Forum: English 
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.
English >> Suggestions
team handicap or salary cap for fair competition (25)
i noticed in this game that some teams get so strong that it is boring because of it. there is no way a weaker team can improve as much because of how the game is made.
the bigger team keep get stronger and stronger and the weak teams cant fill the gap. to make better gameplay and more fair competition , there should be a handicap so that the things are more fair. i dont see the fun even for the strong team to keep win all the time. in my division , a team has no loss only 1 tie and scored over 120 goal and allowed only 6. this is ridiculous. very boring for everyone.
when you are in division 1 and see no hope to compete wth the big teams , there is no challenge and no hope to ever be in the top teams because of it. only solution is quit the team and make another team in a lower division to make the game fun again. this kills the interest of building a team on long team when you always end up fighting some impossible strong teams.
even in the real world, in some professional leagues , there is a salary cap so that the things can be somewhat more equal. this might be also another solution. one of those 2 solutions in league play would improve the fun and interest of play. then in international or national championship games , the handicap could be ignored. only apply to league games.
This discussion resurfaces from time to time. You started managing your team 1 year and 7 months ago. The top team in your division has been building his team for over 7 years. Is it unfair that your team is not as strong as his team yet? I don't think so.
In my opinion, it is not true that the small teams can't fil the gap. Yes, it takes time but that only makes sense and is a good thing. But in the end, the top teams are not the teams that have been playing for the longest time, the top teams are the teams with the best managers.
Wages and facilities costs do prevent clubs at the top from continually soaring away from the rest. It takes a long time to catch up. Having said that, you're third in your division and only 20 points behind the team at the top. That doesn't feel like a huge gap to make up to me which is a pretty decent achievement in the time you have been playing
To be fair I think it takes far too long to catch up - and perhaps there needs to be a compromise between the advantage of longevity and giving a new manager some kind of realistic hope of eventually closing the gap.
I've fairly recently finished building stadium 11. It took a little over 2 1/2 years starting from scratch. And most likely it will take at least another 18 months to fund and build some high level academies and start training up some top players.
Yes, it's perfectly possible to be competitive before then by spending cash on players rather than buildings. That's a personal choice but I'd prefer to play the long game. Better and more experienced managers may be able to do it a bit quicker.
If I'd been fully aware of those timescales at the very start I probably wouldn't have started playing.
But I don't think there are any easy solutions to this other than perhaps improving the starters bonus. People who have already invested 3, 4 or 5 years gradually closing the gap should not see their efforts undermined by a change that suddenly makes it a lot easier.
The claim that "the bigger team keep get stronger and stronger" is simply not true. Those at the very top of the pile are constrained by the costs of the buildings and the players' wages. Many have already reached their limits and those who are still getting stronger are the "chasing pack".
My one suggestion would be to make a small adjustment to the academies so each level gives less of a benefit.
In any event any kind of salary cap before fixing the wages formula for the top players would make no sense at all.
It does take a long time to reach the top, however the top teams are not uncatchable. Many clubs (notably FC Waganingen) are essentially bankrupt due to escallating wages.
Although my team was not in financial difficulty, after many seasons of domination, I sold pretty much all of my players so that I could save up some money to rebuild my team. Yes I have much better facilities than you and it will be easier for me to build my team back up, but ultimately you will get there if you keep playing.
You could speed up your development by farming players (buy cheap youths, train them for a couple of season and then sell them).
I think ultimately you have to enjoy the 'journey' of building a great club at least as much as arriving at the destination.
If you are completely fixated on beating the teams at the very top of the game then you can get there - eventually - but waiting for it is probably less exciting than watching paint dry.
I note that a couple of months back, you put up a suggestion to make results more predictable and reduce randomness - doesn't this contradict it somewhat, or have you cooled on that idea?
I think Numpty's description is right. You have to enjoy the journey/process/development to enjoy the game.
You could think about a jump to a different club if you want a shortcut. But you might have to move leagues to do that and I don't know how invested you are in the Swedish league
There's a limit to the quality of clubs you can get and the best ones are usually taken - and often destroyed - as soon as they become available by the regular jumpers.
If you already have a decent club the best plan is to stick with it and keep building.
Destroyed by jumpers. Harsh. Harsh, but fair.
To be fair I quite enjoy watching some of them. It all adds to the entertainment value.
When it takes a few years to build a decent club up you can find some small gains as you watch others being helped on their way down the greasy pole.
Best managers, did I heard you say that ? @ counter culture
This is strange
Why?
Yes, why is that strange?
The better managers will inevitably rise to the top. That's the nature of the game.
They are not necessarily all at the top - it depends how long they've been playing.
@counter_culture looks to be doing a fine job with his club if that was supposed to be a jibe at his expense