Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Asunto: Auto-Bidding System in Sokker
Not really, it doesnt give you ability to do something more, you just don’t have to be online to make a bid.
Same with plus training graphs. You can do them on your own, in a notebook, you pay to make it easier and less time consuming.
Same with plus training graphs. You can do them on your own, in a notebook, you pay to make it easier and less time consuming.
The ridiculousness of the original proposition isn't that well hidden.
1. As things are, you can submit bids ahead of time, and you can make them high enough to discourage other bidders. The rules forbid paying excessive fees, but since there are many 'fallback' players listed for quite the outrageous prices, there seems to be plenty of flexibility about that. The only thing you can't achieve in this way is the management aspect - pulling out of (nearly) simultaneous auctions if you already bought what you need at the time. But there's still another day. And while this game doesn't yet have even a simple real-time wage computer, you have to doubt about the feasibility of anything sophisticated enough to be useful.
2. What if we at least made the buyer pay the second highest bid then, like some people suggest? Well if the game only made you pay the second highest bid, you could slap staggering blocking bids on players right when they appear, and pay 0 - and nobody could overbid that.
3. The most important issue was voiced by Kryminator: if there are 20 managers listing the exact same top bid, how do you decide who gets the right to prevail? If it was the last bidder, the market would become an even stricter rhythm (or chicken) game, and if it was the first, it would encourage collusion and hand-me-downs. Either way, this idea has an inbuilt undoing!
Not to mention, the whole attitude of catering to the buyers at the expense of the sellers. Why!? We need a surplus of players.
1. As things are, you can submit bids ahead of time, and you can make them high enough to discourage other bidders. The rules forbid paying excessive fees, but since there are many 'fallback' players listed for quite the outrageous prices, there seems to be plenty of flexibility about that. The only thing you can't achieve in this way is the management aspect - pulling out of (nearly) simultaneous auctions if you already bought what you need at the time. But there's still another day. And while this game doesn't yet have even a simple real-time wage computer, you have to doubt about the feasibility of anything sophisticated enough to be useful.
2. What if we at least made the buyer pay the second highest bid then, like some people suggest? Well if the game only made you pay the second highest bid, you could slap staggering blocking bids on players right when they appear, and pay 0 - and nobody could overbid that.
3. The most important issue was voiced by Kryminator: if there are 20 managers listing the exact same top bid, how do you decide who gets the right to prevail? If it was the last bidder, the market would become an even stricter rhythm (or chicken) game, and if it was the first, it would encourage collusion and hand-me-downs. Either way, this idea has an inbuilt undoing!
Not to mention, the whole attitude of catering to the buyers at the expense of the sellers. Why!? We need a surplus of players.
A few years ago, I programmed a robot to bid for “bargains” on sokker because I don't have time to play sokker anymore.
Buy. Train. Resell. Make profit. Do it again!
I've never made so much profit.
Bot or no bot, it's the way to grow in Sokker.
Personally, this rat race has never entertained me. So I'd rather play with “competitive” players I've chosen and lose money. I don't need a bot for that.
But if I need to, I'll use a bot again.
Anyway, whether you like the idea or not, contrary to some comments I've heard here, I can guarantee that it's quite possible to make an automatic max-bidding system according to @Maonta's initial idea.
My personal opinion: clicking a button every minutes just to avoid overpaying or getting a good deal, it's really boring gameplay! But that's it.
The auto-bid max is a great idea for those who just want to save themselves this pain. For others, it won't change a thing, you never better served than by yourself, bots can't help.
(editado)
Buy. Train. Resell. Make profit. Do it again!
I've never made so much profit.
Bot or no bot, it's the way to grow in Sokker.
Personally, this rat race has never entertained me. So I'd rather play with “competitive” players I've chosen and lose money. I don't need a bot for that.
But if I need to, I'll use a bot again.
Anyway, whether you like the idea or not, contrary to some comments I've heard here, I can guarantee that it's quite possible to make an automatic max-bidding system according to @Maonta's initial idea.
My personal opinion: clicking a button every minutes just to avoid overpaying or getting a good deal, it's really boring gameplay! But that's it.
The auto-bid max is a great idea for those who just want to save themselves this pain. For others, it won't change a thing, you never better served than by yourself, bots can't help.
(editado)
"Personally, this rat race has never entertained me. So I'd rather play with “competitive” players I've chosen and lose money."
This has been my philosophy from the start. Raul claims he wants this to be less of an economic simulator, so we'll see. I am just fortunate I am not Polish, because it would be demoralizing to actually try playing from the start there.
This has been my philosophy from the start. Raul claims he wants this to be less of an economic simulator, so we'll see. I am just fortunate I am not Polish, because it would be demoralizing to actually try playing from the start there.
### How Would It Work?
1. **Select the Player:** Identify the player you wish to bid on.
2. **Set the Maximum Bid Amount:** Define the highest amount you’re willing to pay.
3. **Activate Auto-Bid:** Confirm your choice by enabling the auto-bid function.
