Economic model of BasketPulse

2021-04-18
                                                      

In almost every discussion with the community we get suggestions regarding:
  • give teams more money
  • reduce salaries in the market
  • reduce (or remove at all) minimum salary
  • create more good players (coaches)
  • reduce early extension prices
  • and etc. 
We will try to explain everything in one place.

In BasketPulse we use a different economic model compared to other similar type games. Economics in BasketPulse is quite similar to real life. You can find and learn a lot about real economics just by playing this game. Players’ salaries are not set by some “formula” but they are determined by the demand (by the community).

Sometimes the players’ prices increase, sometimes decrease. That happens due to various reasons:
  • changes in community size (for example, when China’s community joined the game, there were a lot of new users and this led to significant increase of prices)
  • changes in players' amount in the market. At the meantime we have less TOP level players with their prices going UP. And it was the opposite when guaranteed players’ feature was introduced in the game - salaries decreased because a lot of TOP level talents were created.
  • game updates. For example, when the “early extensions” were introduced in the game, prices in the market increased - because the best players never reached the market.
  • money inflation (deflation). If teams get more or less money the prices change as well. So if there are updates in finances and amount of money changes - players’ prices are affected as well. 
  • many other reasons.
But the changes in prices should not be a problem. When players’ prices increase, teams just start playing with lower RT players. Some team managers find this out sooner, some later. 
The same is with players’ amount and RT. More (or better) players mean lower or higher average RT in the leagues. 

During the game’s history we had a lot of different periods (teams got less or more money; there have been better or worse players). But one thing never changes -  some users are always asking for “more money” or “more good talents”. And some other teams (playing this game without buying credits) achieve the best results. 

We understand that handling finances is quite a difficult task, but we do not plan to withdraw this model. 
Answers to the most often suggestions:

1. Minimum salary should be decreased (or removed)
The minimum salary was introduced in the game because the situation without it was bad. And with time it will probably increase some more.
The reason is quite simple. Without (or with low) minimum salary, average RT (and players’ age) in lower leagues is bigger. This means that it is impossible to give playing time for younger players in lower leagues. Thus franchise players become useless.
And our goal is quite the opposite - average RT in lower leagues should be similar to franchise players’ RT. Franchise players should be real help for the new teams.

2.1 Increase the amount of good talents (coaches) in the game. 
2.2  Improve scouts’ chances to find better players (coaches)
Earlier, at some point, 220-250 RT players were considered super talents and played in the first league. Basically, the more good talents are created, the better talents users want. In the last scouts system there were many 8-9 potential talents. And with time we want to change this in the opposite direction.
Basically, having more good talents in the game does not increase the chances to compete. It just increases the average players’ RT.
A team gets better players, also this team’s opponents get better players. After some time the same team will suggest again - to create more good talents.

3.1 Reduce the prices of extending contracts (early extension)
3.2 Allow extending the contracts of more players
That 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.
The whole idea of early extensions was never intended to allow extending the contracts cheaper. It was created to give teams the possibility to reduce the risk of getting illogical bidding in the limited market.
The correct prices for early extensions should be similar to the actual prices in the market (not lower).

4. Reduce the cost of releasing players.
The compensation of releasing players was increased and decreased many times but there is no “silver bullet”. If the compensation is increased, it gets difficult for teams to avoid bankruptcy. If the compensation is decreased - there are more “stupid” offers is in the market.


What updates can be considered in the future
1. During the limited market, display players from the free market as well. These players would be easier to sign as there is no “current team, that can beat your offer”
2.  With the inclusion of the feature “players’ special skills” more different players would be created. And this way there would be more players in the market as well. Few examples:
  • Some players would always go for the highest bid (no discounts for anything, no early extensions)
  • Some players would be extremely loyal and give bigger discount for the current club
  • Some players would like to play in their own country and give bigger discount for it
  • Some players would like to play in the upper leagues
  • Some players would like to play for the title
  • Some players would like to play as many minutes as possible
3. Increase the rate how often players finish their careers. After the inclusion of health skill in the game, players’ career significantly prolonged and now we have the situation that their average salary sometimes is even lower than the minimum salary, which looks illogical. 


Prices of players (coaches) in the future
After removing the “guaranteed picks”, we expect that 9-10 potential talents’ amount in the game will be reduced. 
Also in the last few seasons we started to buy ads - so we have more active users (a few seasons ago we had ~800 users who play every day, now we have near 1000).
So we expect that competition even in lower leagues will grow and together with that, prices for the players will also grow. So eventually this should lead to lower average players’ RT in the leagues.
But this is exactly what we want - it will help to easier raise franchise player and middle level young talents (5-6 potential)
Back to the Main page
Answers to the most frequent questions related with the game's economics.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+14
Show hidden replies: 100
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 S 63 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate 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 S 2 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+5
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 S 2 d.
-- (Translate) (Translate EN)
+7