HTs on Global/Success

From Hattrick
Revision as of 09:54, 8 February 2009 by Mod-Karlthegreat (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Keywords: (Success), (Rules)
From: HT-Bjorn (2002523.90) as reply to (2002523.87)
To: HG-bard 08-11-2004 at 09:44
You say that I should forget about the rules I learnt before (that it requires good players and good ratings to win a match)

LOL, that was indeed an interesting example of twisting someone's word until they take on a whole new meaning...

I did not say that. Not even close.

I am saying that anyone who wants to be successful in Hattrick needs to always be willing to add to his/her knowledge, learn new things, and even in some cases question established truths if new evidence come up.

Of course it requires good players to win. Then top that up with some clever tactics and masterful long-term strategy and you are a sure winner.

Keywords: (Success), (Overspending)
From: flameron (12313243.78) as reply to (12313243.73)
To: NickMan 25.12.2008 at 22:37
It have one and only purpose - to punish the success!

Never said that. I wonder why you feel like that? I do agree that if you wasted your resources for success you will get a painful penalty from the system compared to the old one, but any view of any system like the one in HT as if its a system that have only one way to interact with the user is false. I feel there is continuous range in which each manager position his team. If you chose the extreme path the price might be very painful, but if you didn't the price of mistake will be smaller. The more extreme your approach to success is the harder the penalty. If you build your way to the top there is no penalty, the challenge to keep position is there but any team going up will face the same challenge if you do not burn your resources to keep on top.

That's why we don't have fair system. Not that it is difficult to have.

First the definition of fair is really hard. My bet you will find it quite hard to have most users agree on any definition. Its quite clear I (and the other readers) can not know what is fair in your eyes unless you state it (from the same reason).

I will be happy to hear your thoughts though, and others. Assuming you actually want to discuss it of course.

Keywords: (Success), (Team development)
From: flameron (12313243.91) as reply to (12313243.84)
To: Catalyst2950 26.12.2008 at 14:22
There should be multiple available team development strategies once you get to the top. Your success should depend on how good you can execute those strategies.


One of those is having a wage-optimized team through multiskilled players, earning money bi-weekly, and staying up there. Someone else could overspend with overtrained monoskilled behemoths and cover their losses with training profits or old money.

I agree agian, but ....
The extreme strategies are usually the worse if the game design is balanced. Otherwise they will not be extreme :)

I agree that the way you play is one extreme of the game (training your own, not spending, not training to sell). Due to this fact you are able to succeed but not maintain your squad for the long term. You overspend skills (this is how I call it at least). There are two resources in the game and the two strategies you brought over spend the two of them. The most extreme over spending is when you spend them both. I agree with you it would have been nice if your strategy was more into the core gaming style but its not like it is entirely out. If you did exactly the same and trained two players for selling I guess you were in better position (I did not investigate your team so I might be off when I am saying such things).

In addition we need to remember some users play to win titles. If one tactic is too good for the real long term, it might be used too good in the shorter term, like getting to the top and then wasting all you got to the title. Its not as if its that easy to prevent all of those but I agree Hattrick can try and improve on that aspect.

The April editorial explicitly mentioned that high player prices make the game one-dimensional and make training mandatory.

And this is still true. If the removal of salary free week happened in the right time we would get faster to what we wanted. I am not able to talk too much on our goals but in general the editorial still reflect what we think.

I wouldn't be surprised if we soon get an announcement about something genuinely silly, like reducing sponsor income by 10%. That wouldn't stop div.VII teams buying titanics and ETs, but it could cause people like me to give up entirely.

I will leave that with saying we are taking each division economical situation into consideration when doing changes.

Now I'm in a higher league, I'm doing very well, I've made it to the cup semi-finals, I've had a 500k€ YP transfer, and I'm basically unable to upgrade my older players; I can only replace them.

You overspend skills and you are awars for the game design. Asking for it to change is one thing, shouting it must happen before you lose your power is another thing. Even if I agree with you to a large extent as I said earlier I think you should play the game the best according to its current rules and try to understand any change in the direction you like will take a lot of time even if your complete vision is going to be implemented.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's just mindboggingly stupid and a punch in the face to all those who were stupid enough to make long-term plans and train multiskilled players to keep.

There is overspending of skills if you buy / train too much multi skills. If you want to do that, please do not complain. I can not understand what game design you see that will allow you to build your own team, wait till they all become old and then save enough money to buy them again? And you expect it in the Hattrick design? How? I am really interested since I can not see such option.

Keywords: (Success), (Team development)
From: flameron (12313243.97) as reply to (12313243.94)
To: mikan 26.12.2008 at 14:40
i don't get you... at all... he talks about role playing, team building and playing football manager, and you are calling his strategy extreme.

also, i'm very sorry for this off topic, but i understand that with the new forum it's very hard to find topics, so can you please answer this (12031752.70) and i won't bother you anymore.

He talked about economical problems. While I have all the respect for role playing it should have a working economy to support it and that is exactly what he complains about I think. Did I miss anything?

Keywords: (Success), (Team development)
From: flameron (12313243.104) as reply to (12313243.103)
To: GunterDroopy 26.12.2008 at 15:22

--- You should manage your promotion and relegation strategies in this game. It was like that before the change in fan system and it is still like that. It always was important to promote when you are ready to face the competition in the league above you and not waste all your resources to survive as it is pointless on the long term. There were always teams failing to do that and I believe it is one of the biggest challenges in this game for the competitive team.

Basicly you're telling us, that we should sell all players and hoard money when we realize that we will demote?
Is that really the way the game should head to?

Really? To make things clear its not what I am saying and I think such move is likely to be worse compared to building your team for the lower division from that point.

Keywords: (Success), (Team development), (Team strategy)
From: 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.