Subject: Questions & Answers

I guess I am missing something here.

How/why does it matter which "team" your opposition plays against you? I was under the impression that it was the level of importance that I played that determined whether I would be penalized; not the strength of my opposition.

I'm confused. Your opponent fielded a weaker team than usual, you played him on lower importance and lost. Theoretically (since I don't know which game you're referring to) you could have played higher importance and won. You think you shouldn't be penalized for essentially giving up the game? Or am I missing something?

But only for the actual season which ends at day 112, that's what I wanted to say.

I have a question
Will Iran have a national team and a separate league in the next season?

Only if they've had plenty of communication with the sim's team to date about it, have someone willing to take a lead role in the community, have a general consensus that they want their own leagues, and have an assured non-fleeting population (50+) of GMs.

I've been wondering of late if they plan on re-incorporating Ireland back into the Other World.

hi Vlady,

what is going on with the spectator calculation?

take a look at that game:

hockey.powerplaymanager.c...

1.PO Semi-Final

2.Derby

3.almost perfect built arena

4.High importance

Result: 14.600 spectators

That cant be right.

He played very low importance the game before and lost.

why has it an influence on the next game? Its a whole new game and these are PO-Games!!!! should a team be punished cause it lost the game before? i dont think so. I played very high and lost in the game before and also lost more than 3,000 spectators.

to play on very low on the road is a tactical option! It shouldn't be wrong to choose that option.

Why didn't i get 20000 in my last game? Dont say its cause i played with low in the second and very low in the 3rd period the game before.

Well, the spectators usually don't know how a team plays before the game is over, so it makes more sense that they go home angrily and don't pay an enormous amount of money for the next game...

I can't answer your second question as you don't want to hear the answer.

that just would make sense if you would know how much own fans travel to games on the road and pay for it. In hockey there are not much fans which do that. Just look at NHL,KHL PO-games. In that games you dont need to ask everybody which is his favorite team. Just wait till first goal and you will see that 90% of the spectators are home-team fans.

I dont wanted to hear that answer cause its more than just ridiculous. Now the calculation punishes a manager who had already lost a game which he obviously wanted to win and it rewards stupid manager which waste their energy for already lost games. so a manager who is trying to find the best tactics for his team will loose money. Its just can be a joke

Imagine you go to your favorite team game, pay the bill, and see your team "walk" on the ice. You will be angry, and the next game at home, maybe you won't go.

It what happened in this case. He played is second game on very low, lost it ON PURPOSE, only to have a 3rd game at home. It's not reallistic, are you agree ? So, to avoid that behaviour, penalty on affluence is the best thing to do. Cause play a 3rd game on purpose is an avantage that only the strongest team can have.

Did you see the Kings lost game 5 and 6 only to have a 7th game at home ? This is not the spirit. If you lose on puspose, don't expect from your fans they'll come at the next game as nothing happens...

what are you talking about? he played his FIRST game on very low and DONT have the third game at home. That was JUST a tactical option to have more chances to win a 3rd game AWAY. He has still the AWAY-Disadvantage.

and your argumentation still don't explain MY last game!

Ok, don't be mad, I thought it was to have a third game. So it's more stupid than I thought, cause play (and risk to lose) the first game on very low just to try to save energy, when you know that the fans could be angry if you do that... Excuse me, but I don't think it's the better thing to do.

We're used to play on very low almost of our games since 16 seasons, but you will agree than a "normal game" should be played in "normal" intensity. The devs put a way to recalibrate our vision of the game. Now all the teams have to play in normal intensity since the beginning of the season. 97 days ago... It's not so new...

For "easy" games, you can play "low" or "very low", but not without risks. The manager should knows these risks.


Also, you said : "that just would make sense if you would know how much own fans travel to games on the road and pay for it. In hockey there are not much fans which do that. Just look at NHL,KHL PO-games. In that games you dont need to ask everybody which is his favorite team. Just wait till first goal and you will see that 90% of the spectators are home-team fans"

Don't you know than fans can watch the game on TV ? If you see your team playing away like pee-wees, maybe you will not going to the next home game. If YOU play on "very low", no matter if it's home or away, your next HOME game will be impacted by the fans anger. Isn't it logical for you ? For me it's pretty clear... And only team to be impacted will be the one who play on very low...


For your game, I didn't look at, sorry. I only take a look at the link you post earlier. But now I check it, it's for the same thing : you drop the game at 0-2 after only 20 minutes. Imagine your favorite team drop the game in same circunstances, I don't think you will appreciate. You took for example NHL and KHL : only this season, just count how many games had rally-past from 0-2... I don't think the PO would be more pleasant or exciting if teams send their 4th line when they loss 2-0 after 20 minutes...

So yes, your fans was angry in front of their TVs, when you asked to your players to drop the game, against a weaker team (268 vs 306 Team Force). Don't expect them to buy a ticket for next home game, and that's what happened.

And it's all logical. Too bad if you can see it...

i am not mad

Yes it is risky to "give away" a game, but its definitely not stupid if you have the the 3rd game away. He has the stronger team so he was pretty sure that he will win the home-game and he was right. so he saved some energy for the 3rd game.

as you see i did not begun to compare the reality and PPM at that subject, cause its not really appropriate here.There are too many different factors which have an influence on the spectators in PPM and real life. One: for a real fan it doesn't matter if there is a restaurant on the home stadium or not.

That TV argument isn't a good one, if you compare it with PPM. How do you want to see what importance your team is playing. Can you really see the difference between normal and very high in reality? do you want to punish your team if it lost the last game cause in your opinion it looked like it played on low? That all through the TV Maybe it was just a bad day? how do you know the difference? And at the end: Every game is a new game!

Look, you can think what you want about it, but that new spectator calculation punishes a manager who is trying to hit the right tactics in the POs.

The right approach in the playoffs is to try to win every game. The only reason to not try in an away game is if you're trying to force a home game for ticket revenue. This is not realistic and does not support the true spirit of the game. The changes were designed to punish that. There is no other reason to play game 2 away soft than to assure a game 3 at home if you've already won game 1 at home.