البيانات الصحفية - Maybe a slightly different approach is needed.
Maybe a slightly different approach is needed.
often we complain about changes even if there is some positives. The origonal Idea about unfairness in top 3 teams stems from share issue 2.. My team with 600 rating no matter how much Image we Buy! still falls way short of the top 3 sponsor offers.
While no doubt It creator loses to much money a year keeping the game running one day it will also not be worth it to keep running it. It will get shutdown or sold.
So since every team must pay more for share issues then make a change in the amounts. I think 70% is more reasonable on share issue 2. But then top teams see some unfairness. To fix that make share issue 1 5 mil instead of current 3. That way more team would be enticed to using it and paying 500 coins. But make share issue 2 the same minimum. If 70% or 65% is less then 5 mil they get 5 mil minimum on share issue 2.
At least with this tweek Every team would likely be spending 1000 coins per season for F1. That is fair to every team equally. So i believe everybody wins here. Those who wanted total free to play just do not run a Team in the game. But 40 euros a season is not much. I know a player at Ford who pays allot more than that to attract activity points.
I believe any team can rise to the top in F1 from the bottom But they cannot if they do not use both share offers.. Otherwise they are just wasting time and effort trying.
Terry's Not Wrong, but this New System Is!
For once Terry isn't talking nonsense. This new system is entirely unfair. I posted about this when it was suggested but clearly somebody else shouted louder. Any system that charges teams differently to participate in a game where they get an ide...
Reaction to TerryWilson
After considerations I decided to answer here on this channel instead of the forums. I think your understanding is incorrect. Pls read.
Sueño con llevar la bandera chilena a lo más alto del automovilismo
TOYOTA GAZOO - China Post Race