Subject: [idea] New schedule and competitions

For me, 3 matches a week is the best, and 2 matches a week is easier managable. But when we are thinking in these numbers, we often forget, that in the cup we will falling out after a time. And what will be after that on the days of the cups? With the int. league we would have fix matches through the whole season, without questions.

And why is so bad to have a "backup" league? For beginners it sounds even better than cups, because of the matches are in the league guaranteed.

I was thinking about everything :)

My aim was to offer 2 official matches a week.
In the first half of the season weaker teams would play the cups, while the top teams would play mix of cup and internationals (CC, EL, etc.). Of course with group stages.
In the middle of the season, optional inter. cups would start being played (based on rankings). There would be several types of these cups, starting at different points in the season.

Maybe my plans are hard to understand. It is easier to understand two columns of matches (inter. and national league). My plans also require some reading. But in a nutshell, you would have 2 official matches almost all the time, and if you don't want to you can avoid a lot of that.
Calendar can be adjusted for 3 matches a week, really easy, but nobody is suggesting that. What is important as a problem, is that Sunday is not exclusively for the league...
(edited)

But in a nutshell, you would have 2 official matches almost all the time

There is a big difference between "almost" and "all the time".


Achmid's proposal (2020-05-04 12:15:17) looks much better for me. And maybe with the junior league on tuesday and also all the NT-matches on saturday would be good in his system.

(If we're speaking about cup, about ultimate cup, best of the bests, maybe we should keep Champions Cup, too, as an arcade cup just for fun, without injury and without any training and money earning and ranking points advantage, it would be only for honor, and to simulate the competiotion of the best of the best, with all the players avaible in these teams for their managers, without reference to injury. But that's another theme. )


And you have no answer why int. league sounds to you least good as int. cup. International league

There is a big difference between "almost" and "all the time".

There are also a big differences between people. My plan is not tailored for you specifically.


And you have no answer why int. league sounds to you least good as int. cup. International league

I answered this...

I like how you guys come up with newer and newer ideas, I am sure, that this will help devs to create a system, that is as good as possible.
My only concern regarding the optional international cup is feasibility. Let say, that there are 2 managers, Y and N, if you ask them: 'Would you like to participate in an additional turnament to fill up your canendar?'. without any other information Y answers 'Yeah, that is great', while N goes with 'Not really' (They are the 2 extremity, there are plenty of managers in between. What incentives do you put into the optional league to motivate people to participate and take it seriously.
(1) Nothing, whoever wants, participates. Y goes in, until he realizes, that the players can and will get injured, and this will affect his performance in the national league. And even if you take out injuries, who will take it seriously? It is going to be some version of friendly cups
(2) Some money? Maybe a solution, but how much to ballance the added risk of injuries, etc (not to mention the risk of overinglating the transfer market)?
(3) Training? Okay, that is somthing, but this kind of forces N to participate anyway.

All in all, I don't really see, how optional leagues could be meaningful but still remain optional for most of the users.

I wouldn't ban friendlies, so they can be used for training, no forcing there.
And if someone has only 13 players, and has no trainers, he can be the N person.

It is hard to strike a balance between risk and reward.
Another thing is how it would affect the league, I would like to minimize any negative effects on the league.
I'll have to give these things some thought, not so easy questions.

Impossible to answer these questions at the moment because we dont know what news devs plan to introduce about training, injuries, game economy etc.
(edited)

If they want excitement international legue is better, national cup is nice but few teams can handle a long season in it

-1

I'm sorry, 13 weeks is not enough for me. 14 is minimum. I don't want to see two league games in the same week.
I prefer "Version 2 New Competition Structure" by achmid

You've put alot of work into your schedule and looks very promising but my only question is when did 14 weeks become the new 12 weeks? Fwiw, I'm not a fan of 12 weeks at all so if we got a choice between 12 and 14, I would choose 14 every time. But that is the issue, none of us know how many weeks we're likely to have in a season right now and until we do, I'm afraid to say stuff like this is just wasting your own time.

Yeah fair comment.

I guess with the weeks not being set in stone, I am showing the benefit 14 weeks has over 12. Showing how easily we can cut from 16 to 14, but how different, messy and confusing cutting another 2 weeks off will be.

All I can do it put it out there, and with enough support, it gets taken up as the idea the devs go with.
I have had overwhelming support for the fixture I have presented in it's own thread, which for me would be enough to install it, but there are many factors I don't see (logistical, personal, possibly new rules), so it's the best I can do with the information I have.

Tbh, I'd MUCH prefer we stayed with 16 weeks and that they didn't mess around with training at all.
So what if there are many players with Superdivine in a single skill? A player isn't any good simply because of just 1 skill. They all need numerous skills (apart from the keeper) to be a really top player.

But given that is falling on deaf ears, I certainly support your 14 weeks idea over any 12 weeks approach anybody has or could produce in future.

So what if there are many players with Superdivine in a single skill?

Raul is talking about multi divine players...
Each season we have at least 1 player who joins the prestigious club of Complete Diviners (4x or almost 5x divine, or even better!)
3x superdivine strikers should be the best in the game, but we have at least 20 of them each season. That was his intentional point in which things should change.

That might be but I still feel the current system works well.
However, I thought one of the issues were the amounts being paid for top players?
If that is the case, then what do you think will happen if you lessen the numbers of really top players in the game? Simple economics will see the price on the top stars go through the roof even more which is the exact opposite of what the developers actually want I thought?
So I ask the question, what is the logic in reducing the numbers of the top players if it's going to make them even more expensive?

The number of top players won't be reduced. Their overall quality will be. It is hard to predict the impact on their prices though. That is rather the complex question of the game economy.

Aren't you rather forgetting the triple Superdivines that already exist?
Thus, if the game is changed to make it harder for newer players to reach those levels the ones that already exist will likely rise in transfer value as everybody clambers for them.

(edited)