Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [change] Sponsorship between countries
Wow lots of ideas there, and I love hearing the chatter about it.
I will respond to the bottom comments about the sponsorship and match income.
The reason it should be top down, and a more standardised sponsorship between all div 1s, and all div2s etc. is because whilst it would be easier to get to the top of a small country (and thus get the increased sponsorship), it's also harder to get good stadium incomes, because when a team leaves or gets knocked out, there isn't the same upward pressure of time, and thus fanclub members that occurs in large countries.
So by doing this, both large and small nations have an advantage and a disadvantage.
The beauty of doing this as well is, as small nations users stick around, and new users join, they become bigger, thus reducing the sponsorship advantage and increasing the spectators advantage, so the game, and the system, regulates itself.
Right now, because of the way the game calculates it, it's a double disadvantage to small nations, and every user that leaves due to the disadvantage, actually causes even more of a disadvantage to those sticking around. So therefore, you get less and less incentive to stay the smaller a nation gets, but what you really need it more incentive to stay as a nation gets smaller, in an attempt to help it grow.
I will respond to the bottom comments about the sponsorship and match income.
The reason it should be top down, and a more standardised sponsorship between all div 1s, and all div2s etc. is because whilst it would be easier to get to the top of a small country (and thus get the increased sponsorship), it's also harder to get good stadium incomes, because when a team leaves or gets knocked out, there isn't the same upward pressure of time, and thus fanclub members that occurs in large countries.
So by doing this, both large and small nations have an advantage and a disadvantage.
The beauty of doing this as well is, as small nations users stick around, and new users join, they become bigger, thus reducing the sponsorship advantage and increasing the spectators advantage, so the game, and the system, regulates itself.
Right now, because of the way the game calculates it, it's a double disadvantage to small nations, and every user that leaves due to the disadvantage, actually causes even more of a disadvantage to those sticking around. So therefore, you get less and less incentive to stay the smaller a nation gets, but what you really need it more incentive to stay as a nation gets smaller, in an attempt to help it grow.
Users dont leave because of some kind of disadvantages but because this is boring to play vs bot when u have only few active users in a country. That's why the CC winner from Luxembourg left the game once he won the CC). But if you prefer to blame the game, good for you.
LOL!
There are many issues with the game that need improving. This is just one.
If you want to talk about a different issue, go do it.
There are many players in the game who could win the CC, and just like the Luxembourg player, would not be able to keep up the costs of having such players when the sponsorship is so unfairly bias towards large nations.
There are many people in the game who have been saving money for 10-15yrs of sokker, and they could win the CC too, doesn't mean the system isn't broken. But please, keep telling small countries there isn't an issue, from the position of one of the biggest in the game who doesn't have this issue
There are many issues with the game that need improving. This is just one.
If you want to talk about a different issue, go do it.
There are many players in the game who could win the CC, and just like the Luxembourg player, would not be able to keep up the costs of having such players when the sponsorship is so unfairly bias towards large nations.
There are many people in the game who have been saving money for 10-15yrs of sokker, and they could win the CC too, doesn't mean the system isn't broken. But please, keep telling small countries there isn't an issue, from the position of one of the biggest in the game who doesn't have this issue
Users dont leave because of some kind of disadvantages
Sure they do, I did, I know others who did. So many other things competing for time and effort, I felt after years of trying, it wasn't worth my effort to continue playing as I'd never overcome the handicap. I also came back because it sounded like with a new dev team there were aspirations to improve the game.
Until you've experienced the disadvantages and handicaps, I don't think you can really make that claim. Most who face these situations and give up and quit just quit suddenly, rarely do you get a justification of why people quit, especially in smaller countries.
because this is boring to play vs bot when u have only few active users in a country. That's why the CC winner from Luxembourg left the game once he won the CC).
Sure, boring competition/lack of users is also a thing that turns users away. There are many factors and it could be quite different for different cultures.
Why try and tackle just one of them when you could be tackling several at once?
I couldn't purchase a single defender for my QF game, even 35+ yo and highest level being formidable. Could have managed this easily if I was in any other country earning 100k more each week by default. That to me sounds like a disadvantage.
