Subject: »[info]DevDiary 80: “Price is what you pay, value is what

Is it usual for you to choose between :
1- nice option fitting with our recommendations
2- bad option not fitting...

?

I translate here my post from the Italian forum. I don't have time to write a specific for this forum, but I think there are interesting considerations that I want to make known. It s basically an interpretation of our debate.


In the first poll it widely won an option that in the subsequent debate was almost ignored, the third (of the previous poll) which offered 12 group teams and two league games per week.
I had voted for this, but after declaring myself in favor I soon noticed that no one seemed to agree with me, I also stopped insisting because anyway I think that the intentions of the DEV are correct beyond the specific technical solution they will find .
For those who want to understand the dynamics of what is happening, I would say that it is clear that there are a minority of superactive users who are, among other things, proposing complex and intelligent solutions to various problems, but the DEV are more interested in understanding above all the general direction in which to move and the majority of those who participated in the survey expressed an opinion contrary to that prevailing in the comment forums!
I think that in order to participate in some sense in the debate one must understand what decisions have already been made, and what questions the DEVs have yet to answer. It is not a question of drawing the game of our dreams from scratch.
It is already more than clear that the DEVs need two official guaranteed matches per week, because this is functional to the training method they have designed, which is not in question. If you do not make proposals compatible with this, I think it is useless to make proposals.
The group of Achmid, Oliver Aton and company has proposed this international cup (they actually propose an autonomous system with promotions and relegations) which would guarantee one match per week until the end, but from the written text today I understand that the DEV have two problems on this (beautiful, in my opinion) proposal: the fact that in order to make it work, the BOTs would have to participate (to guarantee two matches a week to new users) and above all that this would become a competition as important as the national championship, to which they instead they want to maintain centrality.
In conclusion, in my opinion it goes towards the championships of 12 teams. For me the main problem is the excessive reduction of the duration of the season. our players will age very quickly, forcing us to stay more on the market, hindering a more thoughtful and planned style of play.

At this point, I would put 14 or better 16 teams.
Two games a week, but the season lasts 13 or 14, without a break at the end of the season.

The DEVs are happy and the speed of the game remains within acceptable limits.

I choose from what is available. This is the meaning of the questionnaire

If playoffs get an exclusive week, then that should be the break.
Of course, only one payoff match, so you guys have space for updates.

Fair point, maybe it can be like that (we will probably open in few weeks seperate discussion about it, few elements are combined with seasonal break (how fast we can write a calendar for new season after the play off, when we should remove bots in upper leagues, in what period we should put sacked players on TL - so there are some questions that should be addressed as one package.

And - i really like idea of warm-up game by Achmid, it could be also an interesting solution for seasonal break.

Then no need a questionnaire.
Next question could be :
* eat and be safe
* don't eat but some risks can happen

:-)

Indeed, it is a questionnaire.

But anyway, i will wait decisions given by "democracy" ;-)

About detailed questions with every next week - we talk about it - and we think it would be a bit messy.
Problem is, that even now it's difficult to evaluate proposals - you need wider context and some general idea behind it.

Thats why we decided to first - give two options than can be made (first is better from our point of view, but as we said - both are good an can be implemented, just second will need a bit more work and some adjustments). It's much easier to decide, then you see what each proposal gives you.

Even we didnt thought about 4 games per week, before idea about 2 league games came - more teams in leagues is an interesting thing, and affect your perception of 4 weeks in one week. without that idea, you would probably think, that its just too much.

Thats why we dont belive, that we should design calendars basing only on detailed questions - rather overall ideas, but we agree, that's good to put that kind of questions too - and current poll will allow us to analyze different elements of our proposals.

Guys, seriously, its our work, to give you also developer perspective. But BOTH proposals are good and can be implemented.

Read carefully ;)

From the development point of view, we consider both proposals to meet the requirements of our work on the development of Sokker. On the Developers' side, the preferred option is the first one, based on a system of two league matches per week. It seems optimal for us for several reasons:
1. Sets league matches as the primary competition guaranteeing two matches per week.
2. Cup games are additional challenges that enrich the game without creating too much training difference compared to those who drop out (10 available slots will be divided into fewer matches, but they can still be used).
3. Beginners starting the game during the season receive a team with two matches guaranteed.
4. We are shortening the season by 25%. It allows us to accelerate training slightly, while limiting the number of multi-divine players (thanks to faster aging).
5. It makes the main challenge of the game introducing young players to competitions mainly in league matches (giving you at the same time two matches weekly available), cup matches are an additional reward and expand the possibility of training rotation in several matches (we prevent one type of competition from being selected as "training").
6. Despite 4 matches a week, it does not seem too intense to us - remember the quickness of elimination from cup matches with subsequent rounds, only the best and most engaged players will play in such a number of matches.

Option two will require more work related to better matching of training bonuses so as not to give too much advantage to players who will play in cups longer than others (i.e. 3 official matches per week vs. one league), will also require adding bots to the cups (for a new player starting the game during the season to have a more interesting entertainment than just one league match per week). However, these elements are possible to address, which is why we present both options for discussion and assessment, understanding that regardless of which one will be chosen, we will have a significant change in gameplay compared to the current system.

