfairness” is a “fair” price to pay to have this game available for everyone.

And the impact to the market is very small. Average salary is calculated from at least 20 similar players/coaches. So one or two bigger offers affect average salary insignificantly. -- 81 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

benislovas

Darius - please explain how average rate is calculated. Because filtering similar players and comparing them to average rate does not match at all. So better understanding how it works would help a lot. -- 81 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

6.32 7.30

Is it true? Do you have less income than you had before price incresement? Then it's your mistake. I'm sad, because I told you about this possibility before changes. I wish this is temporary situation and you will get more income lately. Otherwise, new marketing strategy could be useful. -- 81 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

Average salary is based on offers from the market's history of the past few seasons.
It is calculated from at least 20 similar players/coaches. If the number of similar players is not enough - then it calculates again with broadened range until at least 20 similar records are found.

This method has a few issues. One of them is that now we look at the final offer the player chose. In many cases that includes the discount based on the situation - scouted/sectors/country (can be even ~50%).
If we only looked at free market history where we have a bit less discounts - we would get bigger average salaries. But there is another problem - too little data.

Probably in the future we will increase the average salary to be closer to the free market numbers (not the restricted market) and apply more bonuses for early extensions. -- 81 賽季 16 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Palme

Thanks! Early extension prices are way too low it needs to be increased ASAP!!! -- 81 賽季 16 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.4 Movida

Palme: Early extension prices are not way too low, they probably were before the bug was fixed.
Now the price is correct for me. Because we are talking about players taken from very young, and left to grow even for 10 seasons. The savings on early extension offsets the expenses incurred to take young people and raise them -- 81 賽季 16 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

dkerrigan

a-darius Above you explained how average salary is calculated. Could you also explain how minimum salary is calculated? -- 81 賽季 16 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

benislovas

Ok, I need clear example to understand - signing 24y 8pot C for 5 years which players he is compared to?
Why I am asking - I think that signing 2y deal his salary should compared to 25y players, 3y-26y and etc. Now I feel that is calculated to average salary after 5 years. This could explain why now contracts are the same for all periods and why they are so high. -- 81 賽季 16 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Palme

Movida
Yeah, I was joking man. Players are talking about how the extensions are unfriendly with them and the game admin comes and says that they are too low and it needs to be fixex. Lol. Clearly it's a dead end when it comes to communication in bpulse :) -- 81 賽季 16 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 5.9 tydeas

I thing that the trade market must be improoved with the pottential trades of a player for player+future draft pik like the actual NBA system. The value of the draft could be free or less than the 50% of the traded player value -- 81 賽季 31 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 Gudrioji Lape

actually, the rating criteria in trades could be replaced or complemented with player's future max rating and salary differences increased -- 81 賽季 32 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 3.4 Partizanas

Man tik nelogiška, kodėl minimali alga senukams nemažėja ir kodėl min alga nemažėja žaidėjui, kurio niekas nenupiko ir jis vėl bando laimę laisvų agentų rinkoje. -- 88 賽季 63 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+11

Faktas, kad su minimalia alga yra nesąmonė. Jeigu žaidėjo niekas neperka už jo minimalią algą, tai jis kaip pvz. sekančią dieną turėtų ateiti į rinką su kokia 5-10 proc. mažesne minimalia alga. Ir taip kasdien.. Nes man net ir gaila dabar, kaip koks resursų švaistymas, žaidėjas nustumiamas į užmarštį, nes jo niekas nenupirko, nes minimali alga nesikeičia.. -- 89 賽季 2 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

steijnarr

Some of the smaller communities, such as ours, lose the local players that we scout because extending is too expensive. Maybe you could have the players extend contract with the team they were scouted by for a little cheaper? This will encourage people to train players from scouts more and not just chase Lithuanian or Chinese players in the market don't you think? Which would also lead to a more competitive atmosphere in the national teams in my opinion. -- 89 賽季 2 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

4.6 4.4 Ignas1521

Praėjo 5metai, ironiška, bet per tokį laikotarpį niekas nebuvo padaryta iš išvardinto sąrašo :D -- 110 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 2.1 darys

Tai niekas ir neturėjo būti padaryta. Čia yra paaiškinimai kodėl to nežadama daryti, tai nelabai suprantu ko tu tikėjaisi. :D -- 110 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

