💡 Suggestion: Balancing Local Rewards Based on Wages

I’ve been thinking of a possible solution to make local rewards more balanced, similar to how the division wage weight system works.

🏆 Current System

Right now, the Prize Percentages by Position are fixed as follows:

🥇 1st place → 20%
🥈 2nd place → 15%
🥉 3rd place → 10%
4th → 8.2%
5th → 7.8%
6th → 7.0%
7th → 6.0%
8th → 5.0%
9th → 4.4%
10th → 3.8%
11th → 3.2%
12th → 2.7%
13th → 2.2%
14th → 2.0%
15th → 1.5%
16th → 1.2%

This works fine most of the time, but when a league is unbalanced — for example, the top teams pay far higher wages than the bottom ones — the rewards also become unbalanced.
In those cases, bottom clubs can make profits while the top spenders struggle to break even, even if they perform as expected.

⚙️ Proposed Change

At the start of each season, we could calculate how much each team contributes to the total wages of that league.
So the 16 teams together would sum up to 100%, and their individual percentages would reflect their wage share.

Then, the league prize distribution would be adjusted according to those wage percentages.

Example:

• The team that spends the most on wages pays 30% of the total wages in the league.
  → 1st place prize = 30% of the total prize pool.

• The team with the 2nd highest wage share might pay 20%, so 2nd place prize = 20%, and so on.

📈 Outcome

This means your wages effectively become your season expectations:

• If you finish above your wage rank → you overperformed and make a profit.

• If you finish below your wage rank → you underperformed and lose money.

⚖️ Possible Downside

The only small downside is for the team paying the most wages — they’d earn roughly what’s expected rather than more.
But since they’d likely be earning more than they currently do under the fixed system, that’s not a major issue.

Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this!
Do you think this would make local competitions fairer and more performance-based?

+1 I guess thats fair 

I am not sure that it can be applied for all leagues, for example my A1 league, first team contribute approx 70% of wages, 2nd team approx 25%, next 3 teams together approx 5%, and rest are bots.

Means: 1st price 70%, 2nd 25%, 3rd 1.9%, 4th 1.8%, 5th 1.8%, 6th - 16th 0%

in my opinion it should be fixed + variable price, for example 50% is fixed and 50% based on wage. then in my league case will be

1st 20/2 + 70/2 = 45%

2nd 15/2 + 25/2 = 20%

3rd 10/2 + 1.9/2 = 5.95% 

etc.

You mean that the prizes will be based on the wage percentage in the championship ?

I think the idea is great . I always say that this game is the best game of this kind of game .And I love the game .But in my humble opinion the actualy and the proposal sistem of prizes are a litlle unfair .

For example Paris Saint Germain had Messi and Mbappe and they did not won the champions league .In that  competition they "lost" money in that way of thinking. Paying more money wages do not represent wining or returnnig of the "investement" surely. 

My suggestion is this standing :

1 -10%

2 - 9.5 %

3- 9 %

4- 8.5%

5 -  8%

6 - 7.5%

7- 7%

8- 6.5 %

9 -6.00 %

10 - 5.5 %

11 -5 %

12- 4.5%

13 - 4 %

14 - 3.5 %

15 - 3%

16 - 2.5%

Fletcher90

I am not sure that it can be applied for all leagues, for example my A1 league, first team contribute approx 70% of wages, 2nd team approx 25%, next 3 teams together approx 5%, and rest are bots.

Means: 1st price 70%, 2nd 25%, 3rd 1.9%, 4th 1.8%, 5th 1.8%, 6th - 16th 0%

in my opinion it should be fixed + variable price, for example 50% is fixed and 50% based on wage. then in my league case will be

1st 20/2 + 70/2 = 45%

2nd 15/2 + 25/2 = 20%

3rd 10/2 + 1.9/2 = 5.95% 

etc.

@Fletcher90 Good suggestion

I agree with Fletcher90. Actually, in the Spanish leagues, for example, the result in the table is 30% of the prizes; they're based on many values. But simplifying it greatly, a mix could be created. Use those calculations you provided to allocate 50% of the prizes based on their salaries and the other 50% based on established percentages.

