Good morning and Merry Christmas everyone.

I’d like to suggest introducing tournaments with fixed team rating ranges, to make them fairer and more attractive.

For example:
0 – 55
55.01 – 60
60.01 – 65
65.01 – 70
70.01 – 75
75.01 – 100

Currently, very wide ranges (like 54–100) strongly favor high-rated teams, making it almost impossible for lower teams to compete meaningfully.

With fixed and recurring ranges, more managers could find suitable tournaments every day, increasing participation and overall appeal.

Looking at the current tournaments:

Day 25 – Tournament 1 [0–52]
Day 24 – Tournament 11 [0–62]
Day 24 – Tournament 10 [0–70]
Day 24 – Tournament 9 [0–57]
Day 24 – Tournament 8 [54–100]

In the 54–100 tournament there are currently only 3 registered clubs, all with an overall of 80+ (80–82).

This effectively excludes a large portion of managers in the 70.01–76/77 range, who have no realistic chance to compete.

Considering that tournament registration costs money, entering such a wide range tournament makes little sense for most teams.

Creating fixed 5-point rating ranges would make tournaments much more balanced, allowing fairer matches and encouraging more managers to participate on a daily basis.

Obviously, the exact size of the ranges (3, 4, 5 points, etc.) can be discussed.
The numbers above are just an example to illustrate a new system that could be more functional.

I agree to this. I almost stopped participating in tournaments as 54-100 is the only tournament my team can participate and all 80+ avq teams will be the majority in that group.

Setting a max AQ to exclude stronger teams is necessary, but setting a minimum to exclude weaker teams is dangerous, as you would exclude potential interested participants.

Months ago, I had a lower AQ and used to play in the 0-67 and also 52-100 tournaments. I can't do it anymore but there are still many teams doing the same. I'm not against raising the max AQ thresholds, or maybe adding a few categories, but the minimum should still be 0, to make it more accessible

I agree with the minimum thresholds, so that it's a conscious choice to compete with the strongest, even for tests if desired. So the fixed range could be:

0 - 55

0 - 60

0 - 65

0 - 70

0 - 75

0 - 100

Other opinions?

interesting

adding : - tournament match dont count on average QR...some players exploiting that

             - keep a 60/70 range and 70/80, tournaments are a good thing to test team VS bigest one and new tactic

I want to bring this discussion back to the forefront because it had received a fair amount of support. @nicmo

SirAlex90

Other opinions?

@SirAlex90 Even 0-45 and 45-50...

Matthew

SirAlex90

Other opinions?

@SirAlex90 Even 0-45 and 45-50...

@Matthew Hi, thanks first of all for your reply. The thresholds can be studied, and I agree with you about adding 0-50 and 0-45. However, as Maridiba rightly suggested, it's better to create thresholds starting from 0, not 5 by step, so that even if someone is below the minimum threshold, they know they're facing superior teams.

The point is to avoid random thresholds like the ones we have now, which block a good alternative method for testing (and earnings). It's no coincidence that we've had the 0-71 threshold since day 9 and the 0-72 threshold since day 14, practically the same and completely useless, having been blocked for days.

we can try but having lots of narrow AVQ tournaments could make it harder to get enough participants to start the tournament

That's actually true. I also propose a different division of the extra budget, more in line with the salaries of the teams participating in the various tournaments.
I note that the current method usually involves 6-7 tournaments, so (imho) a fair balance might be these ranges (with extra budget when you want to include it, of course):
0-50 (extra budget 10)
0-56 (extra budget 20)
0-62 (extra budget 30)
0-68 (extra budget 30)
0-74 (extra budget 40)
0-100 (extra budget 50)

Holding a tournament below 0-55 was purposely ruled out because, creating lower tournaments would result in clubs with salaries of less than 1 gold per week. Winning a single match in these tournaments would cover the salaries for two seasons, which seems a bit illogical.

Silva007

My AVQ is low, I wouldn't sign up for a tournament with clubs with an AVQ of 0-55. It pays 5 Gold for 15 matches (0.66 gold per win). If a club wins all 15 games, it will have earned 9.9 gold. But realistically, a club with an AVQ of 45 playing against clubs with an AVQ between 50 and 55 will never make a cent of profit. Or have the slightest chance of winning. A range of 0 to 50 is more coherent for these clubs.

@Silva007

I changed the ranges using 6 steps for the maximum limit and not 5.