Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »[info]DevDiary 80: “Price is what you pay, value is what
But we will be able to train our 10 A team player in one official game, no ?
Why the others official games during the week will be needed for training ?
If you are able to achieve that sweet spot.. Right now many teams aren't structured that way because of current training system and it will be expensive to do it in a short period.
Why the others official games during the week will be needed for training ?
If you are able to achieve that sweet spot.. Right now many teams aren't structured that way because of current training system and it will be expensive to do it in a short period.
But we will be able to train our 10 A team player in one official game, no ?
Why the others official games during the week will be needed for training ?
Main challenge will be to use your 10 slots balanced in weekly games - sure, you can put all for one competition (like cup one), but you need remember, that if you will get eliminated you will lost one chance for official game in week.
So it will be good to balance your squad in a way, that will allow you to play as long as possible, to give you more flexibility in training. But at the end, you will be also able to use just one official game if you want.
Why the others official games during the week will be needed for training ?
Main challenge will be to use your 10 slots balanced in weekly games - sure, you can put all for one competition (like cup one), but you need remember, that if you will get eliminated you will lost one chance for official game in week.
So it will be good to balance your squad in a way, that will allow you to play as long as possible, to give you more flexibility in training. But at the end, you will be also able to use just one official game if you want.
With 12 teams it gives us:
all first places + 50% of best second places with a chance for promotion
teams from places 7-12 with possible reletation.
And, with that 6 places of relegation we can decide, to relegate 2 worst teams directly - it will increase the number od direct promotions from first places to 50% instead current 25%.
Could it be that...?
From 10th to 12th: direct relegation
50% of first places: direct promotion
50% of first places: play-off among themselves
11th and 12th: direct relegation
7th to 10th: play-off among themselves or however teams of the same category (7vs10 and 8vs9)
50% of first places: direct promotion
50% of first places and 50% of second places: play-off among teams of the same category (1vs2)
I think it's clear for all of you that I believe play-offs are unfair (generally winners should be always prized and losers always punished, but I understand that four direct relegations are too much) and even more play-offs among teams of different categories (the loser of the upper category has an advantage over the winner of the lower one, despite the sporting demerits of a bad season).
Said this, I love Raul (not sexually, of course) and his patient answers. So thank you very much, you are doing a good hard job!
;-)
all first places + 50% of best second places with a chance for promotion
teams from places 7-12 with possible reletation.
And, with that 6 places of relegation we can decide, to relegate 2 worst teams directly - it will increase the number od direct promotions from first places to 50% instead current 25%.
Could it be that...?
From 10th to 12th: direct relegation
50% of first places: direct promotion
50% of first places: play-off among themselves
11th and 12th: direct relegation
7th to 10th: play-off among themselves or however teams of the same category (7vs10 and 8vs9)
50% of first places: direct promotion
50% of first places and 50% of second places: play-off among teams of the same category (1vs2)
I think it's clear for all of you that I believe play-offs are unfair (generally winners should be always prized and losers always punished, but I understand that four direct relegations are too much) and even more play-offs among teams of different categories (the loser of the upper category has an advantage over the winner of the lower one, despite the sporting demerits of a bad season).
Said this, I love Raul (not sexually, of course) and his patient answers. So thank you very much, you are doing a good hard job!
;-)
I'm still yet to see a decent argument as to why a second competition is a bad thing.
"will lead to the same problem, as we have now - treating second game in week just for training" - this will happen regardless. People will use cups and friendlies to do this, or they will be throwing matches in the main league just to try to train players. This is not a good thing, because then some teams will get easy games, and others, within the same league, will get hard ones. So this creates it's own problem.
How many people want to play a league where they know that a few teams will go 100% against them, but against their competition, they will play seconds? This will just cause a lot dissatisfaction and frustration
Exactly.
We will need time to balance our teams according to whichever new system will be in place.
"will lead to the same problem, as we have now - treating second game in week just for training" - this will happen regardless. People will use cups and friendlies to do this, or they will be throwing matches in the main league just to try to train players. This is not a good thing, because then some teams will get easy games, and others, within the same league, will get hard ones. So this creates it's own problem.
How many people want to play a league where they know that a few teams will go 100% against them, but against their competition, they will play seconds? This will just cause a lot dissatisfaction and frustration
Exactly.
We will need time to balance our teams according to whichever new system will be in place.
Huhh a too much info for us, I haven't time read all...