That's a good idea. I only see a couple of possible downsides:
1) In lower-level groups, the prizes would be too flat, as all the teams would most likely have similar wages. First place and last place would end up being paid more or less the same.
2) Even where there is good variability in the salaries, there could still be groups of teams with similar wages. This would lead to blocks of positions with the same prize, which isn't good because it encourages match-fixing in the last rounds. Plus, it would be weird to have the same prize for the first two positions, for example.

@Fletcher90 suggested a good fix for those issues, it could work well. But probably, rather than taking the average of the two components, they could be combined in nonlinear ways to enhance the variability. For example, taking the average of the squares could enhance the variability in the first positions and flatten the last ones

If you have a league where you have 2-3 teams with similar salaries...that means you will not have an difference between first and third place for example. That means...the fight for trophies is useless.

Plus...as you say Nicmo if you finish above you make profit and if you finish below you loose. Ok, and what about the teams that are paying the most salaries and win the league. They break even no?

Sugestion. Take Seria A Italy for example. Fix income, + variable depending on the place you finish + market fan base ( and this you can replace with ELO ranking in KOB )

Ralf

If you have a league where you have 2-3 teams with similar salaries...that means you will not have an difference between first and third place for example. That means...the fight for trophies is useless.

Sugestion. Take Seria A Italy for example. Fix income, + variable depending on the place you finish + market fan base ( and this you can replace with ELO ranking in KOB )

 

@Ralf There is a difference, not in term of place reward but, 1st place will play in supercup  - according with country coefficient place 2 can be the last CL entry spot, so, finishing in any of the first places in a league have a real difference.

i think idea is very bad and make game worse than it is

Hmm, I think Fletcher90's idea is better,

because imagine in a league where only 3 are the ones who give the biggest salary bonus, the others would all receive from those 3, as he suggested it would be 50%, 50%, so it seems fairer, those who pay more salaries the bonus would be bigger, those who pay less salaries would be smaller

Ralf

If you have a league where you have 2-3 teams with similar salaries...that means you will not have an difference between first and third place for example. That means...the fight for trophies is useless.

Plus...as you say Nicmo if you finish above you make profit and if you finish below you loose. Ok, and what about the teams that are paying the most salaries and win the league. They break even no?

Sugestion. Take Seria A Italy for example. Fix income, + variable depending on the place you finish + market fan base ( and this you can replace with ELO ranking in KOB )

 

@Ralf +1, I like the ranking ELO idea, currently ranking ELO dont care so much, only for CL draw and even of that sometimes you have better ELO and get worse group.

Ralf

If you have a league where you have 2-3 teams with similar salaries...that means you will not have an difference between first and third place for example. That means...the fight for trophies is useless.

Plus...as you say Nicmo if you finish above you make profit and if you finish below you loose. Ok, and what about the teams that are paying the most salaries and win the league. They break even no?

Sugestion. Take Seria A Italy for example. Fix income, + variable depending on the place you finish + market fan base ( and this you can replace with ELO ranking in KOB )

 

@Ralf, it seems to me that you are basically proposing to flatten the prizes. Now they only depend on the position, if you combine the current weights with the Elo ratings the difference between the first and the last one will become smaller, because the Elo rating of the first team will always be less than 10 times the last one. And if you even add a fixed part to the equation, the difference will become even smaller. Am I misunderstanding something?

Everything depends on how you put the %.

Anyway i dont have any problems with what will be decided.

Hi. I'm new and haven't been here long. But I think the prizes are pretty good as they are.

It's each user's problem to spend more than they earn, just like in the real world. Just like in personal finance. If you earn 100 and spend 110, you'll have a problem.

The top positions also have an extra prize in several countries: access to continental competitions.

On the other hand, this game is similar to old games like Anno or Terra... for a few to actually win money, it takes a lot of people to lose it. On the other hand, the prizes distributed in the leagues are also directly tied to the money earned in the game.

Not all leagues are the same, and there are several highly competitive leagues in the game with many players, where factors other than the money coming into the game—I mean real money—come into play.

