HTs on Global/Economy

From Hattrick
Revision as of 09:57, 8 February 2009 by Mod-Karlthegreat (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Keywords: (Economy), (Training)

By: HT-Hasse (?) as reply to (?)
To: ? ?
Actually the total ammount of money is constantly increasing.

thats not surprising given the user base is constantly growing too.... how about the money per team?

That is increasing too.

I'm curious to know if you know how much the total amount of money should increase every season in order to keep up with the training? Do you have well defined formulas for that relation?

Since it is not possible to predict influx of new users etc that is not possible. Furthermore it depends on what and how people train.

Instead economy is constantly monitored.

Keywords: (Economy), (Global economy)

By: HT-Tjecken (2249571.1) as reply to (-)
To: All 28-12-2004, at 14:32
I just posted an answer concerning the economical situation today in the Swedish conference, but I think this info could be out of global interest too.

The global economy is feeling very good these days, we have a really nice inflation (which has been going on for the whole season). Higher attendence income and more cupmathes have managed to increase the total amount of money, and have speed up the economy again. The economy will also get some more speed because of the increased price bonus money later this season. Fact is that this speed maybe is a little too high, but as there are increased costs (arena) next season and we've been experiencing some hard economical times lately we'll not do anything about it. At least not now.

Keywords: (Economy), (Global economy) (Inflation), (Deflation)

By: HT-Tjecken (2249571.45) as reply to (2249571.38)
To: Noahito 28-12-2004, at 16:25
Your twisting my words a bit...

Two seasons ago: Huge inflation which crashed Last season: Deflation (or more or less +/- 0 in fact) This season: Inflation

If the total amount of money are increasing, tranfer prices will most likely after some time also start to increase. The opposite happens when it's a deflation, less money in the game will eventually make the transfer prices go down.

Keywords: (Economy), (Global economy)

By: HT-Tjecken (2249571.63) as reply to (2249571.50)
To: Noahito 28-12-2004, at 16:57
But I'm not talking about transfer prices, I'm talking about the global economy (sum of cash (and income and expenses)). And btw, new members are taking into consideration in the figures.

But as I mentioned, the transfer market also follows the state of the global economy. Not by a sudden reaction, but the history shows the transfer prices evaluation slowly follows and adopts to the state of the global economy.

Keywords: (Economy), (Inflation), (Deflation)

By: HT-Tjecken (?) as reply to (?)
To: koendb ?
I'm fully aware that the word I use here (inflation) is not utterly correct. But it's not completely wrong either. I guess you got what I was referring to too?

Keywords: (Economy), (Secondary skills)

By: HT-Hasse (2249571.95) as reply to (2249571.92)
To: badla 28-12-2004, at 17:56
Let's say you train passing, you can train 14-15 players in passing. After some seasons, won't it just give the same amount of raise in wage as you would have just trained 4 wingers or 6 playmakers?

The point is that you should perhaps consider not to train the same thing "some seasons".

Keywords: (Economy), (Team building)

By: HT-Hasse (2249571.101) as reply to (2249571.99)
To: saheki 28-12-2004, at 18:17
So you mean, I should have daytraded, I should have stopped aiding the National Teams

No, I mean you should train players in the way you get the most out of his wages, which means you should not train them in one and the same skill season after season.

I also mean you should build a team that is good enough to win your league, not 2 times as good as needed.

When it comes to national team players, well I would never consider training the kind of players most national team coaches seem to prefer. I train players for my team foremost, not for the national teams.

And BTW - I am in the top division too.

Keywords: (Economy), (Inflation), (Team building)

By: HT-Hasse (2249571.109) as reply to (2249571.100)
To: spekkie 28-12-2004, at 18:32
Exactly! Inflation is influenced by the money supply and by the productivity of the economy. HTs can easily influence the former but it is not clear to me how they limit the ever improving skills of the players.

You really hit the spot here without knowing it. Because this is how most people think. Like someone wrote in an excellent post a bit above people focus too much on how things used to be instead of thinking about how they can adapt to the present situation.

You wrote "it is not clear to me how they limit the ever improving skills of the players". Well, the answer to that is very simple; by making players who are trained to insane levels in one skill very expensive to keep.

Change after change in the last few seasons have aimed to encourage people to train versatile players who are good in several useful skills rather that ridiculously extreme in one single skill. Still people insist on training players to divine ++ levels. Well, if you fail to get the message sent by the news in the game then don't blame the game if things don't exactly work out the way you hope them to.

