Here is for me the real problem:
You said:
"1) We do not want to make it too easy for, say, a 50th percentile team in Japan to be dominant over a 50th percentile team in Italy. On the other hand, we cannot create a set of rules where the best team in Japan can never hope to compete with the best team in Italy, because it's always possible that the best manager in the game resides in Japan (it's about 1% as likely as that the best manager resides in Italy, in fact).
2) We want to ensure that the top division in Japan will be competitive, and that a new team does not feel they will never be able to compete.
Obviously these two priorities are in conflict. Which is more important? If forced to choose, 2) trumps 1."
OK, so there are 2 points in collision.
The first one affect to a hundred teams in every country. In every country there are a lot of "middle of the pack" teams. The game need to give a similar path to all of them.
The second one only affects to a very very few teams. The game tends to give to the top-2/3 teams in every country the same oportunitys to win the B3.
OK but...
You have said that only the 0,02% of the teams play the B3 so...
You are recognising that the game is giving to the second point the nod, this is, is putting the necesitys of the top-2/3 teams of every country (this is very very few teams) in front of the necessitys of hundred and hundred teams.
Is this a correct interpretation? 90% of the teams are suffering to provide a 0,02% of the teams the oportunity to win the B3?
Wy don´t we eliminate the B3 and at the same time eliminate the problem?
Last edited by algope17 at 1/31/2010 9:52:05 AM