Subject: NEWS Sokker- big changes are coming!

Correct ;)

"I think they meant to say that it’s hard to want to remain competitive when there’s way more benefit to just sitting in lower leagues"

:D D: :D D: O-o :D D:

I didn't read everything you and others have written here, but why you didn't choose option c where you play both league matches with 1st team and give youngsters some minutes only if winning by 2-3+ goals and let youngsters normally play in cup/friendlies only?

Well I would guess because if you're not winning by 2-3+ goals every game your training is screwed.

Exactly, it would be ridiculous.

So we are asking regular users to pay double for PLUS in order for Sokker to be sustainable financially. But what about the admins / mods who benefit from free PLUS ? Will they all keep this benefit ? Many of them do very little work so that dont seem fair.

You assume they do very little work. It's up to the owners who they get to run this place and whether they're doing their job.

Not going to defend the admins/mods...

But they get 50 euro (previously 24 euro) per YEAR of value, that barely covers one hour of my work, not one year.
So i would leave the benefit for them.

Other question on that matter is if "some" of them shouldnt be replaced.
(edited)

The problem in general is that if you make being competitive financial rewarding then the gap between the best teams and new teams will always grow.
I don't think that is a good scenario to keep new teams motivated.
How it works now is in my opinion a good compromise. You can stay at the top but it is very, very hard. In Poland probably impossible. And new teams have the possibility to catch up.

Tutor ? No ;)
we are only number
(edited)

It doesn't have to be financially rewarding. Remember that they would have to invest money that they won't be able to invest into first team / subs etc. and their main team is losing value every season.

Problem is, with their idea they are actually allowing them to enter the most lucrative / money making market of 16-17yo players, while at the same time thet are still blocking/limiting or even making it more harder than before to train 20+ players.

So there are 2 possible scenarios for a top team

a. they play at top level with strong team, while they also make a lot of money every week with 16-17yo players that they use only in friendlies + they also play cup and league at top level / to late stages = indeed financially strong

b. they play at top level, their team loses value every week, but they bought 10 nice youths and they plan to train them for 6-8 seasons, so when their top team gets old and without value, they will be able to switch to the 10 players they have been trainings for themselves for x seasons

plan b is "bad" for developers while it is pretty neutral toward every aspect of the game, while plan a is "good" for developers, even though it might fuck up the whole system in a number of ways :) and one of them is in fact the problem of staying at top being too easy / too rewarding in comparison to lower levels.

But that's the whole problem that I'm talking about - they are afraid of making things too easy (with training of 18-21yos) while the only real danger is about 16-18yos which they don't consider a problem and are happy to allow "free training" :D
(edited)

And new teams have the possibility to catch up.

as for this

at some point we have to realise that it's bullshit

there are no teams catching up today, the only teams that do so are old users that came back after pause with a new team

and the only way they are catching up is by trading and making fast money

if you play "normally" you are never catching up to nobody except for users that are just inactive ghosts here
(edited)

I'm sorry if I missed some direct messages to me in this thread.
If some1 have such question, please ask shorly and use a "limegreen" color with bb-code so I could find it easier.

About training effectiveness corelated with players age, that is example from one of the latest versions:

// how to get 96% of advanced training //
16yo - 83 min friendly
17yo - 90 min friendly
18yo - 90m fr. + 5m of.
19yo - 90m fr. + 11m of.
20yo - 90m fr. + 17m of.
21yo - 90m fr. + 22m of.
22yo - 90m fr. + 27m of.
23yo - 90m fr. + 34m of.
24yo - 90m fr. + 40m of.
25yo - 90m fr. + 45m of.
26yo - 90m fr. + 51m of.
27yo - 90m fr. + 58m of.
28yo - 90m fr. + 63m of.
29yo - 90m fr. + 71m of.
30yo - 90m fr. + 76m of.
31yo - 90m fr. + 83m of.
32yo - 90m fr. + 91m of.
...
35yo - 90m fr. + 109m of.
40yo - 90m fr. + 142m of.

// non-advanced training (formation) //
age / 1x 90of. / 2x 90of.
training now / 70% / 100%
25yo - 74% - 95%
30yo - 58% - 93%
32yo - 53% - 92%
35yo - 47% - 83%
40yo - 39% - 70%

Is this already decided or is in the table for debate?

I didn't read everything you and others have written here, but why you didn't choose option c where you play both league matches with 1st team and give youngsters some minutes only if winning by 2-3+ goals and let youngsters normally play in cup/friendlies only?

I did that several times and had several turnover from 3:0 to 3:3 :)

I do that from time to time during single season and don't remember having such turnovers. They probably happened though, but very rarely.

It's not theory or made up story, I am writing from experience. I'm playing in Polish III-II league constantly for 7 or 8 last years. It's not Ekstraklasa, but it's not that easy either to keep relatively high team level for so long without trading.

I don't think it's anywhere near decided if you're going off the pressroom release.