4.6 4.4 Ignas1521

Apribotųjų rinkos metu taip pat rodyti ir žaidėjus iš laisvųjų rinkos. Su šiais žaidėjais būtų lengviau pasirašyti kontraktą, kadangi nebūtų "dabartinės komandos", kuri galėtų "permušti" jūsų pasiūlymą.
2. Kuomet į žaidimą pridėsime "specialius žaidėjų įgūdžius", daugiau skirtingų žaidėjų bus sukurta. Ir šitaip daugiau žaidėjų taip pat atsiras rinkoje. Keli pavyzdžiai:
Kai kurie žaidėjai visada rinktųsi didžiausią pasiūlymą (jokių nuolaidų, jokių išankstinių pratęsimų)
Kai kurie žaidėjai būtų labai lojalūs ir duotų didesnę nuolaidą savo klubui
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų žaisti savo gimtojoje šalyje ir už tai duotų didesnę nuolaidą
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų žaisti aukštesnėse lygose
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų kovoti dėl titulo
Kai kurie žaidėjai norėtų žaisti kiek įmanoma daugiau minučių -- 110 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

顯示已隱藏回覆: 106

2.2 2.2 dwyane3

Manau, kad galetu buti isimciu zaidejams laisvu agentu rinkoje, kuriais noekas nesidomejo, kad kaskart grizis i rinka ju kaina sumazetu 20%. Daug zaideju, kurie galetu dar zaisti zemesnese lygose tampa nereikalingi. Aisku ne visiems idomu zaisti zemam lygy, bet cia irgi galetu buti special skill. -- 110 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 2.1 Aurimas.

Toks vaizdas, kad žaidėjai norėdami patekt į laisvą rinką turi iššokt iš lėktuvo be parašiuto palyginus jų įgūdžius prieš ir po -- 110 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.1 WhiteWalls

I think there should be exception for FA(free agents) to join a team for 20% lower salary, team must be competing for promotion(top 10 in RT at its WL, or 90% Winrate within first 10 games minimum), so they could submit lower salary offer but for that single season max. So in theory player could raise his CV and it would be beneficial for team. It should be allowed 1 player per team per 2 seasons etc. This could work in my eyes. -- 110 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

3.2 4.2 a-ramune

遊戲新聞: Cases of cheating and upcoming updates

-- 98 賽季 25 天

Important! The fight against cheating

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+16

1.1 3.3 Fjord

More like PREMIUM users win...
The idea to limit users based on their rank to borrow players it's fine, but to completely put it under PREMIUM for the future is not fair play, it's just being greedy. It's one of fundamental parts of the game and everyone should be able to use it. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+44

I agree, the idea of only being able to borrow players if you have premium is rather strange, especially that you can only borrow 1 player per season as it is. It would make more sense that if you had premium you can borrow 2-3 players and not just one. Personally, I do not use premium and do not intend to, and I'm always all for having more updates/new features in the game. I understand if there's a brand new feature coming out and premium is required for it, but to make something that is and has been free for a long time - now chargeable? Bizzare -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+25

1.1 3.4 MikeHoudini

"making player borrowing available only to PREMIUM users" - you do understand, that this will have a much bigger negative effect to fair users who can't afford premium vs combating cheating, right?
Also, that change would send users this message: "cheating is ok if you pay us".
If you see no other way to combat cheating, I would instead advise completely removing the player borrowing feature. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+33

1.1 4.6 Kekec

Bolded parts are cool. However, over time...when borrowing players become the option for only premium users, this game will see me no more. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+18

Morrow

Some of these updates are fine BUT using PREMIUM just to limit cheating doens't make sense.
1) Cheaters with 16 teams probably DO have PREMIUM at least for some teams (as they spent big on scouts ecc..).
2) There should be no difference between cheaters that pay and that don't.
3). Even if everybody was paying PREMIUM you still should have tools to avoid cheating. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+16

Lipinski

I can only agree with the general tenor of the community!
Are you serious?
Lending only for PREMIUM users!
PREMIUM compulsion for family members!

You're punishing everyone for the mistakes of individuals. This is collective punishment and contradicts the enlightened basic attitude of European cultural tradition, according to which everyone bears individual responsibility for their actions.

I understand that you want and need to act, and then above all quickly and forcefully. But not like this. If you really go through with it, then I'm out. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+34

1.1 4.2 Haris

The only way it makes sense is if PREMIUM users would get to borrow 2 players, whereas regular users would be allowed to borrow one.

