This is the general discussion forum for English. When you post in this forum you have to use this language. Posts in other languages may be removed without notice. This forum uses subsections for posts with different topics or purposes. Please posts bugs in the bugs section and take some time to figure out where other posts should go.
TV-revenue - too low, promotion discouraged? (24)
Compared to real life, TV money seems to be relatively low, causing issues in the Promotion/Relegation dynamics and leading to potentially negative, counter-productive and inauthentic gameplay.
For example, in England, getting 85 points in L3 gives about £ 8.6 mil of TV revenue. This is matched in L2 by getting ~67-68 points, which is in turn matched in L1 by getting around ~53-54 points.
Now, naturally, Popularity and Attendances will still be up once you get Promoted - but overall, you're likely to be battered and destroyed by the teams in the higher League. Your own Popularity will take a hit and you'll get Relegated unceremoniously.
Importantly, this means that surviving a few Seasons in the "higher" League actually doesn't pay off. You'll barely be scrapping by and you'll be earning LESS money than, say... Getting 2nd in the lower League and "accidentally" losing in the Playoffs.
Practical examples are always the best - look at my Team, then compare it to the teams in L2; the implications are clear, I have to get ~6th to earn as much money from TV-revenue as do in L3 from a strong season... Which is almost impossible, I'd likely struggle around 17th place and earn LESS THAN HALF than I did in L3.
The logic is, in my mind, just not there. Why would I want to get promoted when I can just chill in L3, win more matches and earn more TV-revenue than if I were fighting tooth-and-nail in L2?
That is thus my point - realism or authenticity, doesn't matter which, both are missing from the game. You're encouraged to do something no club would ever want to do in real life, something that feels "dirty"... And it makes 0 sense that the higher Leagues would not have a much better TV deal (point-to-money ratio).
Getting Promoted in real life football isn't a magical "+1" to a Club - they often struggle and get Relegated back. However, the TV money (especially in England) makes it much more likely for a Club to stabilize with just 1 good Season.
More importantly, above all else, Clubs ALWAYS want to get Promoted. No Club wants to get 2nd and then not get Promoted. ALWAYS, always is it a priority to get Promoted. Get battered in the higher League? Who cares, we got Promoted last year and we will give it our all to get Promoted next year!
Thus, the game mechanics of RS make this most natural,authentic approach to directing a Club illogical and unwanted. Huge failure in game design there.
I know nothing will change since the Dev(s) don't care enough to even sell the game, but, eh... It's just lame.
Absolutely spot on.
The way the game is designed the only real benefit to promotion is the increase in attendances. Almost everything else is worse. The extra costs in better players, fewer cup matches, and slower popularity growth usually far outweighs any benefit.
So unless your club is ready it's usually best to stay where you are and keep building and/or saving money. Some even get themselves deliberately relegated.
I spent 16 season in Level 5 just building the club and growing popularity in order to try and catch up as quickly as possible. Apart from the cup runs a lot of it was fairly boring playing bot teams most of the time.
The game does need to make promotion more attractive but unfortunately it's unlikely that anything will change so you either have to play the game as it is or try and climb the league as best you can and take the consequences.
Main reason i decided to try staying up was half of bots in lower league and lower attendances. The bigger stadium you have the more you will lose in stadium income. Once i wanted to go up even if i should be guaranteed last but when i got finally promotion and lost my playoffs thanks to only shots he had in both matches on second top tier season to team that was already selling most of his players and scored some 3 goals on whole next season i suddenly didn't want go up again- some psychological block. After another relegation i started to play again with new generation and with poor keeper from my own academy and decided that i will go up again only if my fieldplayers are good enough to win L2 with some 5-6* keeper who will concede almost every shot. But finally it happened and L2 was boring too because half of teams were bots and other teams there had no ambition for promotion too. I buyed some older players that would keep me up and i won finally my first playoffs against relegation from L1. Two safe seasons have followed but i will never be one of regular euro teams in Estonia. After some seasons my friend will pass me again and push me to playoffs and possibly relegation sooner or later. Then i will sell again all main players and maybe start again with youngsters when getting more money for some facilities. I doubt between FA3 and YA4 as my heart want YA4 but fellow managers say that with FA2 i will never have chance.
One reasons why you are maybe struggling financially are low facilities after 2.5 years in human leagues mostly. Your stadium should be at least twice bigger and currently you have needed attendances too. You spend 20M to pointless players like https://rockingsoccer.com/en/soccer/info/player-2238761 when you would get much better ones for almost same money who aren't needed by some top teams and are going to bank at the age of 22+ because nobody want them. Ranhotra will barely reach to current first team and when he fail to reach there you will get less money for him than you payed. 2 of such players and you have money for 50k stadium.