But let's look at what happens in leagues like Wales, where I'm based. There are barely five active users, and in the short time I've been here, I've seen no team invest any money. Since the entire fund wasn't distributed last season, the available funds have increased this season, but they've also increased because I've invested money in the game.

In the last five months, there's only 0.02 Platinum in revenue. In one month, with my low investment,  earned 7 Platinum. That's just over 250 Gold.

With Gold revenue, something similar happens. It's not fees or taxes that increase the Gold, but investments, such as press releases and youth players.

What I want to explain with this is that paying more salaries doesn't equal generating more funds to distribute. The last-place team in any division signs three five-star youth players and will have generated more funds than most teams.

It would be possible for the three teams with the highest salaries to occupy first, second, and fifth place and have the highest salaries. In this case, the fifth-place team would receive a larger prize pool than the third-place team, and the third-place team may have contributed twice as much to the fund.

I think the current system is fair. Every player should be able to balance their finances. Some will spend more on salaries, others will spend more on other aspects of the game, and neither should be rewarded for it.

The current system is balanced, and it doesn't take into account your impact on the game's economy. Each player competes for certain goals or achievements. You can spend 10 seasons saving up, and then spend your savings for a couple of seasons trying to win it all. Or you can directly invest real money. The game offers the same possibilities for everyone, with different methods. You can invest real money and go very quickly. Or you can save and save, and go slower.

And I say all this because I thought this was a soccer simulation, where what matters is the final position, the trophies you win, NOT A COMPETITION TO SEE WHO HAS THE HIGHEST SALARY.

Ralf

Everything depends on how you put the %.

@Ralf, that's exactly the problem, I guess. We need to find an algorithm to calculate different and appropriate percentages for groups with different compositions, rather than using fixed percentages. Otherwise, it's better to stick with the current ones

Kasyade

Hi. I'm new and haven't been here long. But I think the prizes are pretty good as they are.

It's each user's problem to spend more than they earn, just like in the real world. Just like in personal finance. If you earn 100 and spend 110, you'll have a problem.

 

@Kasyade always this shit lol. This explanation keep coming by a few months but iys wrong. Simple example, today, are 5 big teams in a league, it requires top tier players to fight them, high expenses, if one of those 5 quit , will remain 4 big spenders whose wages go only up but income will be lower. If those 4 left managed to do fine when were 5, now most likely not- based on your theory, they have to downgrade now cause reward sistem is fine and the rest of 12 teams should make profit cause its all ok. This change is more than great YOU GUYS MST CONSIDER THAT WAGES PAID GO IN FEDRATIONFUNDS and AT END OF SESON, federation allocate funds to national league, cup, supercut. Even if a team fund federation with 90% , it will earn 90% of natiobal league bonus which i think it s 30% OF FEDRTION FUN. so, at best, from national league will win maximum 25% ish, for rest must make up from international competition or self pocket CAUSE EVEN WINNING NATIONAL CUP/SUPERCUP it won t give much bak as funds are well splitted...

Top wage team will be ok with that

and others no

Or more easy :

Big team=big wages=better match=more spectator=more entry stadium

@Adrian09, it is also possible that 1 new big spender come, and then rewards are bigger. Current major problem is how to attract new players that wants to invest, as currently is hard to be competitive in CL/CC if you dont invest at least 200-300 euros

Adrian09

Kasyade

Hola. Soy nuevo y no he estado aquí por mucho tiempo. Pero creo que los premios son bastante buenos tal como son.

Es problema de cada usuario gastar más de lo que gana, al igual que en el mundo real. Al igual que en las finanzas personales. Si ganas 100 y gastas 110, tendrás un problema.