Otherwise its just a money grabbing scheme. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

4.2 4.2 Kisuke

Damn, they had us in the first half guys.. It almost looked like they care about cheaters for a couple days -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+12

DemonCyborg5321

This update is essentially cheating is alright as long as we get our money. Forcing PREMIUM on free users doesn't contradict cheating in any way. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+12

1.1 3.4 Scimmiatomica

Being able to borrow more player then others, it's unfair.
I'm deeply convinced that when the PREMIUM package will stop granting even the smallest in game superiority and advantage to players, you will have more subscribers.
Just try to be creative with purely cosmetic PREMIUM features and you will be for sure supported by the community. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

3.2 4.8 Nightfall

With all due respect, locking core game mechanics behind the paywall exactly how deals with cheaters? For someone that plays/played other online games, people sink unholy amount of IRL money to gain even slight advantage over the rest, maybe a cheater wont pay for 16 premiums, but he just ganna sit on 8. Paywall changes are not ganna solve cheating issue, perhaps reduce it a little bit, but it will also comes with other minuses for the rest of playerbase. If there is a person that wants to be better than the rest and has funds to do it, paywall wont change the general outcome, but it fucks with the rest of folks. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Y'all saying this isn't fair as it "punishes everyone" definitely have little to none knowledge of how big cheating issue is.

One way or another, everyone now shouting "it's not fair" have received disadvantage of users cheating:
- strengthening your opponent via trade/borrowing;
- Intentional losses to promote other team into top16 or cheap tickets to make you lose a match so other team from the group benefits into playoffs;
- malicious bids on your players from farm teams as you just bid on main-account team.

It isn't some small issue, administration has actually tried multiple ways, but some community members just comeback and help their countries to develop/scout/draft better talent via borrowing/trades.

Hence that video about recently banned team cluster was made 8 months ago. And to be fair, there is way more such clusters while two people that work on this game cannot dedicate enough hours to easily look for all cheating teams 24/7. Game has FPC, but there is currently only 1 member that can sincerely distinguish this behavior. Rest, to be honest, just don't care much.

Is this solution the best? Not really, but seeing resources that administration have, no better can be done. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 4.1 namkinleung

Eventually all the free players left the game :) good luck to lent your over-bid players to nobody. No surprise to me WL1 player wrote tons of non sense to support :) -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+20

1.1 1.1 TRX001

what can i say: "Very reasonable" -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

3.2 4.8 Nightfall

Perhaps if fair game committee wouldnt be just a cosmetic feature, and we wouldnt wait 8 months to ban a cheater with 16 teams with full proof of sus activity video we wouldnt need to make core game mechanics behind the paywall, but i do not have suggestion how to fix any of that. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 4.1 Vitucii

Basically admins use the chance to charge users for more features without solving the problem. Now it will be great to cheat as long as you pay… -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+14

Morrow

I think we all agree that cheating is a big deal, just don't make core features only for PREMIUM while pretending this is to adress cheating.

Limit the number of times two teams can trade/lend with each other during n season. I mean, there are plenty of solutions... -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 fanling3

Isn’t paying feature itself a legal cheat if it doesn’t affect only visual? Why do you guys care about a paid cheater? -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 2.2 sioux

Can someone simply explain to me the connection between premium and cheating?
Am I to understand that the one who has a premium either does not cheat or that because he pays he can cheat?
And do you really want to weed out all the players who don't want or can't pay over time? Is our community that big? -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+10

1.1 2.1 Aurimas.

I also suggest that if premium expires borrowed player immediately should go back to his main team, so when talking about lending it will not be about minutes and coach but also add a bank statement if you have enough to extend it. From those changes, Im making an assumption, that only main cyseric team had premium? -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

bananajohn

I missed the part how does using the PREMIUM hammer prevents cheating...? -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 2.1 Aurimas.

Houdi, how limiting lending will help solve those problems?
- Intentional losses to promote other team into top16 or cheap tickets to make you lose a match so other team from the group benefits into playoffs;
- malicious bids on your players from farm teams as you just bid on main-account team.
About lending problem thats the smallest impact for cheaters. The only benefit they get probably is that they are able to lend overpaid prospect which nobody would borrow normally with such salary. To prevent cheating in trades I believe there was one major update to make a team who will figure it out of that was cheating or not. If I remember well, its called FPC, and if we need such changes now, looks like the fpc update was a waste of time and they not doing what they supposed to do? Maybe fpc area requires some updates too? -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.4 joancrumor

In my modest opinion, I believe that the game should already be paid, after the new managers have been playing for free for a while with reduced options, because at this rate those of us who do not pay can do or see almost little -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Rarz09-bot

