Millie / Jordan kicked of a thread some time back 'Give us Something to play for', smack on I thought and Ov was very keen on the concept of Competition = reputation. Not a bad idea and pretty realistic, e.g. Burnley has more rep now their a Premiership team.
I did some figures:-
Diff Stadium 3* 1,372 3.5* 1,078 4* 1,176 4.5* 770 5* 490
Diff No Stadium 3* 392 3.5* 238 4* 350 4.5* 280 5* 266
Just to explain that the 3* Stadium figure is the increase in income from the 2.5*, so by reaching 3* you'll get an extra £1.3m a season plus current prize money (not much) subject to having a suitable stadium, £392k if you haven't done anything to stadium.
The stadium figures are based on an efficient one, i.e. high cost low speed of return items Exlusiv etc.
It doesn't quite do it, I think there should be one than one route to the top. Say your a new team to a GW do you expand the stadium or do you go for it and try and generate revenue from results then expand the stadium.
The figures show that if this system comes in will remain in the same situation results mean nothing, upgrade the stadium then get the team, ala one route to success.
I did some more figure bashing, if we got rid of media money & daily income and just had prize money these are the figures we could be talking for prize money in comps.
| P | C | 1 | |
| 1st-5th | 4m | 1.5m | 0.7m |
| 6th-10th | 3m | 1.2m | 0.5m |
| 11th-15th | 2.5m | 1m | 0.4m |
| 16th-20th | 2m | 0.9m | 0.3m |
Big bucks, maybe worth signing a new player or two for that money!
Finally I do think they need to properly support ladder leagues or at least multiple stages a season. The FA ranking was introduced to bring more importance to FA games, then they introduced the Super FA with a massive amount of games thus in turn diluting FA games :)
I get the idea behind the Super FA allow more meaningful games for hardcore / heavier users but it's just a nonsense.
A 21 Day season is fine if your Casual but the pace of the game is too slow for hardcore if you run the leagues twice / three times a season then the pace of the game changes.
5 comments:
My problem with this is that for competition driven pay will inevitably make the rich richer and the poor poorer... It will be harder to get to the top and harder to fall off it.
I think the idea is that it's more expensive at the top.
i think this system would work, as atm if a top team has a bad season it doesnt mattet at all. but if the system is changed a bad season may mean u have to sell a player.
I think this is a decent idea since I do think it would be nice to make competitions be more important. However, I feel that if this scenario was implemented it would become much harder for the little teams to really go up the ladder. The way the game is right now, I have seen teams go up to top50 in one season and top10 in two seasons (I'm not sure if they will last though), but I also have seen teams that went the stadium route that are slowly climbing up the ranks. I am one of the stadium types and now (my 3rd season) I can even put up a decent game against some of the top teams in my GW, but what keeps me playing is knowing that my carefully planned strategy is already paying off and it will really pay off in a few more seasons, regardless of weather I finish on the top of my FA or not.
The other issue with this scenario is the fact that players will begin to pick their FA based on which FA will pay them the most rather than picking an FA that suits that persons schedule. This is a big deal for me since I live in Canada and the best times for me to be playing are not very popular. So I'm in a FA which in my opinion has one of the hardest selection of teams, making it so it is even harder to climb up in my FA.
I think, I don't know, we'll see something from Si along these lines but not quite so harsh.
Post a Comment