 

@Kasyade siempre esta mierda jajaja. Esta explicación sigue apareciendo unos meses, pero es incorrecta. Un ejemplo simple, hoy en día, hay 5 grandes equipos en una liga, se requieren jugadores de primer nivel para luchar contra ellos, altos gastos, si uno de esos 5 renuncia, seguirán siendo 4 grandes gastadores cuyos salarios solo suben pero los ingresos serán más bajos. Si esos 4 que quedaron lograron hacerlo bien cuando eran 5, ahora lo más probable es que no, según su teoría, ahora tienen que degradar ahora porque el sistema de recompensas está bien y el resto de los 12 equipos deberían obtener ganancias porque todo está bien. Este cambio es más que genial USTEDES MST CONSIDERAN QUE LOS SALARIOS PAGADOS VAN EN FEDRATIONFUNDS y AL FINAL DE LA SESIÓN, la federación asigna fondos a la liga nacional, la copa, el supercut. Incluso si un equipo financia a la federación con el 90%, ganará el 90% del bono de la liga nacional, que creo que es el 30% de la diversión de fedrtion. por lo tanto, en el mejor de los casos, de la liga nacional ganará un máximo del 25%, para el resto debe compensar la competencia internacional o el bolsillo propio PORQUE INCLUSO GANAR LA COPA NACIONAL / SUPERCOPA no dará mucho dinero ya que los fondos están bien divididos ...

 

@Adrian09 

This is what always happens in games... we all want the best team in the world. We spend too much, and we want the game to compensate us for not knowing how to manage a club's finances.

Look at the English example. The vast majority play at a loss. How do they compensate? With their own investment from their magnates.

Do you want the best team? The best player in every position? The best substitute for every starter? Do you want to win every competition? Sounds perfect to me, then pay for it with your own money.

Everything you're explaining makes no sense or logic. If there are 3-4-5 teams that always win everything, and are the ones that spend the most, it's either because they're playing at a loss with their own money, or they're not actually losing money and are recouping it with continental competitions. The other option is that they have funds and are spending them.

At some point, those teams that play at a loss will either leave the game or stop making private investments, and then other teams will take their place.

Rewarding the biggest spender has never been good for financial balance, either in games or in the real world.

Financially, the game seems fairly balanced. The problem always lies with the players, not the game itself.

i think there should be a system who let people who pay a lot, to pay bills from stadium / winning maches income. End of season should be a their earning

Kasyade

Hi. I'm new and haven't been here long. But I think the prizes are pretty good as they are.

It's each user's problem to spend more than they earn, just like in the real world. Just like in personal finance. If you earn 100 and spend 110, you'll have a problem.

The top positions also have an extra prize in several countries: access to continental competitions.

On the other hand, this game is similar to old games like Anno or Terra... for a few to actually win money, it takes a lot of people to lose it. On the other hand, the prizes distributed in the leagues are also directly tied to the money earned in the game.

 

Not all leagues are the same, and there are several highly competitive leagues in the game with many players, where factors other than the money coming into the game—I mean real money—come into play.

But let's look at what happens in leagues like Wales, where I'm based. There are barely five active users, and in the short time I've been here, I've seen no team invest any money. Since the entire fund wasn't distributed last season, the available funds have increased this season, but they've also increased because I've invested money in the game.

In the last five months, there's only 0.02 Platinum in revenue. In one month, with my low investment,  earned 7 Platinum. That's just over 250 Gold.

With Gold revenue, something similar happens. It's not fees or taxes that increase the Gold, but investments, such as press releases and youth players.

What I want to explain with this is that paying more salaries doesn't equal generating more funds to distribute. The last-place team in any division signs three five-star youth players and will have generated more funds than most teams.

It would be possible for the three teams with the highest salaries to occupy first, second, and fifth place and have the highest salaries. In this case, the fifth-place team would receive a larger prize pool than the third-place team, and the third-place team may have contributed twice as much to the fund.

 

I think the current system is fair. Every player should be able to balance their finances. Some will spend more on salaries, others will spend more on other aspects of the game, and neither should be rewarded for it.

The current system is balanced, and it doesn't take into account your impact on the game's economy. Each player competes for certain goals or achievements. You can spend 10 seasons saving up, and then spend your savings for a couple of seasons trying to win it all. Or you can directly invest real money. The game offers the same possibilities for everyone, with different methods. You can invest real money and go very quickly. Or you can save and save, and go slower.