4. **Relax:** Once activated, the system will bid incrementally on your behalf until your maximum limit is reached, whether you're online or not.[/i]
It's not good idea. It would be good for the rich teams. What about the small countries.
Nobody could be lucky to buy cheap players.
This is worthless developement. Sorry for this, but this is my opinion.
That is the nice in this game someone do it with less money, someone do this game with more money.
1. **Select the Player:** Identify the player you wish to bid on.
2. **Set the Maximum Bid Amount:** Define the highest amount you’re willing to pay.
3. **Activate Auto-Bid:** Confirm your choice by enabling the auto-bid function.
4. **Relax:** Once activated, the system will bid incrementally on your behalf until your maximum limit is reached, whether you're online or not.[/i]
It's not good idea. It would be good for the rich teams. What about the small countries.
Nobody could be lucky to buy cheap players.
This is worthless developement. Sorry for this, but this is my opinion.
That is the nice in this game someone do it with less money, someone do this game with more money.
I'll see you on the "guarantee". You have two thousand offers of the same amount on a player. Whose offer prevails?
No issue there, if more than one auto-bid is set, then there is an automatic prise rise to 2nd highest bid that was set, if more than one of same max value = first one that set the highest bid is the leader.
Btw. a scenario with 2k of same max offers or even more than 2 same max offers is highly unlikely, all those people would have to make the auto-bid setting in exactly same second.
Btw. a scenario with 2k of same max offers or even more than 2 same max offers is highly unlikely, all those people would have to make the auto-bid setting in exactly same second.
This is an excellent way to encourage collusion between buyers and sellers. Do we need more of that?
It would change nothing, you can rise the price to whatever level you want now anyway.
But maybe I don't see your point, please explain.
But maybe I don't see your point, please explain.
As things are, a new bid has to exceed the previous offer by a minimum amount. Bidders get the right to an offer in turns.
With autobidders it'll be only the bidder who knew about the player being put up who'll be entitled to all the offers not exceeding his. The affair becomes a semi-blind auction with an invisible asking price.
You could still argue it changes nothing.
With autobidders it'll be only the bidder who knew about the player being put up who'll be entitled to all the offers not exceeding his. The affair becomes a semi-blind auction with an invisible asking price.
You could still argue it changes nothing.
I don't see any issue with that, it works exactly the same way now.
You're online, only you know the max price you are willing to bid. Only difference is that in the new scenario you don't have to be online.
With autobidders it'll be only the bidder who knew about the player being put up who'll be entitled to all the offers not exceeding his
Maybe you don't see how it would work. It's not a system when AT THE END of a blind auction there is a decision that the highest bidder / highest first bidder wins.
A player has a deadline on 21.05.2025 at 19:00
User A makes an autobid for 2m euro on 21.05.2025 at 13:00.
User B makes an autobid for 2m euro on 21.05.2025 at 14:00.
Result: at 14:00 the price of player automatically rises to 2m euro and the leader is user A.
User B sees that (his offer was at least matched) = he can make a decision whether to make a further bid / make another autobid setting or give up.
No change at all except for making it easier / less invested in the game since you can create many autobids and avoid spending time on the auction.
I still think due to other reasons it is not a great idea, but from the technical standpoint there is absolutely no issue with it.
You're online, only you know the max price you are willing to bid. Only difference is that in the new scenario you don't have to be online.
With autobidders it'll be only the bidder who knew about the player being put up who'll be entitled to all the offers not exceeding his
Maybe you don't see how it would work. It's not a system when AT THE END of a blind auction there is a decision that the highest bidder / highest first bidder wins.
A player has a deadline on 21.05.2025 at 19:00
User A makes an autobid for 2m euro on 21.05.2025 at 13:00.
User B makes an autobid for 2m euro on 21.05.2025 at 14:00.
Result: at 14:00 the price of player automatically rises to 2m euro and the leader is user A.
User B sees that (his offer was at least matched) = he can make a decision whether to make a further bid / make another autobid setting or give up.
No change at all except for making it easier / less invested in the game since you can create many autobids and avoid spending time on the auction.
I still think due to other reasons it is not a great idea, but from the technical standpoint there is absolutely no issue with it.
No. The notion of changing nothing and working the same way are far apart.
The auction gets decided in the final seconds and this is when a bidder would have to probe around with offers to clear all the autobids of users in front of them in line by the minimum allowable amount. How to do it in time if you'd like the player? By bidding more. So if you have a shill setting that hidden minimum price for you, you are artificially commanding higher fees because of that uncertainty.
The auction gets decided in the final seconds and this is when a bidder would have to probe around with offers to clear all the autobids of users in front of them in line by the minimum allowable amount. How to do it in time if you'd like the player? By bidding more. So if you have a shill setting that hidden minimum price for you, you are artificially commanding higher fees because of that uncertainty.
this ignores the fact that auto-bidding would kill newer player interest as they'd never be able to buy anyone decent.