Well here in Argentina, if it is pay to win, there will not be one active user left, since we do not have the option to purchase credits, as other countries have, if we had it, we would surely be happy to support by becoming Premium. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 4.5 barbabodom

So the game is leaning towards Pay To Win...ok.... -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 CoachM0329

Appreciate game administrators’ effort to kick out cheating users in the game, and made proposals to prevent cheating.
To let everyone fully understand what’s the rationales behind the proposed actions to fight against cheating, could the game administrator provide us brief explanation/demonstration on how the cheating worked before, not only the 16 banned teams but also the previous cheating that discovered, and how the proposed action can eliminate those cheaters?
I believe everyone will be satisfied if a full picture is given. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 2.2 ak904

I don't think it's a good idea to target free users, especially you emphasis game members can achieve the highest results without investing in credits.
Free users are a very important part of the game, and they will also have the opportunity to become premium users in the future. If the advantage of premium users is increased and a large number of free users are lost, I believe the damage to the game will be great. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+20

1.1 4.5 barbabodom

Admin should be focused in improving the experience for the lower tier teams, these proposals will only widen the gap -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Ademir

If borrowing is a tool for cheating, and you can't control it, then ban it from everyone,
Any solution that gives game privileges to premium borrowing more players and i'm out.
I don't see a point of competing with players with privileges, and I do not want to win just because i'm paying. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+16

1.1 3.4 MikeHoudini

HeyHoudini I believe that everyone here understands that cheating is a huge issue and needs to be dealt with. But the concern is that using the wrong approach will lead to the opposite of intended effect.
If even a little bit of logical thinking is used, it's very easy to conclude that using paywall to try to combat cheating will lead to the percentage of cheaters (vs non-cheaters) to increase - that is because most of BP's users are non-cheaters who don't/can't use premium and they will be the ones who will stop playing. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Y 1 smart0eddie

Pay 2 play.
Well... -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 2.2 d0man

Can someone explain to me how we got conclusion that because we cheated with trades we need to take completely different mechanics of the game and hide Ii behind paywall and it will solve problem.
How you can even cheat with borrowed players? First you need team strong enought to be higher than your main team, second you need player that is good and cheap. Third even if you are successful in 1 and 2 you won't necessarily gain any in game adventance because they are really good players on marker without cheating. I thing that borrowing mechanics is one of the best design in the game and have no easy/profitable way to cheat. Hiding it behind paywall is worse than deleting it. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+12

1.1 1.1 fungtys

Is it too hard to ask the community before any decision on major changes?
Seems too rush, subjective, and without support that it would work.
Much better to provide your Materials, Methods, Prospective Results, and Cited References to let us discuss first. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

1. Pay to win:
We hear about "pay to win" for multiple years.
Many of you at some point in the past wrote similar messages about one or another feature (for example, the ability to improve trade level).
Each time we hear that without spending tons of money you cannot achieve anything.
I just checked the first world league regular season leaders - all 4 clubs do not have PREMIUM.
Users in the game still can achieve good results without PREMIUM, and that is a fact.
A few seasons ago I looked at the TOP20 users who bought the most credits - most of them never won the game.
Yes, paying real money helps. And probably with time it will help even more. Let's be realistic - nobody is paying for "cosmetics".
However, we will continue to try to have a healthy balance so that free users with a bit more work could have good chances to climb UP and fight for becoming the champion of the BasketPulse.

2. Borrowing availability to PREMIUM vs all users
Currently, limiting for PREMIUM is just a long-term plan.
We don't have an exact date for this.
If we significantly stop cheating sooner, we might be able to avoid this.
I see some other possible options which probably will be tried before moving this fully under PREMIUM.
In the worst-case scenario, if we go that way, we will try to compensate somehow (one of the alternatives for this "extra" player would be to switch drafts to two rounds instead of one).

3. How paywall helps reduce cheating
Now for users to cheat is very simple. You just use a VPN to create a new team and you can start making a mess.
By moving the riskiest features under PAYWALL, we make cheating a lot more difficult.
Even if there will be one cheater with a lot of money - we can faster identify and punish them because we have fewer cheating "suspects".
Also, cheating would be expensive and in the end, cheaters would risk not only their teams but also their money they spend for PREMIUMs.