The successful manager is the one who can combine old knowledge gathered by others with own inventive thinking and sharp decisions based on recent events. The user who bases his game on the numerous how-to guides around will never be a top-class manager at a competitive level.

Keywords: (Economy), (Training players)

By: HT-Hasse (2249571.195) as reply to (2249571.186)
To: Mandrake 28-12-2004, at 22:35
Just as much as I care for any other SE.

Well, I interpret that as you don't and if that is the case you have certainly missed an important part of Hattrick strategy.

As I said, even though you found it ridiculous, its like caring about defence for forwards so one can play pressing. Both add nothing to team ratings but some to a tactical skill.

So what are you more interested in - winning or team ratings? Carefully building a team with a good selection of special skills can considerably increase your results. SE goals are not about luck in the long run.

I believe having a forward with divine scoring gives me better general attack ratings than a supernatural with supernatural passing, even though they take quite a similar time to train.

Well that might be right, though I am not dead certain. But I would definitely choose an extra-terrestrial/supernatural in front of a divine scorer with nothing else.

Of course, better players need better wages: but the BEST players were affordable by the BEST teams.

Well, your interpretation of what the best player is is simply wrong for several positions.

I think the current wage rate for 1 high skilled player is exaggerated and crazy. Just look at Carey.

The only thing insane about Carey is to train him to that level, which BTW is something his owner has been very well aware of for lots of seasons. He just did it because he thinks it is fun.

Keywords: (Economy), (Weight of secondary skills)

By: HT-Hasse (2249571.237) as reply to (2249571.233)
To: shinzui 29-12-2004, at 00:07
I think the weights for secondaries need to be increased to make it more practical for combo training.

What would be the point if people in the conferences still claim "It is estimate that for the striker position 1 level of scoring is equal to 4 levels of passing." or "the game engine does not treat a world class scoring/excellent passing striker as equal to a titanic scoring/wretched passing striker" without having well-founded ground for statements like them even if they are still not correct?

Keywords: (Economy), (Secondary skills)

By: HT-Hasse (2249571.256) as reply to (2249571.244)
To: svinefar 29-12-2004, at 00:56
Why do we even have this conversation about secondaries when we are discussing economics?

Because they go together. A big reason many (mainly top) clubs have a hard time with economy is because their teams are built the wrong way.

Do you think that you have reacted fast enough to the clear signs of deflation?

I would rather say that we perhaps did not react fast enough to the massively overheated economy we had a couple of seasons back. That situation was not healthy, while economy as a whole is quite ok nowadays.

Keywords: (Economy)

By: HT-Hasse (2249571.378) as reply to (2249571.375)
To: shinzui 29-12-2004, at 20:20
The biggest problem I see with the game currently is that the HTs have created a situation where hardly anybody wants to strive to reach the highest division in their country. Because you have insured that any team that reaches the highest division will flirt with bankruptcy.

Sorry, but you have either not understood much of what I have answered you or you have simply ignored it. Lots of your comments are based on totally false presumptions. If you continue to stubbornly insist that the system is wrong rather than adapting to it and build your team accordingly, yes then you will probably go bankrupt or fall through the system. If you however choose to be a bit more open to the fact that it is perhaps you who are doing things the wrong way you will probably not. Banging your head against the wall might feel easier to accept on a psychological level, but it won't get you anywhere.

I am not saying that you are stupid. It took me quite a while to get the message too, and then I still had the advantage of closer proximity to the persons who engineered the system. But in the end it all comes down to the fact that those who can interpret and adapt to the situation will master the situation, while those who do not will fail. A large proportion of the latter will probably blame the game, because it lies in the nature of the human mind to try to find explanations outside our own actions to things that go wrong.

Keywords: (Economy), (Transfer market)

By: HT-Tjecken (2942625.136) as reply to (2942625.125)
To: svinefar 22-04-2005, at 10:01
The HT’s have told us: We aim at a steady inflation

Yes, we do (and are). But just as one_to7 says, we generally mean a steady inflation to the amount of money in the game (per team), not on player prices.

birne74 and Ratsia have also said something really important in this thread; why we can't measure whether it's an inflation by just comparing prices for magnificent midfielders (for example).