I'm stuck in a league of practically bots so my sponsorship won't rise much this season either. So that 100k more each week probably now becomes 200k each week difference.
I also won't promote unless I do it directly, until such time as I can afford these and that could take seasons longer then it would have otherwise if sponsorship was even remotely fair.
I understand more difficult leagues etc etc, but that in itself is rewarding. It keeps you interested, it gives you more gate receipts and it gives you more sponsorship as all the teams improve quickly and gain supporters. You also get the chance to promote several times over, we don't.
I'm not advocating that a team in div 2 Australia deserves the same as div 2 in say Poland in all circumstances, I'm trying to remove the bias towards teams that should be equivalent due to length of time etc but have massive differences and to definitely avoid the situation where someone who is the top of a country for a decade earns less then someone who has only recently started.
Anyway, my arguments have been in this thread in earlier pages. At this point, if you fail to understand that logic then there's not a whole lot more another copy of the same points is going to do. I guess, you just haven't experienced it yourself and so don't know how crippling it can be if you have aspirations to compete at the same level as other countries (which is generally all that keeps users with no other competitive users in their country interested in the game).
(edited)
Sure they do, I did, I know others who did. So many other things competing for time and effort, I felt after years of trying, it wasn't worth my effort to continue playing as I'd never overcome the handicap. I also came back because it sounded like with a new dev team there were aspirations to improve the game.
Until you've experienced the disadvantages and handicaps, I don't think you can really make that claim. Most who face these situations and give up and quit just quit suddenly, rarely do you get a justification of why people quit, especially in smaller countries.
because this is boring to play vs bot when u have only few active users in a country. That's why the CC winner from Luxembourg left the game once he won the CC).
Sure, boring competition/lack of users is also a thing that turns users away. There are many factors and it could be quite different for different cultures.
Why try and tackle just one of them when you could be tackling several at once?
I couldn't purchase a single defender for my QF game, even 35+ yo and highest level being formidable. Could have managed this easily if I was in any other country earning 100k more each week by default. That to me sounds like a disadvantage.
I'm stuck in a league of practically bots so my sponsorship won't rise much this season either. So that 100k more each week probably now becomes 200k each week difference.
I also won't promote unless I do it directly, until such time as I can afford these and that could take seasons longer then it would have otherwise if sponsorship was even remotely fair.
I understand more difficult leagues etc etc, but that in itself is rewarding. It keeps you interested, it gives you more gate receipts and it gives you more sponsorship as all the teams improve quickly and gain supporters. You also get the chance to promote several times over, we don't.
I'm not advocating that a team in div 2 Australia deserves the same as div 2 in say Poland in all circumstances, I'm trying to remove the bias towards teams that should be equivalent due to length of time etc but have massive differences and to definitely avoid the situation where someone who is the top of a country for a decade earns less then someone who has only recently started.
Anyway, my arguments have been in this thread in earlier pages. At this point, if you fail to understand that logic then there's not a whole lot more another copy of the same points is going to do. I guess, you just haven't experienced it yourself and so don't know how crippling it can be if you have aspirations to compete at the same level as other countries (which is generally all that keeps users with no other competitive users in their country interested in the game).
(edited)
The system is fair, there is no reason why all countries should get the same sponsorship when the costs to maintain at a high level in the country are torally uncomparable.
Btw this is not Australia vs the rest of the world here. I could also complain that Poland and Romania get an unfair advantage in comparison to France.
Anyway, equal sponsorship will not solve your problems. This game till now is mainly based on traiding in order to be competitive.
Btw this is not Australia vs the rest of the world here. I could also complain that Poland and Romania get an unfair advantage in comparison to France.
Anyway, equal sponsorship will not solve your problems. This game till now is mainly based on traiding in order to be competitive.
Wrong. Sponsorship paves the way to be able to trade and make money.
Sponsorship allows you to buy better players who can then be trained better and sell for more.
I am not saying this fixes all issues, just that it is currently unfair and I have proven this.
You still cannot say how someone who started the same time as cometer, but has lost everything, deserves to be be bringing in 70-100k more just because they are from a large country, yet this is exactly what is happening.
I'm sure cometer and others in his situation would love to double their sponsorship per week.
