Players with negative quality, but represented by 1%.

[asmartins]

A practice known as upSelling, where the player is passed from level to 1%, is leaving players with negative quality and decreasing their overall quality improperly.

All Top 1 Associations players are like this. Cause impression of a weak player, but when it is simulated the game become monsters.

[nikolgiorgos]

Sorry, don't understand Spanish.
What's the difference between pic 1 and 2 in calculations ?
How comes this 76% & 204% ?
If you don't mind to explain more

[asmartins]

Sorry, don't understand Spanish.
What's the difference between pic 1 and 2 in calculations ?
How comes this 76% & 204% ?
If you don't mind to explain more

Of course I explain better and thank you for your attention!

Figure 1 is a copy of the attributes of the player, to make the comparison with figure 2.

Figure 2 is a copy of the attributes, but the averages (in green) and the overall quality, I made a simple average calculation as the information is presented.

What I wanted to show, is that with this "UpSelling" they are doing, each level that the player passes decreases the attributes. It turns out that a moment arrives, that this value is getting negative, but Nordeus continues presenting as 1%.
This makes the general quality of the player, consider negative values, apparently decreasing (76%). But by the time they get to the game, these players are real monsters, so much so that no one can make it to Top1, which has all players like that.

I would really like this to arrive consistently even at Nordeus, as it is a major vulnerability.

See a comparison, considering only the averages.

Here we have what it's presenting in the game to 76%
.

Here is how it should be presented to achieve 76%

[nikolgiorgos]

So (if understood correct), as Sausy here
https://forum.topeleven.com/top-elev...g-changes.html
is saying about a max value of 180%, there should be a down limit of 1% (the visual one) and not less than this.
This could "solve" (a part of the) problem ?

[asmartins]

So (if understood correct), as Sausy here
https://forum.topeleven.com/top-elev...g-changes.html
is saying about a max value of 180%, there should be a down limit of 1% (the visual one) and not less than this.
This could "solve" (a part of the) problem ?

Yes, the maximum value was established, however, the correct one would be the 1% being used as the lowest value, just as it is presented in the game.

Can you get a feedback on this, or at least a positioning?

[nikolgiorgos]

don't worry, adms are also watching the forum, specially lately

[Altiplano]

don't worry, adms are also watching the forum, specially lately

Well I hope one of them picks up on this.
Player in opening post belongs to a team that this season appears to be tanking.
If nothing is done to penalise repetitive tanking soon, then this player will still be a 340/1% mutant/well trained player until he retires in July or August 2019.

[nikolgiorgos]

Tanking- staying lv, doesn't affect what @asmartins said.
Rather the opposite.

When we promote and keep very low q players, their visual and real q are different.