no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Income from Games - variance between 1.1 and 2.2 Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
MTS1972
|
posted: 2012-09-26 12:58:17 (ID: 58775) Report Abuse |
|
One big thing that was introduced from S4 to S5 was the variance in income between if you play in the top league to if you play in 2.1 or 2.2
I played in 2.2 last season (first season in the game - maxed out stadium just as season ended) and got BOT flushed up to 1.1 for S5 - comparing my team to the other teams in 1.1 (all managed at start of season) i knew i was in for a long season, with my still relatively new rookie team well behind established others. Still - there was the 'riches' of 1.1 and the promise of a high draft position - so not all bad! Ive just done a comparison between my home attendances ( i am currently 5-7 - so not totally tailed off) and compared them to a team 15-1 in 2.2 and 9-4 in 2.2 - here are the attendances : Mine : 120529, 121378, 129091, 123476, 125024 and 124393 15-1 in 2.2 122655 every game 9-4 in 2.2 122655 every game bar 3 - 116934, 118286, 117439 If SC performances also count to league attendances, its worth noting that i have a much better SC record than either of the 2 x 2.2 teams. I cannot compare exactly how much revenue is the difference - but from the figures, and bearing in mind ticket prices are fixed across leagues - its clear to see it is negligble at best. So for being roughly mid table (19th ranked in league) in 1.1 - and unlikely ever to be able to improve that much within the league im getting a trivial amount more than a team ranked top 5 in 2.2 - and not much more than a team with a record not much better than mine in 2.2 Is this really fair/accurate? One thing that i believe should happen is that you should receive an income even if you are the away side. Lets say its 10% I would then be getting 90% of my home income every game and 10% of every away fixture (which in 1.1 equates to somewhere between a 12k and 14k attendance per game) whereas the 2.2 teams suffer when they play a BOT or noob as they have to give away 10% of their maxed out income but only get anything from 500 upwards for away fixtures, depending on the team they are playing (BOT, noob, growing team etc) - i would argue that you get nothing from playing a BOT at all. Ironically, there are a handful of BOTS in 1.1 now - but still maintain it should be the case anyway - youre guaranteed a win and about 200 points to your PD whereas the norm is about 10/12 ish!! If someone has the time or inclination to put approx cash values to these numbers great - but ultimately i dont believe either the splits are fair between 1.1 and 2.2 - even a team with a significant losing record in 1.1 should have a much more discernable income benefit than a team with a good winning record in 2.2? I also believe the away game income should be considered. Thoughts? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2012-09-26 20:46:12 (ID: 58854) Report Abuse |
|
Stop whining
Only joking yeah that's probably not a bad idea. The chances of victory are lower in 1.1 so maybe the revenues should be lower than 85% in 2.1 and 2.2 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hosh13
|
posted: 2012-09-27 05:46:44 (ID: 58891) Report Abuse |
|
Or we could add and exp bonus for div I.
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Income from Games - variance between 1.1 and 2.2 | |