And you can't talk about Poland and Romania like that because it is not a linear hike, which I have also pointed out in the past. France is big enough that the difference between them and Poland is only a couple of % if that.
This has all been pointed out, calculations made.
And guess what, if you give a country more money, then they get better players, so then you say, well they are stronger so should get more, so they get more money, and get even stronger players etc etc. and this is why your argument does not stand up.
In all games, you are meant to be rewarded for being good at the game, you don't give people extra money because they are up against people who are good at the game, that is backwards thinking, and that is how this game has been unintentionally made by basing things on fanclub level.
To put this in terms you should understand, as if it applied to real life, you are trying to go to an African-American rally and telling them as a Caucasian, there is no injustice or disadvantage to you guys, and I can prove it, Obama was an African-American.
Substitute the one small country that had a winner (Luxembourg) with Obama, and those who are at an injustice (small countries) with African-Americans, and you have your exact argument, and how silly you or anyone else using that as an example has
Sponsorship allows you to buy better players who can then be trained better and sell for more.
I am not saying this fixes all issues, just that it is currently unfair and I have proven this.
You still cannot say how someone who started the same time as cometer, but has lost everything, deserves to be be bringing in 70-100k more just because they are from a large country, yet this is exactly what is happening.
I'm sure cometer and others in his situation would love to double their sponsorship per week.
And you can't talk about Poland and Romania like that because it is not a linear hike, which I have also pointed out in the past. France is big enough that the difference between them and Poland is only a couple of % if that.
This has all been pointed out, calculations made.
And guess what, if you give a country more money, then they get better players, so then you say, well they are stronger so should get more, so they get more money, and get even stronger players etc etc. and this is why your argument does not stand up.
In all games, you are meant to be rewarded for being good at the game, you don't give people extra money because they are up against people who are good at the game, that is backwards thinking, and that is how this game has been unintentionally made by basing things on fanclub level.
To put this in terms you should understand, as if it applied to real life, you are trying to go to an African-American rally and telling them as a Caucasian, there is no injustice or disadvantage to you guys, and I can prove it, Obama was an African-American.
Substitute the one small country that had a winner (Luxembourg) with Obama, and those who are at an injustice (small countries) with African-Americans, and you have your exact argument, and how silly you or anyone else using that as an example has
Ah if you have proven this, there is no need to discuss it at all, right ?
You still don't understand all the costs we need to support in medium big countries just in order to not get related from 3rd or 2nd league n, something you will never experienced in Australia.
But if tou prefer to keep focusing on yourself as always, right. You are the one holding the truth apparently. We already noticed it when you were blaming the devs for what they intent to implement.
Keep going, you are one the right path man.
You still don't understand all the costs we need to support in medium big countries just in order to not get related from 3rd or 2nd league n, something you will never experienced in Australia.
But if tou prefer to keep focusing on yourself as always, right. You are the one holding the truth apparently. We already noticed it when you were blaming the devs for what they intent to implement.
Keep going, you are one the right path man.
You still don't understand all the costs we need to support in medium big countries just in order to not get related from 3rd or 2nd league n, something you will never experienced in Australia.
I literally said why this is the case in my previous post. You say you need more money to pay for the costs, yet if you (and everyone else) get more money for free, then there will be no difference, so you will need more again, so you all get more for free, but you don't see this.
Cometer could say the exact same thing. You don't understand the costs needed to make the jump between Div 2 and Div 1 in Australia. He is getting 1/3-1/4 the sponsorship than A-League, how can get make the jump without the extra money.
But that's ok, please keep telling us why you need more money. You have literally just agreed that you do get more money.
So again, why should a new team in Poland in the 2nd last division, get twice as much as a new team in Australia in the 2nd last division? They have done nothing to earn it, they are literally leeching off the hard work of others. If you read the posts you will see this is proven. It's exactly why teams can grow much faster in large countries and get much higher ratings in a quicker timeframe than teams from small countries. This is not fair, and they did literally nothing to earn it other than exist
(edited)
I literally said why this is the case in my previous post. You say you need more money to pay for the costs, yet if you (and everyone else) get more money for free, then there will be no difference, so you will need more again, so you all get more for free, but you don't see this.