Anyways, some figures (pure fresh ones) will maybe shed a little more light on this current situation: The underlying economy flushes. We have an inflation in the game (see definition above) and have had so for the last two-three seasons. Last season there was an inflation around 6,5% even though many users built a new arena at the end of the season, and this season we're heading towards an even bigger inflation. It might in fact be time to cool things down a little bit soon (as always, if we will do anything with the economy affecting teams directly, we will announce it on MyHT well in advance).

Further more, the sponsors are giving around 4% more money to the teams this season (compared to last season) and the wages have increased by around 12%. But if we talk pure money, what teams have lost in increased wages they have (almost) taken back in more sponsor money. In addition to that we have the spectator income which has increased by around 20%, and if we talk pure money close to 3x wages increase.

Enough said about the underlying economy, now some words about the transfer market. The transfer market is meant to be a free open market (well, as free and as open as it can get in Hattrick), where supply and demand set price. We (HT) will try (and have always tried) to affect the transfer market as little as possible. Prices have been falling for a while (not much, or even not at all, this last season), true - but as the underlying economy flushes you'll have to seek the answer elsewhere than there. Some parts of the answer may come from game design decisions, some parts of the answer may come from the capability to adopt to the game and some parts of the answer are maybe hidden in the dark.

Keywords: (Economy), (Top Scorer Money), (Seasonal Awards)

By: HT-Tjecken (7831771.7) as reply to (7831771.6)
To: Everyone 08-01-2007, at 15:22
Reply to (7831762.9)

Do you believe that the current seasonal awards are adequate or do you plan to increase the amounts received by the teams successful in the leagues?

If we start with the top scorer money, that money is only meant to be symbolic because of nature of scoring (it's not really skill related as you know). So top scorer money will remain to be a symbolic sum, just for the fun of it.

The seasonal awards are something else, which of course can (and from time to time should) be discussed in the (HT) team. It's of course also important to look at the global economy so you don't add too much money, such things have to be taken into consideration. Right now I think the seasonal awards are adequate, especially if you look on how much you get from each penny on the transfer market these days. But if we choose to increase any of the seasonal awards I think the promotion money should be my choice.

Keywords: (Economy), (Long Term), (Player Wages)

By: HT-Tjecken (7831771.22) as reply to (7831771.20)
To: Everyone 11.01.2007, at 17:48
Reply to (7831762.49)

I'm just wondering about the economy in ht. what is the long term goal of it as you see it ? Because as is right now , training isn't very productive because you buy expensive and beyond , let's say, extraterestrial , you'll sell very cheap because of the wages. So... are you planning to use this to limit the old teams, instead of reseting every thing and so that it would be a fair competition ?

I sense two questions here, or at least it will be two answers. About the long term goal of the economy first: it is to have a stable background economy where the amount of money per team should be slowly increasing. This to make sure that there always should be room to further development for the general team.

About the wages, yes they do set a barrier for how good a team can get. This is, as you're more or less are saying, to lower the importance of how long you've played the game. If every team would be able to pay the wages for divine players, then team age would be the most important thing and newer teams would never ever be able to catch up and compete with older teams. In the end, that would be a boring game...

So, the wages look like they do for a reason. They're there to make Hattrick a game where team age isn't the most important thing in the long run. The wages also put a soft cap, instead of a hard cap, on team development. So there are not really an "ideal" team (the perfect team you could have got without breaking the hard cap), instead manager skill determine how good you are building the perfect team. Wages set the barrier depending on how much money you make, so it's up to you as a manager to get as much as possible for the money you got. There lies your real challenge.

A lof of users sometimes complain about the high wages etc, but what they forget is that it's the users who are in control over the wages as you produce and choose the kind of players you want.

Keywords: (Economy), (Economy Page), (Improvements)

By: HT-Tjecken (7831771.50) as reply to (7831771.1)
To: Everyone 26.01.2007, at 11:57
Reply to (7926938.147)

I was wondering if there will be worked on improving the club 'economy' page. I'd love to see more detailed information.

  • How much did i spend on putting players for sale?
  • How much income from my friendly?
  • How much income from my cupmatch?
  • How much for my league match?
  • How much pulling a youth player?
  • How much on building my stadium?


Why throw certain costs/revenues on a heap? The info is to be found, but why do we have to plow through our 'club' page or transfer histories etc, when it could be summarized on a single page?

Personally i especially miss a feature that gives an overview of the season so far, and the season as a whole.

Would this be hard to implement?

I don't know how hard (or easy) it would be, but I like both ideas and especially the latter and it doesn't sound that complex to me (even if I don't know much about such stuff). I'll put this on the "possible improvments for the future"-list.

