Having moved to a top 100 ranking, this could be a plan to make the fan ranking work over time, or as suggested, could be a coding error...
Devs ? Care to comment with actual intent ?
Devs ? Care to comment with actual intent ?
Lvl 21 Stadiums
10/07/16 10:37
10/07/16 12:27
I like the idea of 100 fans per win for lvl 21 users but losing 1000 for a loss is dumb
10/07/16 22:52
My map has a mixture of gaining 100 fans or 1,000 fans depending upon the opponent. The lower the ranking then the lower number of fans.
Don't think it's a bug - more of a concerted effort to make people play more competitive training games instead of choosing the easy option all the time.
Don't think it's a bug - more of a concerted effort to make people play more competitive training games instead of choosing the easy option all the time.
11/07/16 15:51
Ok, straight from the horse's mouth ( PierrotLL )
"Over 140,000 fans, it becomes harder to earn fans (you lose more on a defeat than you earn on a victory).
The purpose is to create a top 100 ranking where no one fulfilled his stadium. "
"Over 140,000 fans, it becomes harder to earn fans (you lose more on a defeat than you earn on a victory).
The purpose is to create a top 100 ranking where no one fulfilled his stadium. "
11/07/16 17:11
guest_1447557890268 :
My map has a mixture of gaining 100 fans or 1,000 fans depending upon the opponent. The lower the ranking then the lower number of fans.
Don't think it's a bug - more of a concerted effort to make people play more competitive training games instead of choosing the easy option all the time.
My map has a mixture of gaining 100 fans or 1,000 fans depending upon the opponent. The lower the ranking then the lower number of fans.
Don't think it's a bug - more of a concerted effort to make people play more competitive training games instead of choosing the easy option all the time.
It makes no sense, you play 10 competitive training games and gain 1000 supporters, you then lose ONE game and you are worse off! This is nothing but a ploy to benefit players who can afford to spend "real" money to insure they keep winning. If you want to slow down the filling of a stadium at least be fair about it. I would suggest 500 supporters for a competitive win and the loss of 350 if you lose.
11/07/16 17:47
Brian Greenfield :
It makes no sense, you play 10 competitive training games and gain 1000 supporters, you then lose ONE game and you are worse off! This is nothing but a ploy to benefit players who can afford to spend "real" money to insure they keep winning. If you want to slow down the filling of a stadium at least be fair about it. I would suggest 500 supporters for a competitive win and the loss of 350 if you lose.
guest_1447557890268 :
My map has a mixture of gaining 100 fans or 1,000 fans depending upon the opponent. The lower the ranking then the lower number of fans.
Don't think it's a bug - more of a concerted effort to make people play more competitive training games instead of choosing the easy option all the time.
My map has a mixture of gaining 100 fans or 1,000 fans depending upon the opponent. The lower the ranking then the lower number of fans.
Don't think it's a bug - more of a concerted effort to make people play more competitive training games instead of choosing the easy option all the time.
It makes no sense, you play 10 competitive training games and gain 1000 supporters, you then lose ONE game and you are worse off! This is nothing but a ploy to benefit players who can afford to spend "real" money to insure they keep winning. If you want to slow down the filling of a stadium at least be fair about it. I would suggest 500 supporters for a competitive win and the loss of 350 if you lose.
No, as CC has said it's to provide a stretched out ranking table, no more, no less.
11/07/16 18:32
I would add that I am holding off upgrading stadium. More profitable options will take precedence !
11/07/16 21:51
Waspy Tiger :
No, as CC has said it's to provide a stretched out ranking table, no more, no less.
Brian Greenfield :
It makes no sense, you play 10 competitive training games and gain 1000 supporters, you then lose ONE game and you are worse off! This is nothing but a ploy to benefit players who can afford to spend "real" money to insure they keep winning. If you want to slow down the filling of a stadium at least be fair about it. I would suggest 500 supporters for a competitive win and the loss of 350 if you lose.
guest_1447557890268 :
My map has a mixture of gaining 100 fans or 1,000 fans depending upon the opponent. The lower the ranking then the lower number of fans.
Don't think it's a bug - more of a concerted effort to make people play more competitive training games instead of choosing the easy option all the time.
My map has a mixture of gaining 100 fans or 1,000 fans depending upon the opponent. The lower the ranking then the lower number of fans.
Don't think it's a bug - more of a concerted effort to make people play more competitive training games instead of choosing the easy option all the time.
It makes no sense, you play 10 competitive training games and gain 1000 supporters, you then lose ONE game and you are worse off! This is nothing but a ploy to benefit players who can afford to spend "real" money to insure they keep winning. If you want to slow down the filling of a stadium at least be fair about it. I would suggest 500 supporters for a competitive win and the loss of 350 if you lose.
No, as CC has said it's to provide a stretched out ranking table, no more, no less.
So the teams that make this game work are penalised? It is total rubbish, Guys, it is totally indefensible! Wake up and smell the coffee! All I am asking for is an open explanation to the reasoning, it isn't forthcoming, so all I can assume so far is there isn't one because the powers that be have totally dropped a brick DON'T know how to pick it up. The current settings are WRONG, and no-one wants to admit it. In the meantime we all suffer for trying to make this great game work. No team should have to play ten times the games to cover the cost of one defeat. This MUST be put right, and everyone needs to be compensated for the imbalances they have had to endure!
11/07/16 22:40
You've had the explanation for the reasoning.