Originally posted by yello1
The game suffers from the current non-parity where in the better dots consistently sign with the teams that have done well, which leaves poorer dots for teams that have lost, meaning they are hard pressed to improve and win.
This suggestion is based on the assumption that teams that lose will continue to lose becuase somewhere in some reality there is this large turnover of elite dots that they will never be privy to because of their poor record.
What this suggestion does not take into account is the fact that majority of "better dots" are typically built for specific teams or intended to be utilized by various teams within a network or affiliation. It also doesn't account that bad teams in most cases are respective of their poor records becuase of a combination of multiple factors that include a grouping of poorly built dots, lack of offensive and defensive game plans, lack of build orientation and general lack of team organization.
This game is not all that hard to be successful at. Those words don't mean that you don't have to work at it to be successful, and its obvious many teams are poor for the reasons mentioned above. They also dont mean that its going to be easy always win championships or make it to the world league, but as mentioned by a previous poster outside of the nat pro, wl, and elite leagues even sucky teams can have great seasons due to the lack of overall competition.
This suggestion also doesn't take into account that their are too many teams as it is and their have to be just as many bad teams every season as there are good teams. Parity can only go as far as putting teams onto an equal playing field. If you cant field the players, that is your own fault.
The game suffers from the current non-parity where in the better dots consistently sign with the teams that have done well, which leaves poorer dots for teams that have lost, meaning they are hard pressed to improve and win.
This suggestion is based on the assumption that teams that lose will continue to lose becuase somewhere in some reality there is this large turnover of elite dots that they will never be privy to because of their poor record.
What this suggestion does not take into account is the fact that majority of "better dots" are typically built for specific teams or intended to be utilized by various teams within a network or affiliation. It also doesn't account that bad teams in most cases are respective of their poor records becuase of a combination of multiple factors that include a grouping of poorly built dots, lack of offensive and defensive game plans, lack of build orientation and general lack of team organization.
This game is not all that hard to be successful at. Those words don't mean that you don't have to work at it to be successful, and its obvious many teams are poor for the reasons mentioned above. They also dont mean that its going to be easy always win championships or make it to the world league, but as mentioned by a previous poster outside of the nat pro, wl, and elite leagues even sucky teams can have great seasons due to the lack of overall competition.
This suggestion also doesn't take into account that their are too many teams as it is and their have to be just as many bad teams every season as there are good teams. Parity can only go as far as putting teams onto an equal playing field. If you cant field the players, that is your own fault.