Cometer could say the exact same thing. You don't understand the costs needed to make the jump between Div 2 and Div 1 in Australia. He is getting 1/3-1/4 the sponsorship than A-League, how can get make the jump without the extra money.
But that's ok, please keep telling us why you need more money. You have literally just agreed that you do get more money.
So again, why should a new team in Poland in the 2nd last division, get twice as much as a new team in Australia in the 2nd last division? They have done nothing to earn it, they are literally leeching off the hard work of others. If you read the posts you will see this is proven. It's exactly why teams can grow much faster in large countries and get much higher ratings in a quicker timeframe than teams from small countries. This is not fair, and they did literally nothing to earn it other than exist
(edited)
You still don't understand all the costs we need to support in medium big countries just in order to not get related from 3rd or 2nd league n, something you will never experienced in Australia.
Relegation battles have nothing to do with it. Spending money to avoid relegation is an optional choice. If you relegate you'll still earn more than us at every single division. At no point will you reach a position where your current team strength will put you into a situation where you'd be required to spend money to avoid relegation that would result in you earning less sponsorship then us. Understand it means more work to get you to the top level but in the process your team is improving so much faster then what we can here.
But let's stick with your relegation argument instead here just for the sake of it. If you get more money in your league to justify avoiding relegation everyone in your league also gets approximately the same additional money, there's no change to the strength/rankings of teams, thus the argument about avoiding automatic relegation spot has nothing to do with how much money you get splashed, if all other teams also get splashed with the same/similar amount. They'll just buy up players to match whatever you do and your position doesn't change.
So continuing on, if you end up in a relegation spot where you have to play someone in a lower division, you've already been earning more money then them anyway so you should have a stronger squad already and should have more finances behind you. You shouldn't need even more additional money to be able to beat these underneath you when you already have the advantage (or should). If you don't then perhaps you don't deserve to be in that division ahead of the team underneath you.
So money required for relegation matches whichever way you spin it does nothing except inflate you with more money to improve your teams faster which in turn will make your league even more difficult to get into from below as you'll gain even more sponsorship.
Your argument that we'll never experience it may be valid, but you could relegate all the way to your bottom division maybe and you'll still be earning more than almost all of our teams, particularly those of us in div 2 here. Spending money to avoid losing some money is a choice that we'll never get here. We've also said countless times here, merging small countries together would be a good solution to this. That way, we all drop down to lower divisions and face the same conditions as yourselves. I'd love that challenge, I've done so in other games before like battrick, I know what having large user bases does to the league structures. We'd also earn truckloads then we would be now, so that would be great for our top teams to become even stronger and maybe then compete at the international level.
On the other side, if you are saying you need more money to be competitive and to cement your spot in that division and promote to the next one, then what does that imply for those in the league below. Oh we need even more then those above us to stand a chance of promotion.. So based on that logic, I deserve a 3-4 times money raise so I can be competitive against the bottom half of those in my division above.
Or we can now look at it from a champions cup perspective, our top team earns significantly less than a large number of participants, so in order to be competitive, they should be earning more money from sponsorship in order to compete at that level? That in turn flows down back to our league as now all other sides have significantly less then this team and so need more money also.
If there wasn't an international cup component to this game, and we had separate transfer markets, then I would be agreeing with you saying the system was fair. Except, we do have an international cup component and we do share the same transfer market, so it's not fair as it stands.
Once again, I'm not saying you don't deserve more against comparable teams in our country, but you definitely don't deserve more then clubs that have been around for years longer and who have more supporters etc simply because you happened to fall into a more active userbase region. It should be based on something that rewards the better players, not the players who live in a particular country.
Whilst we're at it, you'll never experience soft cap/hard caps of supporters joining the club as early as we do here, because how many you gain or lose a week is based around what others in the league have along with supporters mood (again tied to supporter sizes like everything financial in this game seems to). Thus because we have less users and it is easier to reach the top division, we lose 1-2 of our players and then our top clubs lose fans simply because others have fewer. That will happen everywhere to some extent, but in bigger countries, you're generally able to continue to gain more over the long period of time because you don't have the same huge differences that smaller countries face.
Oh and more supporters = more money from gate receipts, more money from sponsorship etc etc and if a league is balanced then more supporters for everyone over time = even more supporters able to join for those at the top.