4. Family members:
Right now, many of our players have "brother", "cousins", "roommates".
Let's be realistic - mostly are fake teams.
If these teams do not do any action between each other, there is not much we can do. I don't want to ban by accident some real brothers.
However, "brother's team" still can be used to attack somebody in the market, to trade/borrow/lend players with another "friendly club" (who might have its own brother to help you in return...).
I understand that we probably have some real families where a few players play BasketPulse, however, we cannot sacrifice so much for a few individuals.
It is not logical to stop improving the game just to spend hours looking at trades/IPs/borrowing and other data just to ban few users...

5. Borrowing/lending:
Also, I want to point out that nothing changes with lending players - there won't be any restrictions for that.
Restrictions will be implemented only for lending players.
Cheaters create teams where they can "grow" their players easier. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

*Restrictions will be implemented only for borrowing players. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Let me know, when premium users only can borrow players, from that momment i will be out -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 Fjord

It doesn't matter if you just restrict one part of borrow process, it will affect the part as well. If I want to lend my players, nobody will take them cause you will need PREMIUM for that. So free users end up not able to borrow for themselves, neither for others for the most part. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 fungtys

Trade level 6 is quite strict to make moves for most players. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 2.2 d0man

I don't think it is that easy creating team to create better environment to borrow player it. You need good coach with isn't hard if you don't care about finances, but next you need team max one division below your team and fighting for top 8 to have best possible opponents. It takes time and efforts much harder than trying to advertise your player on discord. Unless he is not worth lending/borrowing but with player like that playing and having team still fighting for top 8 it either oblivious cheat case or team don't make top 16 and is not optimal for development of player with make this kind of cheating useless. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.2 ulipulido

a-ramune. Why closes teams are playing with full roster when was clear were fakes? I think its not fair for the rest of the teams in the league -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.2 ulipulido

Also the idea IF YOU CHEAT, AT LEAST PAY, its amazing -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+10

1.1 3.1 Slamgot

Eventually making player borrowing available only for Premium users.
Making unfair treatment between premium and non premium users would mean end of the game. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.1 antisergey

1. According to information in "Community" section number of clubs in BasketPulse now is 8546. Recently 16 "cheater" teams were found and banned - that's about 2/1000 (less than 1%). Now some in-game changes are going to be made, but the basis of these changes is 1% of rare (?) cases of cheating, not 99% of common clubs which follow the rules. That seems rather strange and, as mentioned above, is kind of "collective punishment".
2. I think there are some methods which can be used for suspicious cases (trades, market offers). Fair play committee works with trades (just voting? or some analysis of players, teams and their possible connections?). Market offers can be somehow analyzed - list of bids is available - though such analysis will be a large amount of work. Trading and buying/selling players for teams from the same IP address can be restricted.
3. Lending/borrowing players doesn't seem to be connected with cheating - at least it's not mentioned in the article as a way to infairly get advantage. So yes, "many people may not like these changes" - not because "there are no other options", but because some changes seem to be not explicitly connected with cheating. -- 98 賽季 25 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 2.2 sioux

for antisergey:
WL1-32 teams, WL2-64, WL3-128, WL4- 256, WL5- 512, WL6- 1024??? Real max 500
total max: 1492 teams - and I'm a big optimist
shared IP: there are so many possibilities to introduce rules prohibiting joint trading and trading through a third party, etc. But pushing it through Premium seems to me to take the easy way out, instead of taking a moment to think and provide rules to limit fraudsters from exploiting the system's imperfections.
I'm not saying it's easy, but I have to stand up for all the players who don't have premium and are excited about this game like most of us -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.1 antisergey

sioux thanks, you're right - i had to take into consideration not the total amount of teams, but the number of active users (with single team, if we speak about cheating;) ). Even with optimistic number of 1492 such teams and 16 punished recently - estimation is still about 1%.
Agree with "easy way out" - and hope that discussion here in comments will lead to something more constructive in measures against cheating. -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.4 MikeHoudini

"total max: 1492 teams" - I'd estimate that number to be a bit higher, about 1600.
But 16 of 1492 is pretty much exactly 1%. -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

rexhung-bot

Why don't directly ban all teams from the same IP? I think this is a much easier solution. This way a large amount of same IP cheating will be reduced.

For borrowing players, I personally don't think it's good to become a supporter only feature, since this would be harsh and unfriendly for free players. Those rather newer players are the ones having the most need to borrow players, in order to have good players in a relatively low salary before they develop a network of player development, and have more sponsors. Some high RT players are just too expensive for newer managers to afford. -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 lantieheuser

1.Cheating in the game is not okay. Although we all know that it's difficult to completely eradicate cheating in this kind of game, some restrictions are the right direction.