Keywords: (Economy)

By: HT-Tjecken (7831771.79) as reply to (7831771.20)
To: Everyone 07.05.2007, at 18:10
Time for business as usual again after the launch of the youth academy. :)

Reply to (7926938.896)

With the interest on money being eliminated almost all of the economists in the game will soon be fired. With that many economists out of work, is there any chance you can hire one, so you can stop monitoring "background economy" and realise that the game has been devastated by hyperdeflation?

As mentioned in the latest editorial (it wasn't only about the youth academy) we're looking into the economy. Two different projects to analyse the state of things are up and running, one from a strict national economical point of view and another one from more of a gaming point of view.

However, whatever results these analysis come up with we will still need to monitor the background economy as Hattrick is not a "closed system".

Keywords: (Economy)

By: HT-Tjecken (7831771.83) as reply to (7831771.20)
To: Everyone 10.05.2007, at 18:10
Reply to (7926938.975)

What is the rough timeschedule for the economical changes? Next season? In 2 or 3 seasons? Complete unknown?

Are the changes already definite or are you still diskussing various options?

We are still in the middle of discussing and analysing economical and game theories/facts, right now to the extreme. Can't say much more than that right now, as we haven't really made up ur minds in what direction we should go next to reach our goals (and reach them through a fun journey). The economical changes we need will not just affect the economy, they will most likely also affect the game play. And then it's important not to make the game too complex. We must keep the simplicity and still add a lot to the challenge (and at the same time make sure the economy will benefit from it), which is not an easy equation as you understand. :)

But be sure that we will announce major changes to the game long before they become real, I just can't give you any definate date when that information will come. But we rather don't wait that long...

Keywords: (Economy)

By: HT-Tjecken (7831771.91) as reply to (7831771.1)
To: Everyone 13.06.2007, at 18:46
Answer to (8995830.42)

A few months ago, you said that the amount of money available per team was increasing correctly.

Is it still true?

As a fact the money/team is, after many seasons' steady increase, slowly decreasing right now. But as I think you're aware of - we're always keeping an eye on those figures and especially now when we're doing our different economical studies.

Keywords: (Economy)

By: HT-Tjecken (7831771.93) as reply to (7831771.1)
To: Everyone 03.07.2007, at 15:24
Reply to (8995830.145)

Regarding years of official statements like "there is no deflation", and "we are monitoring the background economy and all is good", which are clearly nonsense when faced with facts like this graph : External Link

On a scale from 1 to 10, how embarrassed are you for having fiddled while Rome burned?

Not embarrassed at all, and frankly I see no reason to either even though I can understand that some of you think we should be.

The quote "there is no deflation" was always related to the background economy (money/team), even though the term deflation is not 100% correct to use in this specific case. And the amount of money/team increased steadily for a very, very long time. It's in fact quite recently that the trend started to point in the opposite direction.

The graph you refer to does not show the background economy (incomes/expenses), but it gives a good picture of the price development on the transfer market which one can fairly say hasn't been the funniest thing to look at. But that's a fact we haven't tried to hide at all, nor have we said that much about it.

I hope we never ever see the 'golden days' again where you bought players for ridiculously high prices, but of course I don't think the price level (and trend) today is any better. It should be profitable to train players on monitary basis (it's always profitable to train players as training improves your performance on the pitch), but at the same time it shouldn't set other incomes/costs aside which was the fact some time ago.

Looking back one can always say we should've reacted and started up our economical investigations earlier than what we did. But it's always much easier to look back and find errors when you got all facts in your hand. I wish we would have started them up earlier or done more powerful changes (even though the facts, apart from the transfer price trend, didn't really give that picture at that time), but I'm not embarrassed because we didn't.

Keywords: (Economy)

By: HT-Tjecken (7831771.96) as reply to (7831771.1)
To: Everyone 03.07.2007, at 16:26
Reply to (8995830.238)

Do you think God exists?

I'm not allowed to discuss religous matters on the conferences. :)

Is it possible for you to talk openly about how you perceive the transfer market "problem" and possible solutions?

Sure it is, I've done so a little bit in this thread. That said, I think this whole particular matter (the state of the economy) will fit better on editorial space.

Keywords: (Fans), (Fan expectations)

By: flameron (12313243.82) as reply to (12313243.80)
To: Catalyst2950 26.12.2008 at 08:08
It makes me genuinely scared that the fate of Hattrick's economy is in the hands of someone who is seriously overspending and relying on training income to cover his losses.