I'm not saying we're always right, I'm saying if you actually look past your own ego for just one minute you'll see it's not balanced.
I won't repeat my logic for that it's back a few pages and it's crystal clear how this pans out.
The solution is clearly, merging countries together if people are so hurt by the prospect of slightly adjusting the sponsorship formula to have a lower weighting on supporter sizes.
Edit: You could even weight it much more towards how many supporters you had as opposed to some function of how many supporters your league has. That would then in turn still result in more difficult/active leagues receiving more in sponsorship but the gap wouldn't be so big as it is now.
The fact of the matter is, you don't actually get more sponsorship for being in a more difficult league anyway. You get more sponsorship because your league has more supporters. Usually this will associate with being in a more difficult league but it doesn't have to, you could just be in a league where a lot of users have been around a long time.
(edited)
Relegation battles have nothing to do with it. Spending money to avoid relegation is an optional choice. If you relegate you'll still earn more than us at every single division. At no point will you reach a position where your current team strength will put you into a situation where you'd be required to spend money to avoid relegation that would result in you earning less sponsorship then us. Understand it means more work to get you to the top level but in the process your team is improving so much faster then what we can here.
But let's stick with your relegation argument instead here just for the sake of it. If you get more money in your league to justify avoiding relegation everyone in your league also gets approximately the same additional money, there's no change to the strength/rankings of teams, thus the argument about avoiding automatic relegation spot has nothing to do with how much money you get splashed, if all other teams also get splashed with the same/similar amount. They'll just buy up players to match whatever you do and your position doesn't change.
So continuing on, if you end up in a relegation spot where you have to play someone in a lower division, you've already been earning more money then them anyway so you should have a stronger squad already and should have more finances behind you. You shouldn't need even more additional money to be able to beat these underneath you when you already have the advantage (or should). If you don't then perhaps you don't deserve to be in that division ahead of the team underneath you.
So money required for relegation matches whichever way you spin it does nothing except inflate you with more money to improve your teams faster which in turn will make your league even more difficult to get into from below as you'll gain even more sponsorship.
Your argument that we'll never experience it may be valid, but you could relegate all the way to your bottom division maybe and you'll still be earning more than almost all of our teams, particularly those of us in div 2 here. Spending money to avoid losing some money is a choice that we'll never get here. We've also said countless times here, merging small countries together would be a good solution to this. That way, we all drop down to lower divisions and face the same conditions as yourselves. I'd love that challenge, I've done so in other games before like battrick, I know what having large user bases does to the league structures. We'd also earn truckloads then we would be now, so that would be great for our top teams to become even stronger and maybe then compete at the international level.
On the other side, if you are saying you need more money to be competitive and to cement your spot in that division and promote to the next one, then what does that imply for those in the league below. Oh we need even more then those above us to stand a chance of promotion.. So based on that logic, I deserve a 3-4 times money raise so I can be competitive against the bottom half of those in my division above.
Or we can now look at it from a champions cup perspective, our top team earns significantly less than a large number of participants, so in order to be competitive, they should be earning more money from sponsorship in order to compete at that level? That in turn flows down back to our league as now all other sides have significantly less then this team and so need more money also.
If there wasn't an international cup component to this game, and we had separate transfer markets, then I would be agreeing with you saying the system was fair. Except, we do have an international cup component and we do share the same transfer market, so it's not fair as it stands.
Once again, I'm not saying you don't deserve more against comparable teams in our country, but you definitely don't deserve more then clubs that have been around for years longer and who have more supporters etc simply because you happened to fall into a more active userbase region. It should be based on something that rewards the better players, not the players who live in a particular country.
Whilst we're at it, you'll never experience soft cap/hard caps of supporters joining the club as early as we do here, because how many you gain or lose a week is based around what others in the league have along with supporters mood (again tied to supporter sizes like everything financial in this game seems to). Thus because we have less users and it is easier to reach the top division, we lose 1-2 of our players and then our top clubs lose fans simply because others have fewer. That will happen everywhere to some extent, but in bigger countries, you're generally able to continue to gain more over the long period of time because you don't have the same huge differences that smaller countries face.