2.Considering the number of players in this game; frankly, the probability of encountering players with the same IP address consecutively is very low. Restricting family players essentially implies a presumption of guilt for free players and a presumption of innocence for paying players. However, presumption of innocence is not equal to innocence. I don't think it's the most ideal approach, but it's acceptable from an efficiency standpoint. After all, from the perspective of restricting cheating, family players do increase management costs.

3.I disagree with the modifications to leasing. Essentially, the borrowing team should only need to pay the base salary. In the current salary structure：The base salary is more focused on reflecting the player's current strength and value, while the portion beyond the base salary reflects the player's future appreciation. It's relatively reasonable for the using team to pay for the strength value and the lending team to pay for the future value.

4.Regarding malicious bidding: BP's cost of abandoning contracts is too low, and the method of calculating contract value is also problematic. Which sane player would accept a 24k/1yr contract and give up a 22K/5yrs contract? Moreover, why, in extreme situations, is the penalty for abandoning a contract only 6.6% of the total contract value?
This is the foundation of all market value chaos and malicious bidding, and I look forward to BP making appropriate changes in this regard. -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.1 JeroDel8

Far from reducing inequalities, they are on the way to increasing them. I have long since given up hope that the game will become more and more equitable. pay to win. Work for the game by attracting users to be local in the World Cups, to have a scouting bonus, so that your players train well in the national league and so that they want to lend you players because they do not train badly when they play in the national league. Also so that the nationality of the players in the drafts is equitable. With this approach the number of users should decrease. -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.8 stefax

You are punishing a whole community because if a big cheater case,. They took advantage on us in the past and you want ti disadvantage us twice restricting our operations. Just hire some more users to look for malicious operations. It's not so complicated, I did it for a long time in Charazay and, having the right instruments, it's not that difficult mission. -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+13

1.1 3.4 MikeHoudini

a-darius

Could you please explain in a bit more detail how the borrowing side of lending/borrowing gains an advantage with cheating?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the current information that you have provided, it seems like this:
* goal of cheater is to get their main team [A] to be as competitive as possible
* they create other teams [B,C,...] to help achieve that goal
* as [B,C,...] are in lower league than [A], players can be only borrowed from [A] to [B,C,...]
* from lending players, [A] gets some financial gain and some more playing time for lower level players in [B,C,...]

If those points are correct, would it not be more effective to limit the lending side?
From the help page I can see that 5 players can be lent. Have you considered lowering that number to limit the benefits of [A]? -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

4.1 4.4 Formatas

lol Darius as always the player experience comes last. You have good game but with low managment skills creating some bizzare thing where all new player just must go F-f. How will help if all free to play players will be just meat without any chance to achievement anything just because P2W will have more bonuses to be better? Maybe next Premium feature will be 100% atsmosphere in home with highest price tickets? Its wonderfull plus to buy premium... -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+13

1.1 2.1 Waldemar235

Very harsh innovations... =( -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

marcos_rubio

ten years later, when all one argentine generation leave the game because Darius dont want punish chinese and lituaninan cheaters, sad. -- 98 賽季 26 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 6.22 elprof

I very much like lantieheuser's 3rd point (and also the 4th point btw). Having the lending team pay for the base salary and the borrowing team pay for the "extra" so to speak. That makes sense to me. I also feel like a system similar to trade restriction would work for lending/borrowing, but then tied to user rank. Since ranks are easily managed and have a clear set of requirements before being achieved, all it would take is requirements that are increasingly difficult to reach. This by itself has a very large potential for discouraging lending/borrowing by people using multiple teams.

For example, only users with Silver or higher rank can use borrowing/lending unrestricted like how it is now. In order to get Silver it takes 15 seasons, which is 2.5 years of playing. Not to mention the teams would have to reach WL3 to get there. The amount of effort it would take for a fake team to get that far and keep it up that long seems like a massive deterent to me. At least a much better option than making it a premium feature.
One issue with this is the need to evaluate these volunteers to make sure no cheaters are among them but at least it's something for you to consider. Another issue is that there might be existing cheaters who have high rank by now because they've gone relatively unchecked for so long.

Another thing that I noticed.. HeyHoudini says that only 1 member of the FPC "cares" enough to actually investigate cheating. That sounds to me like the FPC needs a major update because I was always under the assumption that the FPC is one of the things standing between fair users and cheaters. Maybe it's time to implement a team of volunteers whose sole purpose is to investigate cheating. They shouldn't have the power to shut down other users without the green light from higher management but it could be a way to reduce the number of suspects without requiring major input from existing management. No one solution is going to be perfect. But maybe by using multiple at the same time we can start to get somewhere.