And I say all this because I thought this was a soccer simulation, where what matters is the final position, the trophies you win, NOT A COMPETITION TO SEE WHO HAS THE HIGHEST SALARY.

@Kasyade, you're 100% right; that's how football manager games work in theory, and more broadly, management in general. And you already have a deep understanding of how the funds work, even though you just started playing… I sense trouble if you decide to aim for the top 😉

However, there are a few aspects to consider. I’m playing in Italy; it’s one of the most competitive leagues and, with many big clubs contributing to the funds, the rewards are good enough to maintain a high-ranked team. In our League, players’ wages are the main income source for the federation fund, which gets it from the global fund when the amount for the wages is way higher than stadium ticket revenue for that country.

In Wales, being the only investor, you’ll probably win the league easily and qualify for the only CL spot available. But in that situation, you would have two possibilities: playing according to your League’s budget and most likely being beaten mercilessly by the reserves of the top clubs in CL, or gambling on building a top team, which you could only maintain if you’re lucky enough to get outstanding CL results. In both scenarios, the current rewards distribution system would be a limiting factor: in the first case, you might have been interested in pushing a little more, and the game would lose a potential top team. In the second scenario, you’d probably struggle to maintain the team even if you win all league games, and weak teams could exploit the situation and enjoy undeservedly good rewards thanks to your efforts, just by beating bots without any real merit. That may not be an issue when playing with virtual money, but it's not good in a game with real money.

Plus, the top leagues aren’t completely safe either: when we buy 5-star youths, we are spending money on something that will only start giving us real benefits after a few months. What if in the meantime most of the top clubs in my league decide to stop playing or move somewhere else? I would have the same problem as you. Finding a way to distribute League rewards based on the number of competitive clubs would help to mitigate the issue a little and give similar opportunities to all the players. That doesn’t mean rewarding the top spender, because that doesn't always imply reaching the first place and you still have to earn it, but it limits easy exploitation. Plus, the league bonus only accounts for 47% of the federation funds; the other money will still be divided as it is now. Otherwise, being the only competitive club in a nation would become a huge competitive advantage for CL with this proposal.

maridiba

Kasyade

Hola. Soy nuevo y no he estado aquí por mucho tiempo. Pero creo que los premios son bastante buenos tal como son.

Es problema de cada usuario gastar más de lo que gana, al igual que en el mundo real. Al igual que en las finanzas personales. Si ganas 100 y gastas 110, tendrás un problema.

Las primeras posiciones también tienen un premio extra en varios países: acceso a competiciones continentales.

Por otro lado, este juego es similar a juegos antiguos como Anno o Terra... Para que unos pocos realmente ganen dinero, se necesita mucha gente para perderlo. Por otro lado, los premios distribuidos en las ligas también están directamente vinculados al dinero ganado en el juego.

 

No todas las ligas son iguales, y hay varias ligas altamente competitivas en el juego con muchos jugadores, donde entran en juego otros factores además del dinero que entra en juego, me refiero al dinero real.

Pero veamos lo que sucede en ligas como Gales, donde estoy basado. Apenas hay cinco usuarios activos, y en el poco tiempo que he estado aquí, no he visto a ningún equipo invertir dinero. Dado que no se distribuyó todo el fondo la temporada pasada, los fondos disponibles han aumentado esta temporada, pero también han aumentado porque he invertido dinero en el juego.

En los últimos cinco meses, solo hay 0.02 Platinum en ingresos. En un mes, con mi baja inversión, gané 7 Platino. Eso es un poco más de 250 de oro.

Con los ingresos del oro, sucede algo similar. No son las tarifas o los impuestos los que aumentan el oro, sino las inversiones, como los comunicados de prensa y los jugadores juveniles.

Lo que quiero explicar con esto es que pagar más salarios no equivale a generar más fondos para distribuir. El equipo que ocupa el último lugar en cualquier división firma a tres jugadores juveniles de cinco estrellas y habrá generado más fondos que la mayoría de los equipos.

