HTs on Global/Fans
| From: | HT-Bjorn | (1636437.25) as reply to (1636437.20) | |
| To: unknown | 20-08-2004 at 15:57 | ||
| no answer on where HT stand other than the "formula" for calculating crowds to games has not changed.
If that's the case, how could we answer differently? We can't should say A when it is B, just for the sake of populism, to appease those who say "It is not A, it is B". It has not changed. Also, these threads tend to mix a whole bunch of completely different things. I'll here just comment the complaining about losing supporters, which is what this thread was originally about, until it was hijacked by users who prefer spreading sarcasms about "intelligent fans" (taking things badly out of context while so doing) and complain about their spectator outcome in general. Losing supporters: The complaints tend to be founded in a complete lack of understanding how the fanclub size relates to what league level you are in. Many people think that just because it worked fine to pile up fanclub members early in their HT career, then it will remain linear like that forever. However, as I've repeatedly tried to get the message through: the size of your fanclub is strongly related to what level you are in. There is a "balance size" for each division level. If you're doing OK, then you will reach this level and neither lose nor gain supporters a typical week. However, it is possible to be doing "above average" for a while (including using press spokesmen and similar means to boost fans mood). If you manage to maintain this "enhanced" situation for some time, your fanclub size will grow beyond the balance level. But when your team then screw things up (lose in the cup against a worse team, for instance, or lose 5-0 in an important series match), then so much worse the fall is: You fall from an enhanced state. Here's an example (hypothetical, and with dummy values NOT taken from the actual formula): Let's say a certain division has a balance level of 2000 fans. your team has 1900. For some time your team starts doing well and the fans stay happy. You will reach 2000 at an "accelerated speed" because you are currently below the balance level. However, the further beyond 2000 you go, the harder each new recruitment gets. And when finally, bad luck strikes and things start going wrong with the team, you will lose quite a lot, say lose 100 withing a few weeks, going from the exhanced level of 2200 to 2100. Does this mean that it is meaningless to gain fans? No. If you stay at 2200 for some time, you will still have had 10% more income (although for a limited time) from the things depending on fanclub than you would have had otherwise. Just because it doesn't last forever, you'll still have gained more money than if you had stayed at 2000 all the time. So, there are a few things to note: The 10% fanclub gain when you go up to higher division is not the big advantage of promoting. The big advantage is that you'll have a higher balance level. In fact, the 10% you gain may (or may not) bring you above the balance level of the new division. This is what some users have experienced as a drop of fanclub size early in the new season after promoting. Why do we have a balance level? For starters, this rewards promotion somewhat. It is also an element of realism (yeah-yeah... I know, we have limited the realism on the whole on the matter of spectator sizes, but let's not take up that discussion here, I've answered that elsewhere). Furthermore, it prevents the early starters from benefiting eternally from "a head start". I mean like this: If supporter gain had been linear, so you keep gaining fans as long as you win, then we could easily have had a situation where the oldest teams had fanclubs of 20.000 rather than 2000 members. So there has to be a limitation, although, we ALWAYS shun strict limits, we've made the limit "soft" (so you can cross it, but only temporary). The fans want you to take all important matches seriously. The cup is very important to them. Like it or not, but that is the way the spectators of the HT universe thinks about things. Them fans are stubborn crazy little fools, but hey - that's why they fork out the fee to the entrance tickets each week (except when they are too angry with you failing them). When it comes to stubbornness of your fans, you have to take the bad with the good. Over and out, | |||
| From: | HT-Hasse | (2212022.18) as reply to (2212022.16) | |
| To: septimusjm | 20-12-2004, at 17:31 | ||
| Yes, in theory that would be better. In reality it is not realistic though. For instance, in match 1 of the season the two newly promoted teams meet. Quite often one of them wins, giving them quite a good league position after round 1.
