Nordeus' draw policy

[HeavensAAA]

Just to be fair, there are all different kind of quality range of teams that get promoted, say 180%+, 160%-180%, 140%-160%, and so on and probably down to 40%.

So what the exact kind of draws are you expecting?
Each draw include a 160% or 180% team and every other team under 160% and down to 40% (so non-160%/180% can be guaranteed to win nothing?)?
Or a on-paper fairer draw with all teams being in a similar quality range of 20%+- (so every team has a realistic chance of strengthening enough to win some trophies)?

You can always choose to reduce your team quality by selling off the non-core players for draws. Could be easier, but then every other manager could also be doing the same so that ‘advantage’ would not apply when it comes to semis and finals when the toughest opponents are good and know how to play the game too. Whether we could win will still come down to mainly tactical skills and some luck, on top of the expected know-how of good player and team improvements with well-planned training sequences.

Building very strong players to maintain team performance is necessary, hence it is inevitable to draw with tougher teams. But then our team should prevail with properly trained players and sound tactics.

Improve your skills enough then you can still win with tough draws (then you will stay); if not, it will still be very difficult to win finals even with a team of 10%+ advantage against better managers who trains better players (with higher whites) and knows well on how to set up counter attacks.

[maurizio2208]

@HeavensAAA
I understand your point of view but I totally disagree the policy to divide teams in groups [100-120%] [120-140%] and so on.
Which is the means of the level?
In this way, in the same level, you will have excellent leagues (let me say [120-140%]) and really poor leagues (less than 80%).
This policy thwarts efforts to grow a team.
In my opinion it would be much better to have seeded so that the championships are balanced at the same level.
Let me say 3 or 4 team in each range [100-120%] [120-140%] and so on.
And then Nordeus should punish teams that don't play the league in order to not get promoted for not losing 20%.
Maybe the level should be related to the team power % instead of the first 8 positions in the league.

If Nordeus wants to maintain this policy the ranges should be more close [100-105][105-110].
In my example I was 117% at the end of last season. 97% at the beginning of the new.
And now in my league all teams are among 100 and 118%.
Which is my hope to win with 19 points of difference, unless I bought tons of tokens, that of course is Nordeus only objective?

[HeavensAAA]

@HeavensAAA
I understand your point of view but I totally disagree the policy to divide teams in groups [100-120%] [120-140%] and so on.
Which is the means of the level?
In this way, in the same level, you will have excellent leagues (let me say [120-140%]) and really poor leagues (less than 80%).
This policy thwarts efforts to grow a team.
In my opinion it would be much better to have seeded so that the championships are balanced at the same level.
Let me say 3 or 4 team in each range [100-120%] [120-140%] and so on.
And then Nordeus should punish teams that don't play the league in order to not get promoted for not losing 20%.
Maybe the level should be related to the team power % instead of the first 8 positions in the league.

The more balanced way of draw is probably the current one with a quality range of 20%+-, or maybe it can be done to a micro level of 10%+/- then the draw would look fairer for the worst team with ‘only’ a 10% disadvantage to start with, which we could easily improve to bridge that 10% gap.

It is impossible to do seedings. Previous seasons top-ranked teams could be as good as 180%+, or could be as low as 40%+. Eg. If your team quality is 100%, would you feel thrilled as last season’s title winner to be drawn as top seed with even just 1x 140% team, let alone 160% or 180%?

And when same seeding as the lowest rating, say 80% team, how is it fair to that 80% team to face all 100%+, 120%+, 140%+, etc. teams in his draws? You already feel hard done by a possible 20% quality margin, so how would you feel when you are drawn with 40%+ and 60%+?

There’s nothing fairer to be drawn with similar quality teams, as most teams within the draw can all decide to improve to narrow that bridgeable 20% gap (that is de facto increasing competition from start of seasons, obviously at the advantage of Nordeus in earning Ts from managers buying better players).

Tanking would not help much, because next season your team, with a higher rating, will face even tougher draws with higher ratings. What’s worse is those higher rating teams are more likely to be bigger spenders (they won’t flip an eyebrow to spend 600T on a 8* player from events) or serial tankers (who could have tanked for seasons for thousands of greens to push his team so high up in 1 season to win quads with no tactical sense).

Do what you like, though I do not see it ending nicely if you think you could win by just tanking (btw, I won my level-5 CL final with a well-trained 135% team against a serial level-4 tanker of 155% who started 8 seasons earlier - needless to say, his team with high greys [from seasons of tanking] got annihilated 6-0). At the end, building a team with a right balance is the key to win finals. No shortcuts really.
[He started the season at 131% and mine at 115%, and with my team being all 18-21, except ST @22yo, and his being an old 26yo+ team, both teams are on equal 135% rating by the time of final - so it’s obvious that he will lose because of a full season’s improvement in my team’s key whites vs a tanker team which is too old to improve]