Sería posible que los tres equipos con los salarios más altos ocuparan el primer, segundo y quinto lugar y tuvieran los salarios más altos. En este caso, el equipo en quinto lugar recibiría un premio acumulado mayor que el equipo en tercer lugar, y el equipo en tercer lugar puede haber contribuido el doble al fondo.

 

Creo que el sistema actual es justo. Cada jugador debería poder equilibrar sus finanzas. Algunos gastarán más en salarios, otros gastarán más en otros aspectos del juego y ninguno debería ser recompensado por ello.

El sistema actual es equilibrado y no tiene en cuenta tu impacto en la economía del juego. Cada jugador compite por ciertos objetivos o logros. Puedes pasar 10 temporadas ahorrando y luego gastar tus ahorros durante un par de temporadas tratando de ganarlo todo. O puede invertir directamente dinero real. El juego ofrece las mismas posibilidades para todos, con diferentes métodos. Puedes invertir dinero real e ir muy rápido. O puedes guardar y ahorrar, e ir más despacio.

Y digo todo esto porque pensé que esto era una simulación de fútbol, donde lo que importa es la posición final, los trofeos que ganas, NO UNA COMPETENCIA PARA VER QUIÉN TIENE EL SALARIO MÁS ALTO.

@Kasyade, tienes razón al 100%; Así es como funcionan los juegos de Football Manager en teoría y, en general, en la gestión en general. Y ya tienes un profundo conocimiento de cómo funcionan los fondos, aunque acabas de empezar a jugar... Siento problemas si decides apuntar a la cima 😉

Sin embargo, hay algunos aspectos a considerar. Estoy jugando en Italia; Es una de las ligas más competitivas y, con muchos grandes clubes contribuyendo a los fondos, las recompensas son lo suficientemente buenas como para mantener un equipo de alto rango. En nuestra Liga, los salarios de los jugadores son la principal fuente de ingresos para el fondo de la federación, que lo obtiene del fondo global cuando el monto de los salarios es mucho mayor que los ingresos por entradas para estadios para ese país.

En Gales, al ser el único inversor, probablemente ganarás la liga fácilmente y calificarás para el único lugar disponible en la CL. Pero en esa situación, tendrías dos posibilidades: jugar de acuerdo con el presupuesto de tu Liga y lo más probable es que te derroten sin piedad las reservas de los mejores clubes de la CL, o apostar por construir un equipo superior, que solo podrías mantener si tienes la suerte de obtener resultados sobresalientes en la CL. En ambos escenarios, el sistema actual de distribución de recompensas sería un factor limitante: en el primer caso, es posible que te haya interesado empujar un poco más y el juego perdería un posible equipo superior. En el segundo escenario, probablemente tendrías dificultades para mantener el equipo incluso si ganas todos los partidos de liga, y los equipos débiles podrían explotar la situación y disfrutar de recompensas inmerecidamente buenas gracias a tus esfuerzos, simplemente venciendo a los bots sin ningún mérito real. Eso no es bueno en un juego con dinero real.

Además, las mejores ligas tampoco son completamente seguras: cuando compramos jóvenes de 5 estrellas, estamos gastando dinero en algo que solo comenzará a darnos beneficios reales después de unos meses. ¿Qué pasa si mientras tanto la mayoría de los mejores clubes de mi liga deciden dejar de jugar o mudarse a otro lugar? Tendría el mismo problema que tú. Encontrar una manera de distribuir las recompensas de la Liga en función del número de clubes competitivos ayudaría a mitigar un poco el problema y daría oportunidades similares a todos los jugadores. Eso no significa recompensar al que más gasta, porque eso no siempre implica alcanzar el primer lugar y aún así tienes que ganártelo, pero limita la explotación fácil. Además, el bono de la liga solo representa el 47% de los fondos de la federación; el otro dinero seguirá dividiéndose como ahora. De lo contrario, ser el único club competitivo en una nación se convertiría en una gran ventaja competitiva para CL con esta propuesta.

@maridiba 

I understand everything you're explaining. But what will happen if we increase the prize pools for the biggest spenders? Well, they'll spend even more... It's something I've been seeing for over 20 years, since the days of Hattrick, Popmundo, etc., etc. It's always the same: we try to compensate by increasing revenue, and that only generates inflation.