PS: I personally don't feel like premium is pay to win at all. Most of the features you get are quality of life things (like filters, future tactics, training history etc.). Being able to buy your way into a better trade restriction or just straight up buying ingame money is another story though. -- 98 賽季 27 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

baskmaster

Widzę, że po ogłoszeniu aktualizacji przejdź na PREMIUM albo nie licz na jakieś osiągnięcia w grze funkcja zamknięcie konta przestała działać (drugi dzień czekam na e-mail z instrukcją) ... Za to funkcja rozpocznij z nową drużyną działa wyśmienicie. -- 98 賽季 27 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.2 jopencjusz

Yeah, HeyHoudini said only one FPC member is able to investigate this type of behavior, rest doesn't care, etc., but he himself last two seasons was one of the least active members of FPC, so it says very much about this topic. He himself was very inactive last 2 seasons and didn't care much, so he put his own sticker on the rest of the crew. How nice. -- 98 賽季 27 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+14

2.2 3.4 vialis

Tai jei zolinininkis turi premium paketa skolinimosi diena, bet po to pamirsta pratest nes degustavo premium, kas tada? -- 98 賽季 27 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Įdomi logika… sukčiavimas norite pažaboti tam, nes sukčiaujant žaidėjai įgauna pranašumą prieš kitus žaidejus… Bet sukuriate kita dalyką, premium kuriuo irgi bus įgaunamas pranašumas prieš free žaidėjus… Legalus sukčiavimas kai moki pinigus… nieko tokio igauti pranašumą kai moki pinigus… Einama prie to, kad žaidimas taptų praktiškai neįmanomas bunant free.. Niekada šio žaidimo auditorija nebuvo didelė, tai dabar einama link žaidimo laidotuvių. -- 98 賽季 28 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+14

Playing free is already very difficult, since the training history ( day to day ) is non existent unless you pay. There should at least be a reasonable package price that includes this. I remember how this game used to be so much better than it is today and you could get premium for less than half what it costs now. You moved to a new server yet the service is less. And now your solution to fix cheating is to make the game even less friendly to people who can not afford the increased cost per month. Bad vibes being felt here. -- 98 賽季 35 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+11

8.81 SaintOre

聯盟志願者或管理員隱藏的新聞訊息 -- 98 賽季 37 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

8.81 SaintOre

聯盟志願者或管理員隱藏的新聞訊息 -- 98 賽季 37 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 6.22 elprof

Keeping track of your training history is as simple as taking one screenshot every day. I've been doing it since season 88. I think many of you are viewing premium as more than it is. The vast majority of premium features only save time and some do literally nothing besides cosmetics (player faces.. franchise player icon.. etc.). If you can't win without premium, chances are you can't win with premium either.
I'll say it again: buying your way into a better trade restriction or just straight up buying ingame money are the real pay to win features. -- 98 賽季 44 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

8.23

užteks šito žaidimo... -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

3.3 5.10 BilightER

You will found lots of Normal player quit the game, the update actually not limit cheat at all, It is only ban Core functions to free player, What’s even more difficult to explain is: this unfair restriction that extremely affects competition has absolutely nothing to do with cheating!From now on, all competition is PAY TO WIN. As a free player, you completely lose the rental function, which greatly affects the strength of the lineup!you never Fight against cheating in fact, to fight against cheating, all your doing is squeeze blood from a stone; To make matters worse, Your all doing is atcually only leading to free player lost their Fundamental rights and fairness and reasonableness of competition between players, no any cheater be punish at all! Instead, Normal "free" player is be punished for no reason! -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+15

1.1 3.1 Chanceler

With just the rule of limiting users based on their rank to borrow players it's fine and enough to prevent the cyseric cases.
It´s impossible to NOT THINK that limiting, in the future, to Premium players is not greediness from management.

