First off, I completely agree that it is unfair for some to get 100 while others barely get 10. But this fairness debate is very very uncomfortable for me. For many reasons.
We were matched this weekend with an association that started as 7 star and 6 star teams. Similar to ours. And I kid you not, within a matter of hours, the captain and one of his players suddenly had 9 stars with ratings of 179%!!!!! They managed to have so many of these super players that they loaned them out to the other players and still had super teams. Anyway, we were ranked 22, won all tournaments, they won only one before and had 3 third place. The result? 18 points - 18 points and we lost by goal difference of only 4 goals because of the stupid glitch that nordeus had again this week where we couldnt log back in to turn around games during the first round. Anyway, we finished 3rd and lost our spot in the top 100. Nordeus won't own up to their bugs and don't want to give us 40 points difference between first and third for a fault that is not ours.
As I understand it, it takes approximately 2000 dollars and upward to make a team of starters and subs total legend 9 stars from 7 stars if they used personal trainer which is most likely because it took them no time to reach that. At least several thousand dollars.
Now let's assume I am playing from Africa or South America, in a poor country where the standard of living is approx 100$ a month, lets even be generous and say somewhere where it is 1000$ a month.
We both can access the personal trainer just like both chinese vpn users and others can access free ads. But we both do not have the same amount of access to money to be able to train to 179%. Just like you do not see as many ads as a vpn user in china does.
How is THIS fair? How is buying all scouts every season fair when others can't do that?
This is why this whole angle on fairness is very strange. Like I said, I agree that they should let everyone be able to watch as many ads as everyone else. I DO NOT agree with them limiting it to a random number. Because this decision seems to have been driven by a player who has no access to more than 35 ads in their country.
Here's the problem: I am a shareholder in many gaming companies, and I will tell you this, if someone tells me that they have made us make less money from ads to make it "fairer" I would fire them. Companies do not care about fairness or anything other than profit. More ads = more profits.
If its a charity company and they make games that are fair then they should also limit the amount of tokens that people can buy in a season, don't you think? They should be able to limit the amount of personal training that a player can use, don't you think? They should be able to limit the amount of scouts people can buy per season. don't you think?
But that will never happen because these companies only care about their bottom line. They owe it to their shareholders. And since ad watching is a very solid revenue stream that is seperate from token purchases then limiting that revenue potential is as ridiculous as limiting the other things i gave examples of.
Again guys, I simply don't have the time to watch more than 10 a day, 30 maybeeee on weekends. but if we are asking for fairness then they should get more ad providers in so everyone can watch ads up to whatever limit it was before... Otherwise someone is going to be fired when the next ad revenue numbers come in
Does this not make sense to anyone?
Alx