Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »[info]DevDiary 80: “Price is what you pay, value is what
For me there are too many changes, I would prefer more steady attitude. I have to vote to leave the league system unchanged for these reasons:
you give as options which would have a huge impact on pretty much every part of the game but we don't know how do you plan to balance it
1, Players progress - I am worried about this the most. It will affect greatly the level of all juniors and players. Old players will stay the same but the younger ones will have much less time to progress. So the teams with already trained players will have an unfair advantage against others. Especially after the last changes when the skills drops were made much slower for +30yrs players. It would take 20 seasons (over 4 real years) to balance it the natural way, so there are only players that come into the game after the implementation of the new system. How will this change affect the markets? Everyone will try to buy players who were trained before the changes because they will be much better. It will also reduce the quality of matches because all players will be worse in general.
2, Training system - it has to change completely if you want to change the number of matches during the week. How will playing matches affect training efficiency? Some users will play twice as many official games per season than others.
3, Economy of the game - this has to be balanced carefully as well because the number of matches per season will change (option 1 - teams would play between 15-35 official matches per season; option 2 - 15-38 official matches; option 3 - 23-47 official matches) - sponsors money will change because of the different format of leagues and divisions, income from tickets will have much more impact as well. Will it flow much more money in the game?
4, Injuries - if the density of matches per week will increase and the season will be shorter, you have to balance the injuries
you give as options which would have a huge impact on pretty much every part of the game but we don't know how do you plan to balance it
1, Players progress - I am worried about this the most. It will affect greatly the level of all juniors and players. Old players will stay the same but the younger ones will have much less time to progress. So the teams with already trained players will have an unfair advantage against others. Especially after the last changes when the skills drops were made much slower for +30yrs players. It would take 20 seasons (over 4 real years) to balance it the natural way, so there are only players that come into the game after the implementation of the new system. How will this change affect the markets? Everyone will try to buy players who were trained before the changes because they will be much better. It will also reduce the quality of matches because all players will be worse in general.
2, Training system - it has to change completely if you want to change the number of matches during the week. How will playing matches affect training efficiency? Some users will play twice as many official games per season than others.
3, Economy of the game - this has to be balanced carefully as well because the number of matches per season will change (option 1 - teams would play between 15-35 official matches per season; option 2 - 15-38 official matches; option 3 - 23-47 official matches) - sponsors money will change because of the different format of leagues and divisions, income from tickets will have much more impact as well. Will it flow much more money in the game?
4, Injuries - if the density of matches per week will increase and the season will be shorter, you have to balance the injuries
+1
I think that four games a week are really difficult to follow!
I think that four games a week are really difficult to follow!
But not having consistency of a single type of match on a single day (without going to 4 matches per week) is a huge issue,
I agree with this, but from my point of view there is no other option than option 3 so it would not be the case.
Although, there might be other options, but someone need to introduce them.
Now, I play 1 important match per week, and one like 30% of importance (the cup is partially important for me, the friendlies are total rubbish), I would like it to be 2 important matches per week, at least two (might be like two and a half if some cup match) and absolutely no friendlies at all, even if team is eliminated from cup the cup match term should net be replaced with friendly match term, I just wouldnt want friendlies at all because they just dont work, have no real purpose - their only purpose is to train more players which is idiotic motivation
I also would like to play international competition like it is presented. And it hard for me to came up with some ideal plan matching all this and the idea of option 3 seems not much different so I can accept it. I am a little worried about 4 matches per week, but if I gets eliminated from cups its 2 matches so this reduces my worrying.
And for now the length of the season does not seem to be important for me although I might been not taking into account some things and might change my mind later. I would even like to stay at 16 weeks or lengthen it to 20 but 12 also seems ok to me.
I agree with this, but from my point of view there is no other option than option 3 so it would not be the case.
Although, there might be other options, but someone need to introduce them.
