Unresolved

Players HIGH vs LOW level

Hi Jack, 
Do you think it's normal for higher-level players (38,39,40) to lose against lower-level players(15/20/23/24)? I don't think it's fair... We should have a greater advantage over them since our headquarters should be higher than theirs...
Could you look into what's happening? Since the update, I've noticed these kinds of differences, and I don't think they're normal... What do you think? Could it be investigated and  restore the competitiveness of high-level players compared to low-level players?

@ Jack, I’d like to understand this better from your perspective.

Do you think it is normal that a Level 10–15 team can consistently beat a Level 40 team under the current system?

I understand the explanation about percentages and relative efficiency, but the issue I’m trying to highlight is the impact on competitiveness at championship level. Even if a lower-level team is technically “100% efficient” in some areas, a Level 40 team should, in theory, have accumulated long-term structural advantages that make it harder for significantly lower-level teams to interfere at the top of the standings. this advantage is not enough if low-level players can still interfere in the standings and the fight for the championship, they are refeere in a championship.

At the moment, it feels like the 40 DP advantage and long-term development of higher-level teams are not translating into meaningful competitive protection. This leads to situations where newer or mid-level teams can directly compete for wins and championships, which seems to reduce the value of long-term progression.

I’m not saying lower-level teams shouldn’t be competitive — but I’m questioning whether the balance is currently too flat, to the point where level progression loses strategic weight.

Could you clarify if this is the intended design after the update, or if the balance is still being adjusted? From a competitive integrity perspective, it feels like something might be off.