Well, with 12 teams we will be able to promote more teams probably - it's not final proposal, but we think about the same proportion as now (1/8 of teams will fith for promotion, 50% will be with chance for relegation).

With 12 teams it gives us:
all first places + 50% of best second places with a chance for promotion
teams from places 7-12 with possible reletation.

And, with that 6 places of relegation we can decide, to relegate 2 worst teams directly - it will increase the number od direct promotions from first places to 50% instead current 25%.

Except the second option does have 2 guaranteed matches per week because even those who aren't at the top of the international cup, still play matches to avoid being relegated. It has been mentioned several times that it does not have two guaranteed matches when it actually does.
Also it could easily be changed to a normal cup structure throughout if preferred.

The only reason the cup aspect was placed in there was because previous dev comments wanted a cup not a league.

Unlike the first option though, it gives more variety in terms of competition, people you play, chances of winning and because every coi try in sokker would be involved, the competition would be much more even.


So whilst I was trying to stay quiet, I do need to speak up when incorrect statements are being made. The second option does guarantee 2 matches per week, it could easily be changed to just a complete league if the coders need it, and it will be no harder to implement training than the first option.

Thank you. For example we can just take the Version 2.1, delete the International cup play off at week 13 and instead insert the warm-up match for everyone. Plus we can change the International cup system so it is related to the National League, so it is like classical cup without promotions and relegations. This is a viable option n. 2.

I must repeat that it is not true that Option n. 2, as presented by users, does not guarantee 2 official matches per week.

Thanks, i agree with lot of your thoughts. Personally i was also a bit surprised by results, and i have same conclusion about "silent majority". It was easy to notice looking at voting period - in first day proportion between proposals was not so significant - but during the time it started to increase, when at forum discussion focused on relatively small (vs. all sokker community) group of users and new proposals. And we were getting much more votes each day than new people's posts on forum.

Season lenght for Option 1 could be on open discussion for sure.
So i sugest to vote for "Option 1 - reworked", and vote for more teams as well.

From our perspective, aging of players wont be such a problem - they will still get old pretty long, you will be able to use 24 player for almost 2 years before he will start to lose his skills significantly. With a bit faster training, it could be even more exciting.

13 weeks calendar work nice with the year, we will get exactly 4 seasons per year.

The group of Achmid, Oliver Aton and company has proposed this international cup (they actually propose an autonomous system with promotions and relegations) which would guarantee one match per week until the end, but from the written text today I understand that the DEV have two problems on this (beautiful, in my opinion) proposal: the fact that in order to make it work, the BOTs would have to participate (to guarantee two matches a week to new users) and above all that this would become a competition as important as the national championship, to which they instead they want to maintain centrality.

The first two presumptions are absolutely not true. And the third can be dealt with by changing the cup system so it is related to the National league

Option 1 is absolutely too much. New arcade game, not sokker anymore. don't like at all. disgusted.

Option 2 is faster but ok. Don't love it but it's acceptable.


you said you wanted to keep the "sokker spirit"
then it scares me that you have even proposed option 1 (12 weeks and 4 games per week) because it is totally contrary to the spirit of sokker.
in case such an extreme hypothesis wins (option 1) it is probably that me and many "historical" users will abandon the new "arcade sokker".

this is the pool in this forum: (I can't understand how yours is so different..)

keep it as it is 30% (71)
15 remove only week break 22% (51)
14 move only playoff to another day 18% (42)
12 move some rounds during 22% (52)
less than 12 speed game 8% (19)
total votes: 235

speed game, 12 or less: 30%
not speed game, 14 or more: 70%
(edited)

Yes this is the thing, there are a few super active users making a lot of noise telling you how the game should be according to their taste. I think this is nice of you that you took into consideration their concern in the option 2 so they should be happy.
Just let's the users vote and decide now.

+1

In our perception, creating two different comeptitions with guaranteed games for all season will lead to the same problem, as we have now - treating second game in week just for training. Lot of users will decide to move young players for second cometition and train them only, and focus with best players on first one.

2 matches guaranteed works best only, when they are in the same type of competition (and it should be most important one, so - league). In that situation, it's getting most challenging - you need to balance your players to find some minutes for young players, but still try to play for results.

Additional cups are another award then - but, you are still motivated to play for win in them - becouse every next stage gives you more flexibility in training during week.

Summarizing - from DEVs perspective, in your proposal it wont be good, to make 2x guaranteed games in different competitions, it will affect gameplay in the way we want to avoid.

BUT - as it's said in Dev Diary - we believie, that your proposal can be introduced too, we are fine with both options - it will just need more work to adjust. To address training problems - it will be maybe an option to increase relevance of friendlies, or maybe allow to play one "warm up" game per week for eliminated teams, as more effective type of friendly game, or maybe even some other, new ideas, for sure it could be fixed.