Subject: »[info]DevDiary 80: “Price is what you pay, value is what

yes it can work good... but you must test one think... What happend witch youth in trade becasue we will not need so many player? We will buy only good player and lot of good youth with talent will be fired, but if somobody buy those players can make from thier great players for 3-2 league..

could happen that it broken trade, price for top youth, too many fired youth...

I essentially agree with the training change. To me less places for pace is not a problem.
I think its just issue with GK and ATT. We have less skills to train there. And if I say i will now train 10GK, where do they play, probably if option is allowed then 8 of them dont have official match and get less training. Also what will happen to coaches, do we need individual coaching skills or not...

you will rather put them no TL than sack them, and for sure in some lower leagues someone will pick them up.

New training system can afect market with less of players in one moment, byt finally number of players in the game will stay the same, market is flexible mechanism, will adjust for new players structure - and we will also put on TL sacked players and players from bots, that will help to reduce prices and inflation from the other hand.

for me is not a problem either just hope for better explanation in a news proper translations in all languages some visuals define time line of the implementation and some time users to adjust and maybe not so radical form 22 to 10 maybe on 2 steps first 16 then 12 i do not know what is best seems to radical to me especially since ME will not be touched and watching slow players is kinda super bad exp ...

yep, thats why we will keep current max levels - so max 2x GK, max 6x ATT, rest of your "slots" you need to use for some other players.

For coaches you will need more flexible main coach - so it will give you another decision to make on financial level - to find multi unearthly coach to train different skills with few different possition, or keep one or two skills only and save some money.

Remember also about UX project, that will be crucial i think, to design that training system as easy as it could be.

If you developing brand new game i would agree with you but since you are dealing with existing users existing options and ME based on mostly pace i will not put UX in first place and im sure with modern ways of developing websites that could be handled pretty easy

When you will reduce training speed, will you do it over some period (like decreasing little by little in few season time) or just introduce reduced effect of training from one moment on?

I believe this pace training change isn't bad but of course this could lead to people looking for players with highest level of pace in the market and people will stop to have a lot of lower pace players to train and eventually focus in other skills. For me this ins't a apocalyptic change.
About UX changes I'm sure you guys are capable of doing a great change to in the current design to a modern one to great usability from both desktop and mobile devices.
(edited)

Dev Diary no 7 and survey in 1st post

is there a link to survey?

at the bottom of 1st post.

The poll agin is manipulative :(
3 choice and third one - I don't want any changes is not correct and was interpreted even in the news badly
option 2 is not exactly what forum was suggested and having 3 options will split votes on this
there should be only 2 options other wise there should be another poll at the end ...

HUGE DISSAPOINTMENT

You took the Dev's Option which won the last survey (option 1) and put it against the system which was perfectly fine when users came with it but you turned it into a complete garbage(option 2).
What you wrote in Summary about the Option 1:
+ 6 advantages
- 0 disadvantages

What you wrote in Summary about the Option 2:
+ 0 advantages
- 4 disadvantages


3 advantages of Option 1 and all disadvantages of Option 2 are based on your decision to ruin the system proposed by users on this forum. The core of option 2 should be:
1) one league match per week every Sunday
2) at least 2 official matches per week for everyone for the entire season
3)max 3 official matches per week

We, users rejected the idea that would result in some users playing 1 official match and some users playing 3 official matches per season. We came up with a much better system that would guarantee everyone 2 official matches and you ignored it and then you complain in your Dev Diary about flaws of this option!


On one side I am glad that you at least partially listen to users' ideas after all those years, but on the other side I am really dissapointed by this behaviour. You intentionally ruined the second option so your first option would win.

I find the voting heavily manipulated and I will ignore it. I expect the people to vote for the option 1 because the option 2 is intentionally bad (even I would not vote for it) and then you will completely change the system in the way you want saying that that is what a majority of users want.

if you do not care to protect the poll it means its not a real poll ....