Subject: [idea] Option to reject promotion

Teams throwing games in the final rounds to avoid promotion has always been a thing - and far more frequently since the introduction of the genius fans expectations system. I think this is bad for the game's image and throwing games could also interfere with other battles in the leagues.

So my proposal is: Winners of the leagues should have an option to reject promotion. Of course no one should be forced to stay in a league either, so a relegated team must agree to stay in your place (or lower placed team in your league to agree to move up).

I don't know if this sort of thing is possible in other online managers but in the real world it happens frequently at lower levels.

I like the idea in principle. In reality I think it would cause a lot of problems. Better to just fix the benefit of being promoted really.

TBH I can't think of any potential problems. For example:

- If you activate the option, the runner-up has 24 hours to agree to direct promotion. In case of acceptance, the playoff is canceled.
- If he refuse/do not respond, the relegated team with which you are swapping places decides whether to stay or not.
- If he also refuse, the 3rd team in the league gets the promotion option.

It could go on, but perhaps this is enough to avoid too much complexity - if three teams refuse, you accept your fate and move up to the higher league.

Ok I'll give you an example.

3 friends in the game and they want to play in the same league as each other. So they manipulate promotion, accepting or refusing it depending on where they're going until they're all in the same league. Now having got into the league they want together, they decide to stay there, forever blocking and potentially manipulating the league so that there is no way through for anyone else.

It's just not a good idea in general to have teams roadblocking promotion spots, especially when we already have an issue with bot-teams being protected from dropping down.

Also, if teams are clearly stronger than their opponents and they win all their matches to prevent promotion, they could park in a league forever, manipulating their fans expectations in a way that they always van actieve the expectations upon promoting. Their disadvantage for staying within An easier league Will always be much smaller than getting ass whooped in a higher league.
I don't like the idea because it stands totally against the philosophy of Sportsmanship. Like Camus' said...they should adjust the benefits of promoting a league so it always benefits a team, wether they get their ass whooped or not. Sponsorship, attendance, promotion awards...league position awards... They should all be lifted towards a valuable amount which Will always benefits the promoting team. And in exchange, having angry supporters or sponsors, for parking your team deliberately within a lower league for seasons on, making sponsors able to withdraw their weekly investment when a minimum requirement is not reached and spectators not only leaving the team but also damage the stadium or pushing pressure on the directors board, having A punishment fee or even the immediate sacking of the head coach as a result. I think the philosophy for playing for the best possible place is excellent, but the execution within Sokker is very poor. But the expectations should be lowered and made more realistic in return. I like to see multiple achievements possible within a season and each achievements should lift the Mood of the supporters and sponsors and should be rewarding. Make a manager make decisions and choices which Will guide the team towards multiple achievements should imo be the main goal for each team. And playing in 1st league should always be very challenging but promoting towards first should also always be rewarding.
(edited)

Yes, I agree that the main problem is its more profitable for most teams to stay in the lower league - especially for teams with more money, whose fans have the highest expectations in every division.

But the owners obviously like their confusing system of fan expectations and have explained that the bottom places in Division A cannot be more profitable than the top places in Division B - because it would create too big gap between the top and bottom leagues in countries with many levels.

So the remaining question is: will we allow teams to opt out of promotion or we will continue to force them to deliberately lose games - enough to finish 2nd - disrupting the fair play of the entire league :)

The game have a thousand things to concern about before promotion funcionality...

You said it all.

I don't like it a bit, and I will never do such a thing as avoid or cancel a promotion.

So, it's very true that sponsors, tickets and bonuses are not well adjusted. For example, a Premier League team will always make much more money from everything than a Championship team, even if they finish 20th.

And that’s why you have same teams winning trophies and playing at top level every year for decades.

Do you think that would be good in this game? Because I highly doubt that people would like staying in low leagues forever

Because I highly doubt that people would like staying in low leagues forever

You would be surprised to see how many managers are not playing the game for results for years now...

That's a different thing

They are not interested in game anymore / farm / are inactive temporarily and can go up whenever they decided that they want to do it (for example I am inactive since ~30 season but I've started process to return into playing now and should start climbing in ~4 seasons)

It's a different story from one where Top teams with best players also get much, much, much more money every season than anyone else so it's impossible to catch up with them in any way, so new/small teams stay small and unable to compete with those above them
(edited)

It's a different story from one where Top teams with best players also get much, much, much more money every season than anyone else so it's impossible to catch up with them in any way, so new/small teams stay small and unable to compete with those above them

You of all people should know that the fastest way to get money is by farming! I'm not saying you're a farmer, but you know that's a hard fact! So I'm saying that, IF you play for results and are getting results, your team should financially benefit that at least as good as farming teams!

Yes, farming is the best way to improve from a small to big team and that's why everyone CAN build a top team if he spend enough time to understand the know-how and to do it.

I was responding to what Dr.Mot wrote. If you recreate the financial pyramid of real football, this game would become unplayable for new/small teams. Everyone would just stay in their place with very few exceptions (like in real life - the Brentfords and Brightons). That would not be good for the game.

Part of this game is that there's constant movement in active countries, you need to rebuild your team from time to time, you cannot just keep changing top players to other top players etc.

Indeed, there is constant movement within the game, but that's only because you can either play for results or farm with young trainees, not both simultaniously.
There is a transition period in which you can play for results and climb your way up to the top while training younger players, getting gradually better and each season growing just enough to be strong enough to play in a higher division. But for small countries there's not enough competition to play the game on high level, so the fun part is missing too quickly, making lots of teams within small countries withdraw because of lack of fun.
On the other hand, there's Poland, the only country with enough divisions to grow your team upwards from a U21 team, winning the championship within a low division, growing out to be a strong team, climbing up the ladder and maybe ending within 1st class with a banger team.
But after let's say 5 seasons, you've burned your money from playing in top tier league. And that is not good for the DNA of the game, which is playing for results.
So, as long as playing for results is not profidable enough to keep trying to play for results, this game will indeed have the issue that top tier teams need to sell their team and start over. Now, from a football loving prospect, this is imo the completely wrong direction you can force the game to go to.
Imo, playing for results should always be at least equally profidable as training younger players, selling them again, buying fresh youngsters and so on and so on (farming).

Sokker is a manager game, so making things challenging within the game is good. But making it impossible to play with the philosophy of playing for results all the time, THAT is wrong.
So there should be a middle way to make both playing for results and making money find each other half way.
The rewriting of the financial pyramid is good imo. it does not take away the possibility to farm your way up to be financially strong enough to build up your team in order to be competitive enough with top tier teams. Fresh teams will always have a long way to go to catch up, as it should be. But if you take away the chance to grow financially by playing for results, then what do you create? A game where it is only possible to grow by not playing the game as it is intended to. Who wants to play such a game?

It is possible to play sustainably for a 70-75 rating which is fine, but in big enough country like Poland there will always be a bunch of people who prefer to farm and go for an 85 team.

And when there are always a few teams like that, the only way for the rest to achieve success is to do the same. So Poland is doomed to have only farmers in the Ekstraklasa because of that chain reaction, but imo the solution is not in giving more money to the teams who are currently in their peak.

Actually, I do not think there is a solution at all beyond maybe some extravagant ideas that will be very unpopular.

+1000000