Well, The 2.option is better. But I feel the training would be effective similar in the friendly match, it would be good. Lot user will concantrate for the League, and they will take their younger players into the Cup matches, after they will looking for friendly matches, after the Cup ends.
Well, The 2.option is better. But I feel the training would be effective similar in the friendly match, it would be good. Lot user will concantrate for the League, and they will take their younger players into the Cup matches, after they will looking for friendly matches, after the Cup ends.
If we think about our trainees and number of matches per week, we will inevitably be forced to have a mixed team of all positions as our "first team" in order to win.
Let me explain.
So few teams will play cup matches at the end of the season. So training will come to league matches at lets say second half of it.
If we approach as we do today 5 A team players 5 young trainees and introduce 2 league matches per week we will probably lose half of them (depending on strength of other teams) because we will have to use younger and weaker players.
So, we will have to sacrifice either result or training young players.
If we want to win we will have to use mostly same 11 or let's say 12-13 players first team and 10 of them will have to be first team trainees. Having 10 trainees in same position (MID for example) with similar strength in order to play two league game in a week will be very expensive. And they will age faster, so you will have to change them faster than today which will be even more expensive and exhausting.
If we want to train young players we will have to lose few league games or do it in lower divisions. So no result.
To summarize, if you want results, you will have to use your 10 trainees in first team, i.e. league match and therefore I can't see the need to play league matches twice per week. People just won't change lineup and mostly will use same team.
_
(edited)
Let me explain.
So few teams will play cup matches at the end of the season. So training will come to league matches at lets say second half of it.
If we approach as we do today 5 A team players 5 young trainees and introduce 2 league matches per week we will probably lose half of them (depending on strength of other teams) because we will have to use younger and weaker players.
So, we will have to sacrifice either result or training young players.
If we want to win we will have to use mostly same 11 or let's say 12-13 players first team and 10 of them will have to be first team trainees. Having 10 trainees in same position (MID for example) with similar strength in order to play two league game in a week will be very expensive. And they will age faster, so you will have to change them faster than today which will be even more expensive and exhausting.
If we want to train young players we will have to lose few league games or do it in lower divisions. So no result.
To summarize, if you want results, you will have to use your 10 trainees in first team, i.e. league match and therefore I can't see the need to play league matches twice per week. People just won't change lineup and mostly will use same team.
_
(edited)
"In system with 2 league games, you can still use international one for training, but you need to be aware, that after losing some games you will be eliminated, and in second part of season you will need to find more time for your training in league games." So in other words, people will just use seconds in league matches instead after they are out of international cup.
The justification for the 2nd league match, really doesn't hold up, not when compared to having an extra competition for variety, and one which will be of huge benefit to everyone.
What benefit does your 22 match league have for someone in any small country (which we already know are most countries). Instead of having 14 boring matches (or 12 if they have one other good competitor), they have 22 boring ones (or 20 if they have one good competitor).
In many leagues, there are one or two dominant teams, this does not change by adding more teams to the comp and doubling the matches.
You say you want two guaranteed matches per week. We provided it.
We provide it, you say it is no good because people will just use it for 2nds (which goes against your previous argument against an International comp for fear it will be seen as more important than national, but you already know people will see international comp as second comp, thus saying people will just use seconds). People will still use seconds in the national comp with two matches per week, they will just choose which teams to do it against, and many people will feel aggrieved when they see they missed a promotion spot, or are being relegated, because someone used their firsts against them, and seconds against the other team.
In system with 2 league games, you can still use international one for training, - You literally said in another post this is what you want to avoid, but now you are saying this is what people will do anyway, so this does not fix the issue.
The problem with the reasons behind things that we are getting is they don't make sense. The reasons for why our ideas are "bad" can be said exactly for the other competition too. The only difference is with ours, it has more benefits.
So both have the same number of negatives, but what we have proposed has more benefits, including keeping people in the game longer but giving them another option.
I'm pretty sure we are the first people to ever have an idea which looks at creating fun and keeping people in game, is a bad idea (because you artificially want to tell people what should be important). Regardless of what the devs want to do with the game, the goal should be more fun for all. And currently that is not what is being offered, in fact, it is what we keep trying to propose and keep getting shut down.
We want to have fun. We want variety. And we want to have a social life outside of sokker.
The community driven schedule has done exactly this.
You've (DEVs not just Raul) try to say there are some vocal people but somehow they don't express the opinion of the majority of sokker. Well the vocal people are the ones who try to make the game better, they are the ones who bring people to the game, they are the ones who keep the forum alive, answer the newbie questions, report the bugs, keep the game moving forward and interesting, and are the ones who have been loyal through thick and thin. So whilst their vote shouldn't be worth more than someone not vocal, a lot of consideration to what they are saying should be taken.