Now, I play 1 important match per week, and one like 30% of importance (the cup is partially important for me, the friendlies are total rubbish), I would like it to be 2 important matches per week, at least two (might be like two and a half if some cup match) and absolutely no friendlies at all, even if team is eliminated from cup the cup match term should net be replaced with friendly match term, I just wouldnt want friendlies at all because they just dont work, have no real purpose - their only purpose is to train more players which is idiotic motivation
I also would like to play international competition like it is presented. And it hard for me to came up with some ideal plan matching all this and the idea of option 3 seems not much different so I can accept it. I am a little worried about 4 matches per week, but if I gets eliminated from cups its 2 matches so this reduces my worrying.
And for now the length of the season does not seem to be important for me although I might been not taking into account some things and might change my mind later. I would even like to stay at 16 weeks or lengthen it to 20 but 12 also seems ok to me.
+1
the advantage of the game is the possibility to watch the game. But this is 4*20minutes per week plus lot of time to set up the lineup and prepare the tactics. That is just too time-consuming and exhausting in a long time
the advantage of the game is the possibility to watch the game. But this is 4*20minutes per week plus lot of time to set up the lineup and prepare the tactics. That is just too time-consuming and exhausting in a long time
I think friendly matches can be important to no plus and new users.
Maybe they like to play with other friends and test their tactics, but it's true this should have less impact on training, just be an option.
(edited)
Maybe they like to play with other friends and test their tactics, but it's true this should have less impact on training, just be an option.
(edited)
4 games for week is easy, if the training system change! It's not a great problem! It s dificult to think wich players have to play when you are forced to put all players if you want to training them, but if the system of training changes, this problem would desappear.
I like very much the option 3
I think it is necessary to differentiate home and away team's performance, for exemple with a variation of the player's form depending of number and happines of the spectators present on the stadium
Obviusly, with 3/4 games for week you need to change injuries and ground maintenance rules
I like very much the option 3
I think it is necessary to differentiate home and away team's performance, for exemple with a variation of the player's form depending of number and happines of the spectators present on the stadium
Obviusly, with 3/4 games for week you need to change injuries and ground maintenance rules
guys how 4 games are easy do you adjust your tactic per game that is the beauty of sokker if we just load tactics games willl become super boring :(
(edited)
(edited)
it is not easy if you take the match preparation seriously. And I forgot about NT and U21. If I wanted to watch them it would be another 20 (+20) minutes per week
it is not easy if you take the match preparation seriously. And I forgot about NT and U21. If I wanted to watch them it would be another 20 (+20) minutes per week
Would highlights make it okay? :)
Would highlights make it okay? :)
I got nothing against more matches during a week, but I think who did those proposal didn't understand the key success elements of sokker, that imho are this:
-there should NOT be any advantage in playing in higher leagues (not more money, not (too much) more fans, not different competitions..), because who stays in higher league should be there only because he's actually doing better. better
-the link between training and matches. broke that link and the game lose its sense.
@Admin: please LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT IS...
Absolutely Option 1
We should just know how to recover 25% of training
(edited)
We should just know how to recover 25% of training
(edited)
I have some brief ideas to keep season 16 weeks
FIRST ONE
maybe it would be possible to have 16 teams in league and 16 week season, play two league games per week and national cup and international cup on the same weekday but one or the other (I think it would be able to fit those there), so it would be 3 matches per week, or more like 2 and a half including cups elimination
oh, and no friendlies, obviously so no shot games
SECOND ONE
international league instead of international cup which would guarantee one match per week, league matches as they are now, and national cup as it is now and of course, no friendly matches at all - that would ensure two important matches per week, or two and a half including cup match and no shit games because there would not be friendlies
FIRST ONE
maybe it would be possible to have 16 teams in league and 16 week season, play two league games per week and national cup and international cup on the same weekday but one or the other (I think it would be able to fit those there), so it would be 3 matches per week, or more like 2 and a half including cups elimination
oh, and no friendlies, obviously so no shot games
SECOND ONE
international league instead of international cup which would guarantee one match per week, league matches as they are now, and national cup as it is now and of course, no friendly matches at all - that would ensure two important matches per week, or two and a half including cup match and no shit games because there would not be friendlies
+1
4 games per week are too much
3 games per week are difficult
2 games per week are perfect
(edited)
4 games per week are too much
3 games per week are difficult
2 games per week are perfect
(edited)