Your level of performance can easily be reached with roughly 250k€ wages (add 50k€ for foreigners, which you don't have many of), and yet you are at an incredible 530k€.

I'm worried, that's all.

So you mean you will be relaxed only if it will be in your hands? :)

Anyway, my way of playing is really long term. I am one of the teams that is in the top for long time without ever going for the title by spending.

I do understand the way you play the game (not to details though). Salaries are not the main issue many times in top divisions. I am spending skills much faster today then money (which I am not. I am stable for long time without any training income). I did not investigate your team but if I understand how you play I doubt you can keep your team strength from the surplus you have for the long term, but if you do you play the game even better then I thought you do (which is already good).

In any case, my team is not getting the attention it deserves. I had few moves needed to be done since I demoted, almost two seasons ago. I think that your way of arguing is not as I expect though. It fills more as if you try to prove you are smarter. Maybe you are, but I can not even learn that this way, and since I have a role here and am open to hear others (not necessarily agree though) it seems like wasting our time.

Keywords: (Success), (Team development), (Team strategy), (Economy)

By: flameron (12313243.107) as reply to (12313243.102)
To: Catalyst2950 26.12.2008 at 15:38
Are you aware that scoring and goalkeeping are the only training types which give you players to sell?

I think we fail to explain ourselves good enough.
Training defending can produce players for the long term. I am trying to do that now. I think it will not succeed but mainly due to picking the wrong players to a degree. I am planning to sell some players I train. I will need only 3 defenders or 4 (which 1 might be bought later). Training your own players is a strategy in which you must eventually reach a point you can not improve your own team in any design which is balanced.

If you train your players even when they are 28 you are wasting your training (included in wasting skills). You could start train a replacement. It is a sure thing the best team you can compose is weaker that way, but is sustainable. Do you mean such team will be too weak to play in the top division? If so the current game design require you some mix between build your own and train to sell. I would accept such argument but fail to understand if this is what you claim.

To allow an extreme strategy like training your entire team to exist (and it should exist, since the opposite one is more than viable), you need to halve the amount of training slots and halve the training duration.

I'm not sure its that simple. First any game like HT should be playable in the same way even if the user base expands or shrinks. If that is true there is no "right" or "wrong" in the sense of how fast players are created. Maybe the current HT will do better with your figures, but only with current situation. Several effects of the fast HT growth are still visible in the market, so your claim is very simplified even on that ground.

More then that I can not see how such a change will improve the HT market or prevent uneeded players from being created, as for sure your game strategy require faster training overall then today. If that is the case what would make them vanish from the market once created? I need better explanation here.

I will mention once again that it's my firm belief that the economy in 2006/2007 could have been easily balanced if only the game provided a good interface for people to understand their economy, instead of pumping money into it. A simple "wage per season" row added to the player page would have done wonders, or a magical ability to downgrade player skills.

I think we can only bet on that as there is no way to verify that, but having the data I think you either overestimate the average user ability to manage his team or you just rely on wrong data. In a game where you can overspend freely I see no way to prevent the average user trying to win from over spending no matter how "in his face" data is given. I do agree it can improve the will of users to keep their economy balanced.

Keywords: (Economy)(Training)

By: flameron (12313243.151) as reply to (12313243.108)
To: Catalyst2950 26.12.2008 at 23:41
Have you noticed the part where I said the number of training slots needs to be halved?

A team needs 1 goalkeeper, now trains 2.
A team needs 3-4 defenders, now they train 10.
3 IMs + 2 wingers, 6+4 trained.
2 wingers, 4 trained.
2 scorers, 6 trained.

I did see the part about faster training. I did explain why there is no "right" training speed in terms of the market price as it depends on the number of new users and number of quiters as well as for the transfer market prices.

Anyway, having faster training for less players assuming the overall training speed is the same will probably be used by users to train higher then today on main skill. From all the past users decisions its quite clear economy forces are too weak to drive the user (the average one) to manage his training. In addition with faster training you have less economical effort to train high (less weeks of high payment). I believe it will solve nothing. It will allow you to train for you usage in a sense but I just can't see how it will be enough for you if its the same training speed.

I do not understand how a game in which you train for your own by training your top 11 would work. You will need at some point to replace your players so you will get to a certain stability point anyway. Lets assume you will have the ability to sustain this team. What if the team you can create by buying is stronger? If not how is it not a too powerful strategy?