You have to bear in mind that PTG is trying to play it as a straightforward football management game and not 'gameplaying' the RS system for maximum efficiency. Plus the fact that all his players are 'English only'.
No doubt some things could have been done better but what you see as poor choices are mainly the result of the way that he's chosen to play the game.
Which ultimately is the point that's being made. The game design has disadvantages if played 'normally'.
For comparison he started his club about 2 months before mine and played it 'straight'. Always trying for promotion with many seasons struggling in level 3 - which slowed popularity growth and stadium building - and spending his spare cash on players and only building what he could afford.
Whereas my approach was the complete opposite where I 'gameplayed ' the system, staying at the bottom level and prioritising popularity growth, buildings and farming players.
Neither approach was wrong, just different. But it highlights the weaknesses in the game design.
With more TV revenue you would never ever catch up though
if there'r any financial reward i would recommend is increasing the sponsorship money for each division. and rewarding the most active managers with extra income.
I decided i will win my league next season instead of dropping to league 2.. financially am only going to spend, my income will not change much. but at least i truely need this reward, for my time in rs.
I didn't complain about anything, I criticized the game. I didn't claim that I did everything optimally - both by choice (as Numpty implied) and by ineptitude, I'm sure my team could be much better...
But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Two issues: First, both systems are "the rich get richer, the poor stay poor" - but at least one is realistic and encourages you to always try and win. I know which I'd prefer.
Second, it's arguable that you're incorrect, as being last in the higher League could give comparable TV-revenue to being first in the lower league - thus still allowing for vertical growth over time.
Well maybe my point little bit drowned in long post. TV-revenue is most important income for starting clubs with tiny stadium and that was how i picked just this team: it was leading then League 4 group and so i got good financial pack for start. It was probably more than whole ticket income of my first full season. The bigger stadium you have the less important TV-revenue will be. Smaller TV-money will be compensated by bigger stadium income- that's why i decided finally to fight for top league spot.
Currently with max stadium my one home match income(tickets+snacks) is more than TV-revenue of league winner. Same time funds of TV-revenue are slowly growing: when i started on season 12 possible limit for Estonian champion would be 5M and now it's close to 20M. Ofcourse then nobody had stadium-11 and players prices were totally different but then was probably no red star players or they were quite rare.
Reason why TV-revenues are now quite marginal and prices for continental football just ridiculous was to avoid increasing differences between top clubs and next ones. IRL these two are often main sources for top clubs that keep them in top almost eternally until some total financial error to push club into debts.
As you say currently TV-revenues on winning lower league are much bigger than being mid-table in higher league. But that difference is still so marginal that it can't give you important advantage over higher league strugglers and in most leagues there is large gap between league levels. It's common in real life too. Too big realism would make game same boring as most of real leagues where same clubs dominate for decades and other clubs can interfere only temporarly. Here is also "human factor": when manager of top team leave the club it will decline and some new clubs have chance to take over spot.
I think the system used to work, but it probably broke over time when the game went from being very new and all managers had low level facilities to the current position where lots of people have stadium 10/11 and high level facilities.
Getting into higher leagues meant people could piggyback off bigger clubs with high popularity. It was an interesting system of letting people catch up. But now the gap is massive, it takes more than that I think.
There are still mechanisms like loan signings where you can get three players who are strong enough to make a difference. Obviously if everyone is doing this then it's likely to be less effective...
I don't know what the answer is to fix the problem you highlight. But it's still possible to go through the leagues with careful planning and strategy. Kezza did it when he restarted and he did it really quickly too. He then found it a bit of a struggle in the top flight - the problem you are highlighting, I suppose. But my guess is he also didn't have as much time as he used to, because he stopped playing the transfer market in quite the same way.
Also @PTG I can't see any way as to how the game can be "re-balanced" so as to make leagues competitive, restore order in the market and the player wages without revamping the entire system. Probably one of the reasons why Vincent won't come back (other than to fix bugs).
I made a proposal some time back that Facilities should lose a level after a certain time and had to be re-built. This would make it possible for a balancing in cost and catch-up.
Reasons why it lose a level could be like, new tech available or needing restoration.
I still believe this is a pretty good way of providing some balance.
@Kupus That would become a major hassle and would reduce the quality of teams. Not sure if that's a bad thing however.
What about a cooldown period for construction?