Just to a couple of season with just the first option and keep an eye wide open to check if the cheating is not extensively reduced with just that.
Just my opinion. -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

藍孔雀潮檸檬茶-bot

Restricting borrow players is a rubbish policy. -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+12

1.1 1.1 Cesarrr

Bad and sad news... -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+13

Goodbye Basketpulse.... -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+17

Rarz09-bot

the best way for you to run out of users -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+12

4.1 4.4 Formatas

LOL -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Ademir

If the developers say that they are working at the game and want to make money for that it is easy to understand, and it would have good acceptance.
But hiding this wish as combat of cheating sounds like manipulation, and nobody likes to be made of fool. -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+14

3.2 4.2 ekstrasensas

Genius idea. Typical Lithuanian mentality. -- 98 賽季 59 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 4.4 kikino

o sea no importa si no hiciste trampa, te jodes igual, salvo que pagues, ahora se entiende un poco mas, -- 98 賽季 60 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Sapnis

I am playing for 5 seasons! And suddenly I cannot borrow players!! And this was year for me to push.. Sorry developers but you are bunch of idiots. Goodbey and enjoy your game -- 99 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 2.1 darys

Bronze rank

Minimum criteria:
User is in the game for more than 8 seasons. -- 99 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 Cesarrr

This new rule exclude a lot of new users who play without cheating. Do you remember how did you start playing? Since day one of the first season having a player borrowed was one of the most important things and now you are destroying a lot of chances to improve teams, save seasons or promote... But what is more important: you are gonna loose new users.
Sometimes come back, hear what the community says and change a new rule is the best way to unite Game owners with community. It is just my humil opinion.
Have a good day -- 99 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+21

1.1 2.2 sioux

for Cesarrr: I couldn't have written it better.. I can sign under your statement!
Good luck to everyone -- 99 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.4 joancrumor

No matter how much we talk, think, argue, it will be what the staff says, there has never been a going back on a staff decision, so let's walk again with a new change based on credits. GL and HF -- 99 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

Of course, we won't simply change back just because the community didn't like the update. Such changes were made for valid reasons, and we've already explained these reasons.

The community has offered numerous suggestions for solving these issues, but each suggestion would require investing significantly more resources, which we currently don't have.

My suggestion is to focus on what we can do in the future. Our ultimate goal is to minimize cheating, and our current actions may not suffice to achieve this. -- 99 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.3 Fjord

Really? All you have to do is buy credits and all the restrictions become meaningless. So we should call for what it is, as long as you pay you do whatever you want, that includes cheating, It doesn't solve the issue.

I have a better idea for you, just put a price behind account creation, same concept and "will solve all the problems in the game". No more cheaters and you will have a player base with people who put money in the game. -- 99 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

The majority of our users have never purchased credits, so it's unlikely that cheaters who haven't bought credits will start just to cheat.

While some cheaters will likely persist, reducing the overall incidence of cheating will make detection and investigation easier.

As outlined in the article, these restrictions are just the first step. If they prove insufficient, we'll explore further measures. If necessary, I'm prepared to eliminate these features entirely.

Let's monitor how these restrictions change the situation and reassess after some time to determine if further steps are necessary -- 99 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

顯示已隱藏回覆: 82

Rarz09-bot

We've told you a ton of times, with these changes, they're killing the game. And the free users always end up getting it, and the premium users do whatever they want... that's where the problem lies, with the premium users.

Whenever they release a new rule, it's for the free users. They stop us from doing things, while the premium users do whatever they want. Don't look away. Honestly, it's getting tiring. -- 105 賽季 15 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Rarz09-bot

They sell it as a free game for everyone, but when you log in, everything is completely different.

It should simply be a pay-to-win game, no strings attached, no lies. -- 105 賽季 15 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 3.3 a-darius

Well, if users could follow the game rules, there would be fewer restrictions.

Let’s take you as an example. Even after this article, you were punished because you broke the game rules (another team was playing from your IP, and you ignored related rules).

There is no logical reason for us to spend most of our time providing support and investigating cheating attempts instead of improving the game - especially since, in most of these cases, the teams involved never contributed to the game.

And these changes were definitely positive regarding how many cheating cases we need to investigate -- 105 賽季 15 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Banana

-- 103 賽季 4 天

球會已關閉

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Banana

未知的球員

-- 103 賽季 4 天

球會已開除一名球員

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Banana

球員: James Donaldson (RT: 260)

-- 102 賽季 63 天

球員合約終止

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

United Kingdom.1.1	x 9
World League.2.2	25 名次 x 1
National U16	7 名次 United Kingdom U16
National U18	6 名次 United Kingdom U18
National U21	10 名次 United Kingdom U21
National Men	9 名次 United Kingdom Men

球會資訊

Banana

國內名稱: Banana

資訊

統計數據

獎牌

重大成就

102 賽季

101 賽季

球會資訊

Banana

國內名稱: Banana

資訊

統計數據

獎牌

重大成就

102 賽季

101 賽季

快速指南

檢舉這則貼文