Oh and more supporters = more money from gate receipts, more money from sponsorship etc etc and if a league is balanced then more supporters for everyone over time = even more supporters able to join for those at the top.
I'm not saying we're always right, I'm saying if you actually look past your own ego for just one minute you'll see it's not balanced.
I won't repeat my logic for that it's back a few pages and it's crystal clear how this pans out.
The solution is clearly, merging countries together if people are so hurt by the prospect of slightly adjusting the sponsorship formula to have a lower weighting on supporter sizes.
Edit: You could even weight it much more towards how many supporters you had as opposed to some function of how many supporters your league has. That would then in turn still result in more difficult/active leagues receiving more in sponsorship but the gap wouldn't be so big as it is now.
The fact of the matter is, you don't actually get more sponsorship for being in a more difficult league anyway. You get more sponsorship because your league has more supporters. Usually this will associate with being in a more difficult league but it doesn't have to, you could just be in a league where a lot of users have been around a long time.
(edited)
You still don't understand all the costs we need to support in medium big countries just in order to not get related from 3rd or 2nd league
Hey Atchoum. The cost of competing in the big countries is higher, because the game gives the big countries more money. That's the point of this discussion.
More money, higher cost to compete, better players, higher quality games, better coaches, faster player development, more fun, more managers, more money.
Hey Atchoum. The cost of competing in the big countries is higher, because the game gives the big countries more money. That's the point of this discussion.
More money, higher cost to compete, better players, higher quality games, better coaches, faster player development, more fun, more managers, more money.
You still don't understand all the costs we need to support in medium big countries just in order to not get related from 3rd or 2nd league n, something you will never experienced in Australia.
How does it benefit any club in the bottom league in say, France, when anyway everyone is having similar sponsorship money? The problem occurs when they get paid exorbitantly higher than even the clubs from higher divisions in smaller countries. Why? Because we have to share the same market as you guys. Why can't you guys get paid similar amount as us? (Or why can' we get paid similar amount as you?) Suppose you have lower sponsorship money, it'll still help you to compete with other clubs because even they will have lesser sponsorship money. What will it change? It will add equality to the market for us. It means we have an equal chance of winning any cross-country competition as you guys.
How does it benefit any club in the bottom league in say, France, when anyway everyone is having similar sponsorship money? The problem occurs when they get paid exorbitantly higher than even the clubs from higher divisions in smaller countries. Why? Because we have to share the same market as you guys. Why can't you guys get paid similar amount as us? (Or why can' we get paid similar amount as you?) Suppose you have lower sponsorship money, it'll still help you to compete with other clubs because even they will have lesser sponsorship money. What will it change? It will add equality to the market for us. It means we have an equal chance of winning any cross-country competition as you guys.
The cost of competing in the big countries is higher, because the game gives the big countries more money
Not exactly... The cost of competing in the big countries is higher because there is much more competition...
And the ''extra money'' is a result of the competition, not because it's a big country.
I'd like to make a suggestion to work with external sponsorship deals...
The better results you have, the better sponsorship deals you can get. This results in the prevention of teams ''sitting'' on their money, not caring of the competition, farming players without sportive care.
In a way, you can say, the best teams are rewarded, so kind of pay to win, BUT... the cost for the maintenance of such teams are way higher, so in a way it's justified.
Now, for small countries, the sponsorship deals should be lower, BUT... the wages should be too...
Players in such countries don't get the same amount of wage, as they get in bigger countries, exactly for this reason...
In game, setting wages per country might be too complex, but maybe a setting for a maximum number of foreign players per team could be a solution. If players, playing in their own country, receive less wage than foreigners (as IRL), the calculation for wages could be controlled more equally.
Not exactly... The cost of competing in the big countries is higher because there is much more competition...
And the ''extra money'' is a result of the competition, not because it's a big country.
I'd like to make a suggestion to work with external sponsorship deals...
The better results you have, the better sponsorship deals you can get. This results in the prevention of teams ''sitting'' on their money, not caring of the competition, farming players without sportive care.
In a way, you can say, the best teams are rewarded, so kind of pay to win, BUT... the cost for the maintenance of such teams are way higher, so in a way it's justified.