In round 2, however, they are going to play one of the two top ranked teams, perhaps even away. The result would normally be quite a massive loss which then would kill your supporter mood, especially if that team lost to the other top ranked team the week before. Hattrick would count that as a top team (the lousy newly promoted one) lost to a bottom team (in reality probably the best or second best team in the league). The consequences would be absurd to both teams. A very good team would get loads of new supporters for beating a really weak side, and the weak team would lose lots despite losing to a much better team. As for the cup it has already been made a lot less painful to lose in general | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (2212022.109) as reply to (2212022.95) | |
| To: Loke_ | 21-12-2004, at 13:01 | ||
| I can understand why many users, just like you, want a change about the attendance calculation as the attendance today are a little bit lower than two seasons ago. But (hehe - there had to be a but, right? ;)):
The attendance formula has not changed, as I think you know. But the attendance formula is affected by the supporter mood, and that formula was changed two seasons ago which led to a spectator (and income) loss last season. To this season attendance incomes were raised, and teams today (globally) get more attendance income than they got two seasons ago. Not much more, but slightly more. The fact that we had a huge inflation two seasons ago should also be taken into consideration when discussing this. This means we're back and even past the income figures we had two seasons ago, but I wouldn't worry that much about a new huge inflation as the costs are better optimized than before. So, the fact is that teams make more money out of spectators today, but still there are complains about the spectators. This, I think, is a pretty normal reaction, as the first thing you see is how many spectators came to watch a game. The overall income from the spectators comes secondly, if one even care to check it out. Finally some words about the spectators formula. We could of course of course have changed the formula, but we chose to increase attendance money instead. This because the formula is one of those formulas you don't easily change. And as this formula effects the global economy a lot, you better be very sure of what changes it will cause. And in the situation we were in those days we didn't want to risk a huge inflation again nor a bigger deflation. I'm not saying there never will be a change in this formula (and I'm not saying there will be either ;)), but it will in that case require a lot of testing before. And a healthier economical situation. :) all teams in the bottom of their division, loses supporters, sponsor income and most of all spectator income. So you think it is strange that losing teams lose fans, sponsors and spectators? I don't. Besides, for some reason you totally "forget" the fact that ticket revenue per ticket was increased this season too. You are also missing that sponsor money is only partially affected by results. The most important factors for sponsors are what level you are in (division) and your spokespersons. I have been losing most of the season but my sponsor money keeps increasing week by week. Now only an idiot or someone who really don't care about the economic part of the the came, would promote before they're sure that they can be among the top 4 There are a number of statements in this post that implies that you simply do not understand how a lot of the factors work. First of all, you mention sponsor money - the single factor except spokespersons that has the biggest importance for your sponsor money is the league level you are at. The only things that affect supporter mood in the league is if you win/draw/lose and the number of goals you produce/let in. | |||
| From: | HT-Hasse | (2212022.55) as reply to (2212022.53) | |
| To: ballord | 20-12-2004, at 22:16 | ||
| I'm sorry, but I thought that home factor would also count somehow. Is that wrong?
Yes, you are right. That also plays a part | |||
| From: | HT-Hasse | (2212022.82) as reply to (2212022.61) | |
| To: DrBLooD | 21-12-2004, at 00:39 | ||
| So how about taking a look at more just picture instead of just picking a few matches, carefully selected to prove a non-existent point?
Below is the 20 Swedish series with the highest total attendance so far this season. It hardly supports the theory that the biggest crowds come in division III. Rank Series Total Crowd
1 A 2,669,254 | |||
| From: | HT-Hasse | (2212022.26) as reply to (?) | |
| To: ? | ? | ||
| I thought the amount of supporters that entered, depend on the team you played against..
That has no effect whatsoever in the league. The only things that affect supporter mood in the league is if you win/draw/lose and the number of goals you produce/let in. In the cup however, it matters what league level (division) the team you play is in. If I, who play in the top league in Sweden, lose against a team from division VII, my supporters will probably put out a contract on my head. But if I do better and eventually lose to a team from division I, they will only be slightly upset (if I don't go out 9-0 or something like that). | |||
| From: | HT-Hasse | (4818792.15) as reply to (4818792.1) | |
| To: gonzalviyo | 7-1-2006 at 00:46 | ||
| Hi, I've got one doubt I can't remember, did derbies in the past report more people to the stadium than matches between teams of two different regions? Thanks ;)
No. That has never been the case. | |||
