German Challenge? A small rant.

[Oluwafemi]

Same with me.
The challenge idea is a waste of time
Let them stick to the goals and assist as well as how old the goal scorer is
That's the only reasonable way to get tokens for us all

[GreatGamer170]

I won the tour and I had no problems in most of the games!

[texhorn60]

Sure you did!
6 league titles
6 Cups
3 CL
7 seasons, and my first was 3 games

[Jorge Timóteo]

I think it was way too expensive to rejoin, particularly since you knew you were most likely to get pummeled again anyway.

Still, my main gripe with the challenge (and with the way Top Eleven currently works) is that the quality of the opposing teams was based on the quality of your team. This makes no sense whatsoever to me. It completely defeats the purpose of building a strong team, since you will have as much difficulty in the challenge playing as a 150% team as you would with a 50% one.

For instance, I must have been around 110% at the time of the challenge. Team 10 (Berlin) was 159%. I think I rejoined twice but could never get past city 7. But then I remembered a second team I had created years ago to try out a few things and pretty much not touched since. I went back to it and found it was 40% quality. And because the quality of my second team was so low, Team 10 in the challenge was a mere 87%. All I had to do was buy 11 players of around 90% quality (old players, so almost no one else would be bidding for them) and I won the entire challenge on the first try. If I remember correctly, I think I won 4-1 in the final.

Wouldn't it make more sense for teams in the challenge to be the same quality for everyone? Say Team 10 would be 140% quality, for instance. If your team was 80%, you would have a hard time winning the challenge, but that would serve to encourage you to try building a stronger team. And if your team was 130% and you won the challenge with relative ease, then good for you. You would just be reaping the just rewards of working hard to have such a strong team.

[texhorn60]

I think it was way too expensive to rejoin, particularly since you knew you were most likely to get pummeled again anyway.

Still, my main gripe with the challenge (and with the way Top Eleven currently works) is that the quality of the opposing teams was based on the quality of your team. This makes no sense whatsoever to me. It completely defeats the purpose of building a strong team, since you will have as much difficulty in the challenge playing as a 150% team as you would with a 50% one.

For instance, I must have been around 110% at the time of the challenge. Team 10 (Berlin) was 159%. I think I rejoined twice but could never get past city 7. But then I remembered a second team I had created years ago to try out a few things and pretty much not touched since. I went back to it and found it was 40% quality. And because the quality of my second team was so low, Team 10 in the challenge was a mere 87%. All I had to do was buy 11 players of around 90% quality (old players, so almost no one else would be bidding for them) and I won the entire challenge on the first try. If I remember correctly, I think I won 4-1 in the final.

Wouldn't it make more sense for teams in the challenge to be the same quality for everyone? Say Team 10 would be 140% quality, for instance. If your team was 80%, you would have a hard time winning the challenge, but that would serve to encourage you to try building a stronger team. And if your team was 130% and you won the challenge with relative ease, then good for you. You would just be reaping the just rewards of working hard to have such a strong team.

I figured that out later that was what they were doing. It wasn't just paying the tokens to play again but they wanted people to spend tokens training their players, which would have cost $400 to $500 dollars for me to beat 180% teams because when you start going for the ninth star, fast trainers have no advantage. It takes about 225 to 275 rests to make that jump with good trainers so to improve 11 players would have taken 5,000 rests. Remember in my case the teams were not level six nine- star players but maximized level seven nine stars. I understand they have to make money but they are hurting themselves. They treat this game as a five star restaurant when they should think of themselves as McDonalds sell more tokens by making them cheaper, easier to buy. Who cares if the teams are seven to eight stars or five or six? Let players buy tokens to train their players. They should experiment by lowering the token price by 50% just to see what happens.

[Jorge Timóteo]

I figured that out later that was what they were doing. It wasn't just paying the tokens to play again but they wanted people to spend tokens training their players, which would have cost $400 to $500 dollars for me to beat 180% teams because when you start going for the ninth star, fast trainers have no advantage. It takes about 225 to 275 rests to make that jump with good trainers so to improve 11 players would have taken 5,000 rests. Remember in my case the teams were not level six nine- star players but maximized level seven nine stars. I understand they have to make money but they are hurting themselves. They treat this game as a five star restaurant when they should think of themselves as McDonalds sell more tokens by making them cheaper, easier to buy. Who cares if the teams are seven to eight stars or five or six? Let players buy tokens to train their players. They should experiment by lowering the token price by 50% just to see what happens.

I agree that Nordeus are often too greedy for their own good. For instance, having people pay 18 tokens to rejoin from city 7 in this challenge was too expensive. I'm sure there weren't many managers willing to pay that much. Conversely, if they had charged, say, 9 tokens, the number of managers paying to rejoin would have increased by a lot. And in the end, what is best? 100 people paying 18 tokens or 1,000 people paying 9?

Also, I don't see much incentive to buy tokens in order to improve my team. Like I had explained in detail on another thread, my team is around 104% at the start of each new season and I tend to get put in leagues with very strong teams. For instance, this season I have three teams that were over 115% on match day one. On the other hand, a RL friend of mine who also plays the game has an 82% team and he is usually the strongest team in his league. What this means is that it is actually easier for him to win titles with an 82% team than it is for me with a 104% one. How crazy is this? Instead of encouraging me to buy tokens in order to improve my players, the current system often makes me feel I should probably sell off my best players so that I would get put in easier leagues and play exclusively against same level teams in the Cup and Champions League. Nordeus are basically shooting themselves on the foot here.