Содржина: I.1

Does anyone know if other countries are complaining about the economic situation as well? We are a pretty small portion of their player base.

If only I could read Czech, Slovakian or Polish...

Google translating that stuff is hilarious.

I tried a couple of threads...I needed a translator for the translation.

There is almost nothing you can do, unless they create something extra for real money. People who play from day 1, are always on top. Thats how online games go, unfortunately.

So either you play from day, or you have to invest big amount of money in the game, and those features will give you big advantage. Im not talking about 100$. A lot more.

Or penalize the top teams by reducing their OTR more at the end of the season If there was a theoretical max of 600 OTR from the beginning (which is about what you get if you reduce the I.1 winners OTR by 50% each season), things would be a lot more competitive/interesting. And the US probably wouldn't have lost so many great teams.

That combined with:
*Adding a fee for too many staff similar to the too many player fee.
*Hard cap of 50 players/20-25 staff.
*Remove the limit on the market fees. Why stop it at 50%? To increase daytrading? wtf?
*Fix your player salaries. Whether that's an increase across the board or something similar to what Leggmann suggested, I don't care. Both are probably needed.
*Media deals maxed at (???). Haven't worked this out, but I like the idea of a 20M max.
*General maxed at 30M? Maybe even less.

There might have been some other things we bandied about, but it's been a while.

There's simply too much money for the top teams. Leggmann was making around 1.6B before he went on his recent buying/selling spree. Expenses were around 700M (he posted his daily expenses were 5.8M). So without even trying he was making 800M profit easily.

My ideas don't even hurt the top teams that much (which seems to be the biggest criticism). It just stops them from crushing our souls. Leggmann's making 1.6B without trying, but 400M of that is tickets/souvenirs. Other top teams would be making similar if they developed their stadiums. If they don't have a fully developed stadium, then they might be -100M there. Say max sponsors are around 50M per week for the best team, That's 800M per season. I'm an avg second tier team in soccer and I make 30M per week, 480M per season. So I'm a total of 420M behind a maxed out top team. That's perfectly fair.

Now I know that if I max out my stadium, my ticket revenue might only be 20-30M behind them until I start selling out. And if I'm good enough to become a top tier team (not the best team, just competitive with the best), my sponsors would get closer to 40M per week. Now I'm only around 200M behind the maxed top team.

Add in the fact that the top team's OTR is limited more than mine because he loses a higher % each season, and I can get closer than that. Now there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

With increased player salaries, that top team might actually have to manage his team at some point, too

I see you focus on penalizing OTR, but what exactly does that influence outside of attendance? That was the only thing I saw mentioned in the guide that it actually influences. Does it have some affect on sponsorship deals or something? I feel like I'm missing something here.

OTR affects your all your deals at the end of the year
they calculate all the deals and then drop it whatever % it is - if you want a sample of how much the $ drops I once did the math wrong and had a skybox finished in week one. Got a 5* offer for it but it was worth about 1/2 what I was making for a 4* skybox that had a deal signed the week before with the previous season's undropped OTR.

Like Legg's said, OTR is one of the more important aspects for your sponsors. It's the best way to attack the top teams within the framework of PPM as it is now. I also like Leggmann's suggestion of raising the salaries of players in the elite 5%.

I haven't seen any other suggestions that would actually do something positive. Most other ideas seem to be based around everyone making similar money. Maybe that would work with a new sport if it's done in the beginning? I don't know. But I want to actively attack the top teams. I want it to be harder to stay on top.

I don't think anything like this will happen. The US is worst case scenario and it's too small to force any sweeping changes. And the top teams in the bigger countries are all ProPackers. They're the long term users. They pay the bills. Nothing will be done to upset them too much. They'll keep tweaking things until things get better. But it's going to take a while.

"But it's going to take a while."

Indeed, but most of us might not be here that long.

wonder if the other countries see attrition like us.
You do see inactive teams in the champion's league and the cup winner's cup from other countries too but seems like it's more often in our group.

I did a random sampling of some different sized countries going back to season 7. I just counted the number of dead teams each season. I didn't count individual teams. So, for example, the Red Wings will count as a dead team for all six seasons I checked. Of the 14 countries I looked at, only a handful were even in the same ballpark as us.

USA 45 dead teams
B and H 35
Ireland 31
Portugal 25
UK 17
Czech Rep 15
Slovakia 13
Canada 11

Those are all I.1 leagues. I also looked at the four Slovakian II leagues.
II.1 24
II.2 16
II.3 15
II.4 26

I think ours are inflated because we've lost so many top teams. Most of the other countries are losing mid to lower teams. So they only count for 3-4 seasons at the most.

What I probably should have done is picked one early season to look at. See how many dead teams each country has in season 3 or so.
US 12
Slovakia 9
UK 8
Canada 9
B and H 13
Portugal 12
Russia 7
I give up. I'm tired.

Happy B-Day reverist.