Not only do I doubt that they don't represent the majority, but if these people start getting silenced, or ideas get walked over because someone else wants it to go in another direction, then you lose them, and everything they bring.
People have been getting more emotional as time goes on, everyone has been, and it is because whilst some things do get listened too, there as so many brick walls put in place, that it makes it almost impossible to do anything other than the underlying agenda, which is terrible, which is why so many people speak out. We finally feel like we have jumped the hurdles put in place, and come up with a good medium place, and suddenly another brick wall gets put in front, with arguments that don't actually differentiate between the DEVs ideas and the community driven ideas.
The justification for the 2nd league match, really doesn't hold up, not when compared to having an extra competition for variety, and one which will be of huge benefit to everyone.
What benefit does your 22 match league have for someone in any small country (which we already know are most countries). Instead of having 14 boring matches (or 12 if they have one other good competitor), they have 22 boring ones (or 20 if they have one good competitor).
In many leagues, there are one or two dominant teams, this does not change by adding more teams to the comp and doubling the matches.
You say you want two guaranteed matches per week. We provided it.
We provide it, you say it is no good because people will just use it for 2nds (which goes against your previous argument against an International comp for fear it will be seen as more important than national, but you already know people will see international comp as second comp, thus saying people will just use seconds). People will still use seconds in the national comp with two matches per week, they will just choose which teams to do it against, and many people will feel aggrieved when they see they missed a promotion spot, or are being relegated, because someone used their firsts against them, and seconds against the other team.
In system with 2 league games, you can still use international one for training, - You literally said in another post this is what you want to avoid, but now you are saying this is what people will do anyway, so this does not fix the issue.
The problem with the reasons behind things that we are getting is they don't make sense. The reasons for why our ideas are "bad" can be said exactly for the other competition too. The only difference is with ours, it has more benefits.
So both have the same number of negatives, but what we have proposed has more benefits, including keeping people in the game longer but giving them another option.
I'm pretty sure we are the first people to ever have an idea which looks at creating fun and keeping people in game, is a bad idea (because you artificially want to tell people what should be important). Regardless of what the devs want to do with the game, the goal should be more fun for all. And currently that is not what is being offered, in fact, it is what we keep trying to propose and keep getting shut down.
We want to have fun. We want variety. And we want to have a social life outside of sokker.
The community driven schedule has done exactly this.
You've (DEVs not just Raul) try to say there are some vocal people but somehow they don't express the opinion of the majority of sokker. Well the vocal people are the ones who try to make the game better, they are the ones who bring people to the game, they are the ones who keep the forum alive, answer the newbie questions, report the bugs, keep the game moving forward and interesting, and are the ones who have been loyal through thick and thin. So whilst their vote shouldn't be worth more than someone not vocal, a lot of consideration to what they are saying should be taken.
Not only do I doubt that they don't represent the majority, but if these people start getting silenced, or ideas get walked over because someone else wants it to go in another direction, then you lose them, and everything they bring.
People have been getting more emotional as time goes on, everyone has been, and it is because whilst some things do get listened too, there as so many brick walls put in place, that it makes it almost impossible to do anything other than the underlying agenda, which is terrible, which is why so many people speak out. We finally feel like we have jumped the hurdles put in place, and come up with a good medium place, and suddenly another brick wall gets put in front, with arguments that don't actually differentiate between the DEVs ideas and the community driven ideas.
To summarize:
1. As we said - options 2 is good enough, to be put on the vote, we belive, it can work good. BOTH IDEAS presented we believe, they can be implemented. We have our preference, but we will listen for your votes.
2. Yes, probably there is a space to adjust it more - but for today it's more fair to keep the same idea of international competition for both proposals (and it can change for both of them finally too), as long, as international competition is not most important part of that voting.
3. Form our perspective, after few simulations (and i remember, that i've said, that we need 2 guaranteed games)- we belive than there is a risk when you have 2 guaranteed games of different competitions - to ignore one type of them just for training - instead of that we would like to introduce some other idea, to make game fair for people who will be eliminated from cups - we pretty sure, that it's possible.
Regardless of it - as we discussed - final option of international competition is next step for us. For now key decission is number of games per week and league structure. Then we will go for more detailed work with particular types of competitions.
