Subject: NEWS Sokker- big changes are coming!

there is also third possibility, most probable imo, that you are wrong and formula is ~ok

Is this calculation made on a specific day or it takes for example an average of the whole season?

I remember Geston saying an average of the season

Thanks

I can confirm.

I am 100% sure that its wrong (on purpose or not). The proof is that it always calculates me as a champion, while the only thing that could influence it is my budget.

Money influence was cut really really much, you can only believe me, or not, not my problem.

But this doesn't mean, that money doesn't count at all...

If you have much, much more money then your rivals, than yes, still most probably money would have biggest impact.

Same situation would be if you would play in a league where all teams plays at 40-45% and your team plays at 60% - than probably notes parameter would be the one with biggest impact. But noone is complaining about where he plays at such big notes and has highest expectations.

if you divide the influence of the parameters by percentage, then this would not happen. But i am sure the equation is not done in that way, therefore is wrong.

Let me give you an example with 3 parameters so its simple i will put the same weight on all of them:
1. Average marks 33.3% max
2. Previous season position 33.3% max
3. Budget 33.3% max

Lets say my position in last season was 5th and my average marks are also on the 5th and i have the highest budget of all in my league(which is probably the case).

That would make the equation:
X = ( ( 12 - 5 + 1 ) / 12 ) * 33.3 + ( ( 12 - 5 + 1 ) / 12 ) * 33.3 + ( ( 12 - 1+ 1 ) / 12 ) * 33.3 = 77.7

For the 3 that relegated (or at least one of then) it could look like this: #1 marks, #1 position, average budget #6, therefore:
X = ( ( 12 - 1+ 1 ) / 12 ) * 33.3 + ( ( 12 - 1+ 1 ) / 12 ) * 33.3 + ( ( 12 - 6+ 1 ) / 12 ) * 33.3 = 86.025

The ones that finished above me have also usually better average marks, therefore they would be around my number or higher.

And if you say the influence of money was cut really really much, then i would say it would be about 10%.
So there is no way i would be calculated as a champion.

Its just the matter how the equation is done. Which is 100% wrong in my opinion.
But i am not the owner of sokker, greg&co can do whatever they want. I am just pointing out that it is still wrong. Budget has still the most importance in the equation that is implemented right now even if you say it was cut "really really much". I dont dispute if it was or not. I dispute the equation that is currently in place.
(edited)

But maybe how much money you actually have is the data used in the equation, rather than the ranking of teams according to the budget. Let me explain with an example:

Imagine a league where the team with most money has 1 000 000 $ and the team with least money has 250 000 $. Now imagine another league where the team with most money has 1 000 000 000 $ and the team with least money still has 250 000 $. Should the money factor weigh the same in this situation, just because of the budget rank?

but do you know how much money do you have in comparison to your league rivals?

what if you play with similar avg team notes but they have ~30 mln in budget and you have 300?

I also dont think ranking teams by money or whatever should be taken into account. That would be unfair imo and would result with very bad formula. E.g someone with slightly worse team rank (2. in league) and 10 or 100 times more money (1. in league) than the other one (respectively 1. and 2. in team ranks and budget) could have similar expectations that way, which would not be good.

Real numbers should be used: real club budgets, real overall marks etc. and I hope it is done using them.

@CesarTheodoro and @kryminator

I know for sure that it is exactly as you describe and that's why i am saying its wrong in the meaning "money influence was cut really really much". This keeps money influence "really really high" as a matter of fact it keeps it as a major factor.

I will give you a real life example.
You are saying that a person of 200 IQ should be the next Bill Gates.
But the person is a hippie and does not care about using his/hers potential to achieve high goals in short term. They may use the potential anytime later in the future, but not now.
You are expecting the person to become Bill Gates tomorrow.

Real numbers should be used: real club budgets, real overall marks etc. and I hope it is done using them.
That's not how statistics work. That would be like mixing apples and oranges. You must put weights and put them into boxes to get a meaningful number.

I never said that the parameters should not have any weight or should be equally important or their values should not be scaled so they are comparable or any contexts (like e.g. league levels) should be omitted.

Anyway, to really know whether the club budgets are taken into account in the expectation formula too much you have to know how much money your league rivals have.

I also dont think the game should be trying to guess that someone now having now 10x more money than his league rivals combined will win that league 15 seasons from now and therefore they should not expect him to win now, because he decided to prepare for long-term reign in some unknown future.

Borkos - your scope argument (large vs small countries) makes sense in many cases. I am just not seeing it here.

You said it yourself. You literally have the money to do so, but you are choosing not to spend it. We don't agree on optimal training percentages, for me when 25 minutes league time gets you 96.6% training there's no rational excuse to go further and claim you are trying to win.

Your argument is essentially poor 'me' - I'll have to spend down my bank balance to make the fans happy. This is essentially the argument I am making, based on what Raul wants. He wants you to spend down your money. You CAN compete, especially with your tactical acumen. You choose not to. Although to be clear, I am not saying YOU are complaining here :) It's bluezero. Ultimately, if you are that wealthy to begin with, then you honestly don't NEED the money from fans anyway. It's a moot point for folks like you.

The only beef I've repeatedly had with these changes is that as implemented they are severely gimping stadium income. This affects both rich and poor (me) alike, the latter more so since folks like me rely on team success and corresponding fan turnout for games as our primary source of income. More than this, though, it is illogical. If a team has vice-championship fan demand, and they are in second place, their stadium should sell out. This isn't wishful desire, this is common sense logic. If it's top half demand and they are in 3rd place, fans should be selling out your stadium.

These are assuming reasonable ticket prices, naturally.

Don't forget that the problem which completely unbalanced the economic of sokker was when they doubled amount of home games per season and did NOTHING for a couple of seasons to counter it. So now it's playing catch up with an absurd amount of money pumped into the system.
Is your income from tickets affected in a way that you get 2x less now? I don't think so...

The only question here that i asked/disputed is whether money still has the biggest influence on the calculation or not.
And it does, because its putting apples together with oranges.

If the owners want it so, so be it. Then just no one can claim that budget does have low influence.
Thats all what i am saying nothing more nothing less :-P.

(edited)

Thats completely true, before i was struggling to get break even every season. Now i always make a nice profit.
I agree that there should be done something about it. But struggling to break even was also not good. The only way to make profit back then was with trading, that should not come back.