Now, for small countries, the sponsorship deals should be lower, BUT... the wages should be too...
Players in such countries don't get the same amount of wage, as they get in bigger countries, exactly for this reason...
In game, setting wages per country might be too complex, but maybe a setting for a maximum number of foreign players per team could be a solution. If players, playing in their own country, receive less wage than foreigners (as IRL), the calculation for wages could be controlled more equally.
I forget to add...
The max number of foreigners should be less for Big(ger) countries, than it is for small countries, cause small countries have much less players to choose from.
The max number of foreigners should be less for Big(ger) countries, than it is for small countries, cause small countries have much less players to choose from.
Different wages and foreign transfers per season limit was what I proposed some days ago. I don't think those features are hard to implement, just a conditional check.
We all agree that the harder the competition, the more money you should get. Noone is arguing that.
But the current sponsorship is NOT based on difficulty, it is based on fanclub members, which is not a measure of difficulty. Everyone in your league could play 2nds and you would still get the same amount of sponsorship.
This topic is about getting more money without working for it. I posted early in this topic what NEW teams in Poland and Italy who are in the 2nd from lowest division, so that it compares to those in smaller countries in the 2nd lowest division, and to reduce number of variables.
What this showed is new players in big countries in the same position get double that of those in small nations. Even now, those who took the time in small countries to improve tactic, win all challenges thrown at them etc, are still on half the sponsorship compared to the same team in a large nation who decided to not put any time in and lose all their matches.
This is because of sponsorship being largely based on the work of others as it look at the number of fanclub members in the league.
I chose this because it is so obvious with no other variables, that teams who do not work, do not do well etc still get more just because of the country they are in. This means that they are able to progress much faster even being useless and unworthy of it. And this makes a big difference because we all share the same transfer market.
Now these teams would already get more due to supporters from game attendance. But right now they are double dipping with a bonus built in sponsorship bonus which is NOT RIGHT!
Now unfortunately this filters all the way to the top as well. You don't see it in large countries because there is a greater push from the bottom, so your top league always has active, old, players, so don't noticed much of a difference, but in small countries, there isn't that push, so depending on how small the country, top league has fairly new teams and bots. This means that those old users, who have stuck with the game, are good at the game, and help grow the game and try to keep new players, are punished by getting less sponsorship (and attendance) because the number of fanclub members in the league drops.
This means the top team cannot make enough money to compete on the transfer market with even mid division teams from large leagues. They cannot compete in the champions cups. They are being punished through no fault of their own, and UNABLE to improve their position unless their country grows, which they can do very little about.
This is the issue.
It would be better if sponsorship was either based on ranking points (which still is not perfect because the top teams in small nations play against a lot of teams who they will lose ranking points against regardless of how much they win by), but they can at least gain points with friendlies against other nations, and therefore gain sponsorship at the level they should.
The other option would be to link it just to div 1 div 2 etc. Yes this would mean that it's easier for small nations to get to a larger sponsorship payment, but overall those small nations would still get less income because of a reduced ground attendance. Then as the country grows, it gets harder for those teams to go to div 1, but as it grows, there will be higher ground attendance which produces more money. So there is still an advantage to being in large nations, but it is less of a jump.
It should be so simple for people to see there is a massive issue, but people seem to be so scared that helping out the small number of people that actually make up the number of users in small nations, will somehow hurt themselves in large nations, even though you have had 15yrs of advantages. If your (not aimed at Dtox directly, but people saying this bias is OK) team is so fragile that helping all of 5% of users, who will still be at a disadvantage, is going to somehow destroy your team, maybe that says more about your management than anything else.
Whether it be a game, or real life, you can't systematically have bias (intentional or unintentional) hurting minorities. This game relies on growth, so let us small countries help you grow, and stop punishing us.
And finally, if you don't want to recode the game, then merge the small countries (anyone under 40 users in the current division structure). This will sort out all of the above issues as the difference in sponsorship and number of users, gets less the more divisions you get, which is why Poland and Italy have similar sponsorship.
But the current sponsorship is NOT based on difficulty, it is based on fanclub members, which is not a measure of difficulty. Everyone in your league could play 2nds and you would still get the same amount of sponsorship.
