[Official] The King of Kings Challenge - FULL TIME!

[nikolgiorgos]

It is not a broken draw. I think it is meant to be like that. If they put all about the same quality teams together, more deserving teams will get eliminated in the early rounds, while weaker, semi active teams will progress furthur. If people complain about playing versus weaker teams, clearly something is wrong with their attitude unless they are among the weaker, semi actives and they want all opponents in their group to be like them for their advanatage, which is understandable.

For comparison, in real life football, all first seeded and second seeded teams are not put together in the early rounds. It is sort of planned that if top seeded teams passed through the early rounds, they will meet each other later.

If the registration was in auto I would agree with you but joining the event show at least some minimum activity.
I can agree that a table with 10 teams of 40% q looks silly (and rather tricky ) as an active team can build a a squad of 80% quality to play seriously the game.
So I would say a q difference of 5% looks fair (ok max 10%) to make the contest interest.
Actually to be like associations. Close qualities.

I 'm playing the contest with four teams. I 'm waiting the end of day to show you the tables where 60-70% of the teams didn't play a single game.
Is this fun ?

[Nebu]

If the registration was in auto I would agree with you but joining the event show at least some minimum activity.
I can agree that a table with 10 teams of 40% q looks silly (and rather tricky ) as an active team can build a a squad of 80% quality to play seriously the game.
So I would say a q difference of 5% looks fair (ok max 10%) to make the contest interest.
Actually to be like associations. Close qualities.

I 'm playing the contest with four teams. I 'm waiting the end of day to show you the tables where 60-70% of the teams didn't play a single game.
Is this fun ?

Most T11 players are seasonal players. They are available mainly on weekends and holidays. I don't think Nordeus will unilaterally add a team that did not sign up for the event. And like Tactician rightly said earlier, top players are seeded otherwise the finals will be nothing to write home about. If a club signed up to play but doesn't show up, you don't blame FIFA or UEFA.

Besides, the game engine has this beatability margin that adjusts according to each teams training regime not even the quality of the team. So yes a "weak" team with an active manager who know their onions still do stand a chance...

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

[Reece p FC]

not sure about seedings, a 100% quality team could be a low seed in 1 group and top seed in another, not sure the one in a tough group would see the fairness, if they were gonna do that they'd have to announe where the lines are drawn so you know where your team will figure

[Tactician]

If the registration was in auto I would agree with you but joining the event show at least some minimum activity.
I can agree that a table with 10 teams of 40% q looks silly (and rather tricky ) as an active team can build a a squad of 80% quality to play seriously the game.
So I would say a q difference of 5% looks fair (ok max 10%) to make the contest interest.
Actually to be like associations. Close qualities.

I 'm playing the contest with four teams. I 'm waiting the end of day to show you the tables where 60-70% of the teams didn't play a single game.
Is this fun ?

You want all the other 9 teams to be active and around the same quality as you, and on top, fighting each other at every opportunity, with some even go buying new players or even make mutants just to kick each other? Are the current rewards even worth for this type of challenge? Many active teams with decent management will get knocked out of the first phase itself as there are limited places for promotion to the next phase; 6 active teams will get nothing, and this will be more unfair. Better let the decent managers kick out the more poorly managed teams and reward them with something.

In my group, I did not challenge the other 3 teams just below me in the rankings to give them a chance, and they did not challenge my team either, but they were playing by challenging those weaker, semi-managed teams, and they got some cups. But, if 10 such active teams were put in the same group, 6 active teams will get nothing for their effort. I hope you get my point. Futhermore, we already have associations matches for the type of challenge (or fun) you are looking for. Personally, I would not like to have the same thing as associations in King Of Kings format.

[Tactician]

If the registration was in auto I would agree with you but joining the event show at least some minimum activity.
I can agree that a table with 10 teams of 40% q looks silly (and rather tricky ) as an active team can build a a squad of 80% quality to play seriously the game.
So I would say a q difference of 5% looks fair (ok max 10%) to make the contest interest.
Actually to be like associations. Close qualities.

I 'm playing the contest with four teams. I 'm waiting the end of day to show you the tables where 60-70% of the teams didn't play a single game.
Is this fun ?

Ah, maybe now I get it. You expected more teams to be active given that it was not an auto registration competition. On my side here, 6 played at least one match; not as poor as on your side. Also, one of the manager of the weakest teams been challenging others including my team. He even strenghten his team it seems. I think it is a matter of availability, priority and also the rewards are not motivating.

[NUNO FC]

Ah, maybe now I get it. You expected more teams to be active given that it was not an auto registration competition. On my side here, 6 played at least one match; not as poor as on your side. Also, one of the manager of the weakest teams been challenging others including my team. He even strenghten his team it seems. I think it is a matter of availability, priority and also the rewards are not motivating.

I agree with you rewards don't motivate the players and they also don't think long term (undertanding that even if loosing you can win rest and morale packs)

[nikolgiorgos]

Ah, maybe now I get it. You expected more teams to be active given that it was not an auto registration competition. On my side here, 6 played at least one match; not as poor as on your side. Also, one of the manager of the weakest teams been challenging others including my team. He even strenghten his team it seems. I think it is a matter of availability, priority and also the rewards are not motivating.

yes, I 'm disappointed because the concept is a good idea.
Right now NIK has 8 trophies, the 2nd has 2 and the 3rd 0.
Just waiting to finish phase 1.
No fun, no challenge, no thrills.
It could have been much better than this.

[Tactician]

yes, I 'm disappointed because the concept is a good idea.
Right now NIK has 8 trophies, the 2nd has 2 and the 3rd 0.
Just waiting to finish phase 1.
No fun, no challenge, no thrills.
It could have been much better than this.

In my group, they are active, and if I slept or settled with a few cups only, they could have overtaken my team in the ranking.

[Reece p FC]

yes, I 'm disappointed because the concept is a good idea.
Right now NIK has 8 trophies, the 2nd has 2 and the 3rd 0.
Just waiting to finish phase 1.
No fun, no challenge, no thrills.
It could have been much better than this.

both my teams won 9 out of 9 games on both days(i was highest rated team in both but not by miles), day 2 i didnt recieve 1 challenge on either, on 1 acount there were a couple of others active enough to win about 5 trophies, and a couple more won 2 each on day 1, neither of those bothered on day, 2 on my other account the other 9 were barely active at all and 5 or 6 not at all, just a shame there werent more on offer seeing as i topped the thing for once