Nordeus' draw policy

[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]