I've only been here a short time, but I'm sure those of you who have been playing for a while have already seen the inflation in the player market. And even more so with money coming directly into the game. If more money comes in than goes out, inflation occurs. The more money comes into the game, the more expensive and difficult everything will be. And if you also increase the revenue for the biggest spenders, what I'm saying will happen: they'll spend even more, and when that happens, they'll want more income again xDDD.

Monetary balance is possible, and salary balance is possible too. At least from what I've seen, two players who are almost the same, one at 21, earns less than the other at 29... maybe... we need to balance the squad... have a very good starting XI... and some reserves... not so good...

And we have to consider that the more players enter the game, with the proposed change, they'll have an even harder time... and it's not easy to get new players for this type of game.

Any change in the game should be thought out so that the few new players who arrive stay to play.

As for my league, there are already two teams that regularly play in European competitions, and I'm still far from their level. In any case, my strategy will be to prioritize finances first. That's why my first investments are in the stadium. For my league, I have a team that I believe is sufficient to advance, and at the same time, I have a positive balance of weekly revenue.

And of course, I have the ambition to one day fight for the Champions League, but I will try to maintain a balanced finances, and my victories will come through strategy.

@Kasyade inflation is a common problem for the games with virtual money because there are no constraints, they can create money out of the blue. Here the money for stadium tickets come from the global funds, and if stadium payout were increased, for example, there would be less funds for CL and CC, and also less funds sent back to the federations. Indeed, the value of the players has decreased over time, but just because of initial hype probably, no signs of inflation anyway. Also because the spawning price is fixed. There could be higher rewards if more money comes in, but that's far from being a problem 

maridiba

Ralf

Everything depends on how you put the %.

@Ralf, that's exactly the problem, I guess. We need to find an algorithm to calculate different and appropriate percentages for groups with different compositions, rather than using fixed percentages. Otherwise, it's better to stick with the current ones

@maridiba

I think this change is good overall. And the main focus is the % distribution. @Fletcher90 gave a good idea to devide fixed and variable parts 50%/50%. I think this should be closer to 25% current fixed system and 75% depending on wages. This way we still have some reasonable prizes scale for those leagues where bottom teams are very weak or bots.

Vigilant

maridiba

Ralf

Everything depends on how you put the %.

@Ralf, that's exactly the problem, I guess. We need to find an algorithm to calculate different and appropriate percentages for groups with different compositions, rather than using fixed percentages. Otherwise, it's better to stick with the current ones

@maridiba

I think this change is good overall. And the main focus is the % distribution. @Fletcher90 gave a good idea to devide fixed and variable parts 50%/50%. I think this should be closer to 25% current fixed system and 75% depending on wages. This way we still have some reasonable prizes scale for those leagues where bottom teams are very weak or bots.

@Vigilant

Big players must can still pay their salary. 
Even for very small or weak teams they can still grow, but it is very slowly if they dont invest. No need give non investors more money. Yeah its can be hard for first seasons to promote or going to higher league division, but that is ok. If people want much to earn high prices Yeah then they must invest.

Dont do anyhting about the leagueprizes.

Better look into the cup prizes. Most small clubs profit from the cup prizes that are to high for lower matches.

I've never understood the concern of small teams. In this game, anyone can become great; you just have to invest some money. The real problem is another: IS IT STILL WORTH INVESTING? AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, NO. My humble opinion.

PvPNyko

Dont do anyhting about the leagueprizes.

Better look into the cup prizes. Most small clubs profit from the cup prizes that are to high for lower matches.

@PvPNyko

dont worry. Chance that weak teams reach half final is very small. I think cup prixes are fine

I'll explain the reason for my criticism. Because it seems like I'm trying to trash KoB, but I really like it. I'll start by saying that I'm not here to earn or withdraw money; I just play because I've always liked online football management games. Back to my criticism. I've been playing in Serie A for 13 seasons: finishing fifth once; third place 10 times; and second place once. I've always participated in European competitions. This hasn't brought any benefit to my club's finances. I repeat, I didn't want to make money, but given my league positions and having always participated in European competitions, I expected to at least break even. I think this is absurd and unrealistic. MY HUMBLE OPINION.