1. As we said - options 2 is good enough, to be put on the vote, we belive, it can work good. BOTH IDEAS presented we believe, they can be implemented. We have our preference, but we will listen for your votes.
2. Yes, probably there is a space to adjust it more - but for today it's more fair to keep the same idea of international competition for both proposals (and it can change for both of them finally too), as long, as international competition is not most important part of that voting.
3. Form our perspective, after few simulations (and i remember, that i've said, that we need 2 guaranteed games)- we belive than there is a risk when you have 2 guaranteed games of different competitions - to ignore one type of them just for training - instead of that we would like to introduce some other idea, to make game fair for people who will be eliminated from cups - we pretty sure, that it's possible.
Regardless of it - as we discussed - final option of international competition is next step for us. For now key decission is number of games per week and league structure. Then we will go for more detailed work with particular types of competitions.
You do realize you manipulated votes with the news?
Most of things you writing here are not visible for people that vote. ..
Most of things you writing here are not visible for people that vote. ..
Raul,
How much results of this poll will give you the decision to take :
- numbers as they are
- a gap sufficient to take the decision with no hesitation (which gap : 5% ? 10% ?)
I ask for this because some questions have multiple answers such the number of teams in a league.
If the result of this question is :
8 - 200 votes
12 - 210 votes
14 - 205 votes
16 - 215 votes
What would be your decision ? please
How much results of this poll will give you the decision to take :
- numbers as they are
- a gap sufficient to take the decision with no hesitation (which gap : 5% ? 10% ?)
I ask for this because some questions have multiple answers such the number of teams in a league.
If the result of this question is :
8 - 200 votes
12 - 210 votes
14 - 205 votes
16 - 215 votes
What would be your decision ? please
sviktorov to Raul
You do realize you manipulated votes with the news?
Most of things you writing here are not visible for people that vote. ..
Exactly my thoughts! The majority of voters don't read forums and they have no idea about all the argumentation, options and discussion about the systems here. It is like a referendum in real life with question and answers put in a manipulative way, so the voters vote for the option you want. This is not a democracy even it can appear to be so.
You do realize you manipulated votes with the news?
Most of things you writing here are not visible for people that vote. ..
Exactly my thoughts! The majority of voters don't read forums and they have no idea about all the argumentation, options and discussion about the systems here. It is like a referendum in real life with question and answers put in a manipulative way, so the voters vote for the option you want. This is not a democracy even it can appear to be so.
Also when presenting numbers like that, it has been proven people tend to select one of the middle options. So regardless of what people think, 12 or 14 will get up due to them being middle options, and that is just based on human nature (so doesn't mean it will happen, but it is a known technique for anyone well versed in designed questionnaires, to get votes to go one way or another)
I personaly support idea of 3 matches per week, if you want to play this game on the high level 4 matches are too much and you need to consider NT and U21 too.
But I have an idea, what if we play most of the nacional cup and internacional one in the diffrent weeks of seasson?
Lets say that nacional cup starts after group stage of the internacional, that way most of the teams will play 3 games per week even with 2 leagues matches per week.
What do you think about that, is it possible?
But I have an idea, what if we play most of the nacional cup and internacional one in the diffrent weeks of seasson?
Lets say that nacional cup starts after group stage of the internacional, that way most of the teams will play 3 games per week even with 2 leagues matches per week.
What do you think about that, is it possible?
the poll from today will give even more questions and confusions unless to reveal the final resulats as the first poll this one is set up wrongly and even for devs will give them wrong impressions...
i want 12 teams legauge and if i see option with 12 teams i vote for it but i do not want them in 12 weeeks...... how less simple to explain this ....
i want 12 teams legauge and if i see option with 12 teams i vote for it but i do not want them in 12 weeeks...... how less simple to explain this ....
"2. Yes, probably there is a space to adjust it more - but for today it's more fair to keep the same idea of international competition for both proposals"
The problem with this is the International Competition is integral to option 2. It is what make up 2 matches per week. In the first option is is just another "additional cup"
(edited)
The problem with this is the International Competition is integral to option 2. It is what make up 2 matches per week. In the first option is is just another "additional cup"
(edited)
Yes this is a democracy, lot of noise everywhere, people are complaining and a silent majority voting without knowing the consequences of their votes.
I believe the devs should just reform the game as they intended to, without listening to the sokker community.
Everybody will save time and at the end of the day the unhappy users will leave the game and new ones will join.
I believe the devs should just reform the game as they intended to, without listening to the sokker community.
Everybody will save time and at the end of the day the unhappy users will leave the game and new ones will join.