This topic is about getting more money without working for it. I posted early in this topic what NEW teams in Poland and Italy who are in the 2nd from lowest division, so that it compares to those in smaller countries in the 2nd lowest division, and to reduce number of variables.
What this showed is new players in big countries in the same position get double that of those in small nations. Even now, those who took the time in small countries to improve tactic, win all challenges thrown at them etc, are still on half the sponsorship compared to the same team in a large nation who decided to not put any time in and lose all their matches.
This is because of sponsorship being largely based on the work of others as it look at the number of fanclub members in the league.
I chose this because it is so obvious with no other variables, that teams who do not work, do not do well etc still get more just because of the country they are in. This means that they are able to progress much faster even being useless and unworthy of it. And this makes a big difference because we all share the same transfer market.
Now these teams would already get more due to supporters from game attendance. But right now they are double dipping with a bonus built in sponsorship bonus which is NOT RIGHT!
Now unfortunately this filters all the way to the top as well. You don't see it in large countries because there is a greater push from the bottom, so your top league always has active, old, players, so don't noticed much of a difference, but in small countries, there isn't that push, so depending on how small the country, top league has fairly new teams and bots. This means that those old users, who have stuck with the game, are good at the game, and help grow the game and try to keep new players, are punished by getting less sponsorship (and attendance) because the number of fanclub members in the league drops.
This means the top team cannot make enough money to compete on the transfer market with even mid division teams from large leagues. They cannot compete in the champions cups. They are being punished through no fault of their own, and UNABLE to improve their position unless their country grows, which they can do very little about.
This is the issue.
It would be better if sponsorship was either based on ranking points (which still is not perfect because the top teams in small nations play against a lot of teams who they will lose ranking points against regardless of how much they win by), but they can at least gain points with friendlies against other nations, and therefore gain sponsorship at the level they should.
The other option would be to link it just to div 1 div 2 etc. Yes this would mean that it's easier for small nations to get to a larger sponsorship payment, but overall those small nations would still get less income because of a reduced ground attendance. Then as the country grows, it gets harder for those teams to go to div 1, but as it grows, there will be higher ground attendance which produces more money. So there is still an advantage to being in large nations, but it is less of a jump.
It should be so simple for people to see there is a massive issue, but people seem to be so scared that helping out the small number of people that actually make up the number of users in small nations, will somehow hurt themselves in large nations, even though you have had 15yrs of advantages. If your (not aimed at Dtox directly, but people saying this bias is OK) team is so fragile that helping all of 5% of users, who will still be at a disadvantage, is going to somehow destroy your team, maybe that says more about your management than anything else.
Whether it be a game, or real life, you can't systematically have bias (intentional or unintentional) hurting minorities. This game relies on growth, so let us small countries help you grow, and stop punishing us.
And finally, if you don't want to recode the game, then merge the small countries (anyone under 40 users in the current division structure). This will sort out all of the above issues as the difference in sponsorship and number of users, gets less the more divisions you get, which is why Poland and Italy have similar sponsorship.
Achmid I agree with your first sentence,
but I do not understand why you focus so much on sponsorship... Haven't you heared of the club from Luxemburg, that is very reach, not because of the sponsorship, but because of training? Do you know, that many teams focus on other ways to increase their finances and sponsorship money is for them peanuts? Do you know, that there are teams, that just after 4-5 seasons after registration, they had over 30 million € income from transfers of trained young players?
These are just 3 closed questions. Closed question can be answered only by "yes", "no", or "I don't know". If your answers are different, then you have not understand my questions, so read them again and I promise to show you new ways of experiencing joy in this game called "sokker manager". ;)
but I do not understand why you focus so much on sponsorship... Haven't you heared of the club from Luxemburg, that is very reach, not because of the sponsorship, but because of training? Do you know, that many teams focus on other ways to increase their finances and sponsorship money is for them peanuts? Do you know, that there are teams, that just after 4-5 seasons after registration, they had over 30 million € income from transfers of trained young players?
These are just 3 closed questions. Closed question can be answered only by "yes", "no", or "I don't know". If your answers are different, then you have not understand my questions, so read them again and I promise to show you new ways of experiencing joy in this game called "sokker manager". ;)