Remember that KOB is going forward thanks to those who invest, without investments you can only close shop, if we really want to help those who invest, we must return 30% to all those who pay salaries. Only in this way will we help those who pay a lot of salaries. Increasing the first place in the championship by 30% is useless if the luckiest one then wins, for example in the Italian championship there is someone in first place who pays half the salaries of those in second and third place, so we do nothing but enrich those who pay less salaries more, instead by returning the salary to everyone by 30% we will really help those who pay too many salaries and encourage many people to invest in KOB

@palermo, if you just want to return 30% to people who pay salaries, then 30% deduction of salaries are easiest way, but then it is just decrease of salary, nothing that really improve game. On the contrary this proposal from Nicmo, gives more fairness in league rewards, but still needs to be achieved by better strategy and little bit luck.

For Italy and Romania dont expect some big change in reward, as you have much players with high salaries, but for other leagues it can be more rewarding for higher paying players

Vigilant

@maridiba

I think this change is good overall. And the main focus is the % distribution. @Fletcher90 gave a good idea to devide fixed and variable parts 50%/50%. I think this should be closer to 25% current fixed system and 75% depending on wages. This way we still have some reasonable prizes scale for those leagues where bottom teams are very weak or bots.

@Vigilant, I agree with @Fletcher90, a combination of weights proportional to the salaries and the current weights could be a good solution. But, as @Ralf and I already pointed out, there must be enough difference between consecutive positions on the ranking, and your 25%-75% suggestion could improve the situation in countries like England. Still, it won't work well in lower divisions and countries filled with bots, as the prizes would become too flat. I think it's worth trying different solutions to combine the weights; a linear combination would provide weird results in some groups, so something nonlinear could be more appropriate, or at least I hope so...

I think it's a good idea, but be careful with the words used. With the salaries which increase due to training, you could finish at a better place than you should if we only look salaries, but still lose money 

If they find to less prize league then they can decide to promote and get higher prize income.

Stoneisland

I'll explain the reason for my criticism. Because it seems like I'm trying to trash KoB, but I really like it. I'll start by saying that I'm not here to earn or withdraw money; I just play because I've always liked online football management games. Back to my criticism. I've been playing in Serie A for 13 seasons: finishing fifth once; third place 10 times; and second place once. I've always participated in European competitions. This hasn't brought any benefit to my club's finances. I repeat, I didn't want to make money, but given my league positions and having always participated in European competitions, I expected to at least break even. I think this is absurd and unrealistic. MY HUMBLE OPINION.

@Stoneisland you played 9 seasons in continental cup i repeat continental cup, second tier in european competitions...and you just made a final. Nothing won. And the rest 8 season out before a final.

In italy, you won 2 cups and a supercup.

So...with this results you want to break even? You barrely won something in matter of competitions.

The fact that you pay a big salary on bad trained players...that doesnt mean you need to break even.

Before comment...learn the game!!!

palermo

Remember that KOB is going forward thanks to those who invest, without investments you can only close shop, if we really want to help those who invest, we must return 30% to all those who pay salaries. Only in this way will we help those who pay a lot of salaries. Increasing the first place in the championship by 30% is useless if the luckiest one then wins, for example in the Italian championship there is someone in first place who pays half the salaries of those in second and third place, so we do nothing but enrich those who pay less salaries more, instead by returning the salary to everyone by 30% we will really help those who pay too many salaries and encourage many people to invest in KOB

@palermo i dont know man..why you say maridiba is lucky. If you check the last seasons...you will see that you won all 3 supercups, he won only one cup, in CL not even a final. He won one trophy and one final in all seasons in CL.

Ok..he won the last 3 seasons in italy...but this comes because he is making the less mistakes than you. Dont forget...you changed tactics more then once in the last couple of seasons, etc.

But regarding luck of maridiba. I dont see it like that...and the results of his team in the last seasons showed that.