Klubo informacija
Informacija
| Aktyvumas | 2024-05-21 11:41 |
| Šalis |
France
|
| Federacija | France |
| Komandos pav. trumpai | Slamgot (Slam) |
| Klubas, kuriam vadovauta anksčiau | Slamgot's Team (35 - 85 sez.) |
| Krepšinio mokykla | Slamgot Krepšinio mokykla |
Reitingai
| Stipriausi žaidime | 53 ( vieta reitinguose) |
| Stipriausi nac. lygoje | 1 ( vieta reitinguose) |
| Stipriausi tarpt. lygoje | 7 ( vieta reitinguose) |
| VK vidurkis | 327 |
| Fanų klubas | 671 |
| Fanų reitingas | 252 ( vieta reitinguose) |
| Pop. reitingas tarpt. lygoje | 27 ( vieta reitinguose) |
| Įvaizdis | 1/7 |
| Personalo nuomonė | 6/7 |
Statistika
| Rėmėjų lėšos per savaitę | 144913 Eu |
| Max suma personalo algoms | 251768 Eu |
| Mainų apribojimų lygis | 7 (Istorija) |
| Visų mainų kiekis | 40 |
| Mainų kiekis sezone | 1 |
| Pergalių/žaista rungtynių klubo istorijoje | 295/414 71% |
| Pergalių/žaista rungtynių šį sezoną | 0 - 0 |
| Pasiskolintų žaidėjų kiekis | 7 (Statistika) |
Svarbiausi pasiekimai
|
France.1.1
|
 x 1
|
World League.3.1
|
x 1
|
National U18
|
France U18 |
|
National U21
|
4 Vieta
France U21 |
|
National Men
|
France Men |
98 Sezonas
|
France.1.1
|
|
|
World League.3.1
|
|
97 Sezonas
|
France.1.1
|
8 Vieta |
|
World League.3.1
|
15 Vieta |
Treneris: 
4.4
+16
1.1
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+49
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+25
2.1
"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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+35
1.1
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+20
2.2
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+16
1.1
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+34
1.1
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 sez. 25 d.
Otherwise its just a money grabbing scheme. -- 98 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
Damn, they had us in the first half guys.. It almost looked like they care about cheaters for a couple days
--
98 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+13
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+12
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+8
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
1.1
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+20
1.1
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+16
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 sez. 25 d.
Limit the number of times two teams can trade/lend with each other during n season. I mean, there are plenty of solutions... -- 98 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
1.1
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+11
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
1.1
I missed the part how does using the PREMIUM hammer prevents cheating...?
--
98 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
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 sez. 25 d.
- 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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+8
2.2
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
1.1
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
1.1
So the game is leaning towards Pay To Win...ok....
--
98 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
1.1
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+19
Admin should be focused in improving the experience for the lower tier teams, these proposals will only widen the gap
--
98 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+16
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
1.1
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+12
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
*Restrictions will be implemented only for borrowing players.
--
98 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Let me know, when premium users only can borrow players, from that momment i will be out
--
98 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+8
Trade level 6 is quite strict to make moves for most players.
--
98 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
Hi 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 sez.
25 d.
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 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
Also the idea IF YOU CHEAT, AT LEAST PAY, its amazing
--
98 sez.
25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+10
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 sez. 25 d.
Making unfair treatment between premium and non premium users would mean end of the game. -- 98 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
1.1
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 sez. 25 d.
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 sez. 25 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
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 sez. 26 d.
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 sez. 26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
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 sez. 26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
"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 sez. 26 d.
But 16 of 1492 is pretty much exactly 1%. -- 98 sez. 26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
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 sez. 26 d.
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 sez. 26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
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 sez. 26 d.
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 sez. 26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
1.1
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 sez.
26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
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 sez.
26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+13
a-dariusCould 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 sez. 26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
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 sez.
26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+12
1.1
ten years later, when all one argentine generation leave the game because Darius dont want punish chinese and lituaninan cheaters, sad.
--
98 sez.
26 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
1.1
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 sez. 27 d.
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 sez. 27 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
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 sez.
27 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
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 sez.
27 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+13
Tai jei zolinininkis turi premium paketa skolinimosi diena, bet po to pamirsta pratest nes degustavo premium, kas tada?
--
98 sez.
27 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+4
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 sez.
28 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti 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 sez.
35 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+10
Spaudos konferencijos žinutė paslėpta (federacijos savanorio arba administratoriaus)
--
98 sez.
37 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
Spaudos konferencijos žinutė paslėpta (federacijos savanorio arba administratoriaus)
--
98 sez.
37 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
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 sez. 44 d.
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 sez. 44 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
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 sez.
59 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+14
1.1
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 sez. 59 d.
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 sez. 59 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
Restricting borrow players is a rubbish policy.
--
98 sez.
59 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+12
+11
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 sez. 59 d.
But hiding this wish as combat of cheating sounds like manipulation, and nobody likes to be made of fool. -- 98 sez. 59 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+13
Genius idea. Typical Lithuanian mentality.
--
98 sez.
59 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+8
o sea no importa si no hiciste trampa, te jodes igual, salvo que pagues, ahora se entiende un poco mas,
--
98 sez.
60 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+3
1.1
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 sez.
1 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+7
Bronze rank
Minimum criteria:
User is in the game for more than 8 seasons. -- 99 sez. 1 d.
Minimum criteria:
User is in the game for more than 8 seasons. -- 99 sez. 1 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+0
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 sez. 1 d.
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 sez. 1 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+20
for Cesarrr: I couldn't have written it better.. I can sign under your statement!
Good luck to everyone -- 99 sez. 1 d.
Good luck to everyone -- 99 sez. 1 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+6
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 sez.
1 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+1
Rodyti paslėptus atsakymus: 79
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 sez. 1 d.
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 sez. 1 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
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 sez. 1 d.
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 sez. 1 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+5
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 sez. 1 d.
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 sez. 1 d.
--
(Versti)
(Versti EN)
+2
Treneris:
+0
+0
Treneris:
+0