If there was a limit of 15 or 20 youths... I could agree.
But with a limit of 30 it's far too easy to choose who "makes sense" and who should be deleted, even when you never play in youth league and the graph is a mess :)

I strugle to have at least 11 (not completely worthless) juniors now. While Devs are considering halving the number of incoming juniors and creating campus facility for up to 35 juniors :D

This idea is not good, please dont spent time on this idea.

Please listen to the users of this game.
Youth changes yes, but not this way.
Most important for youth is to have players untill max 19y old in the end in my opinion, not all those other stuff mentioned here. Keep it simple.
(edited)

Everything looks like good improvements here,

Except one imo

"Training facilities - depending on their level, we can hire a better coaching staff. Here, higher levels of facilities do not affect the maintenance cost of a junior place - we will incur a greater cost by hiring a better coach. Expansion will allow us to employ a specialist at the maximum level - however, it will be possible to opt for a weaker specialist or not have a coach at all:

Maximum level of coach - incredible
Maximum level of coach - dazzling
Maximum level of coach - magical
Maximum level of coach - unearthly
Maximum level of coach - godlike"

I would change this to

Maximum level of coach - incredible
Maximum level of coach - brilliant
Maximum level of coach - magical
Maximum level of coach - unearthly
Maximum level of coach - unearthly with ?% boost (suggest 3% or 5%) you will no better what is fair.

Reason being, this has no impact regarding "backward compatability" to existing game.
What I mean by that, is many users have spent much money on buying the best coaches "Unearthly" €10m +
I don't think it is wise to suddenly pull the rug on that and say - btw folks that is no longer the best coach!

Training facilities could perhaps also improve "Formation Training"
I'd keep "Advanced & General Training" as it is.

The adjustment I've suggest does not impact on your goal.
This will make users spend money on improving facilities which they see important or decide they are happy enough without the investment.


Unlocking higher skills for juniors, linked to age, would it be something like this, I woudn't tinker dramatically with it, keep it balanced.
16 solid (very young)
17 very good (young)
18-20 excellent (mid range)
21 formidable (old)
22 outstanding (very old)
(edited)

It may be easier for this "permabonus" but it is not guaranteed, and it certainly doesn't ourweigh all the massive benefits large countries get every week for the past almost 20years.

Study of junior draws

I used Sktables Academy database to check juniors data.
I hope it will help to adjust the "curves".

# Talent distribution

I expect (in theory) talent is a random draw from 3 to 6, the medium point should be talent 4.5 and following a gaussian curve of distribution

I've removed juniors data biases from study: incalculable talents and talents 5 (and above) which are difficult to confirm and less accurate with the sktables algorithm. I finally group expected talent by range of talent quality.

[url=https://ibb.co/9sKmV7d][/url]

Most of juniors (51%) have a Weak talent. 10% of juniors have a Great talent. 32% a medium talent.

Conclusion: Data confirm a medium point around talent 4.5, which is already a weak talent

Since i remove talent 5+ from study i can't confirm a gaussian distribution but i assume that's the case, we should have the same dsitrib of talent 3 to 4 and talent 5 to 6

Note : Estimated talent are not real talent, it could be a bias to confirm the medium point (talent 4.5)


# Age left distribution

I expect (in theory) that starting age is a random draw from 16 to 18 and weeks in school a random draw from 1 to 33. The medium point is a junior starting at 17y old for 17 weeks. So usually a junior should left the school at 18,x years old.

[url=https://ibb.co/3cjB345][/url]

Data confirm a medium point around 18.5y and clearly show a gaussian curve which confirm that draws are normal random.

Conclusion : Most of juniors leaving school at 18,5y

# Distribution of Scores

Sktables evaluate juniors potential according to Scores.
When a junior equal or exceed a "baseline level" Score is 0 or positive, which mean a better chance to get a good young player. On the other hand, the more negative is the score, the lower are the chances.

[url=https://ibb.co/wCdhRZ7][/url]

As i expected its follow a gaussian distribution. The medium point is -2
Score -2 is considered as an average score (grade B to C for those in the know), its remains a small chance compared to positive scores (grade A).

Conclusion: Most juniors have a small chance of having value when they leave school. However, juniors with a positive score (those most likely to be valuable) represent barely 13% of junior draws. A "balanced" chance to get valuable juniors should be a medium point to 0

1) There is a bias: managers will tend to dismiss the weakest juniors, the median score is certainly lower than -2
2) Postive score (grade A) does not mean a valuable young player, just a better chance to get higher sum of skills and better skills distrib.
(edited)

ignore, I have read my answer ;)
(edited)

more than 75% of the juniors end up being fired from the first week in the school. from the remaining 25% juniors more than half ends being fired after scholl or being sold with 1 -100 euro.
Why so much waste?
Just put more juniors with 10-50k value price. Every one can buy them and training them . you can make a decent player with a good training.
On the the other hand users will not get rich from selling them...

The only reason most youth school players are unsellable is simply that there are too many and not enough spots to train.

Let's do the math:

Let's say there are 3,000 active users, each of them trains 10 players (30,000 trained players) and 90% of them have a working youth school (2,700 opened schools)

A player comes out at 18 on average and his training is discontinued at about 25 on average - therefore a player has 8 years of life from a training perspective

This means that we need 30,000 / 8 = ~3,750 newly generated players per seaseon or ~1.4 per youth school.

But youth schools are averaging 3 new players per week or 2700x3x13 = 105,000 per season or 39 per youth school.

This means that only 3.6% of all players coming to youth schools can have any value in the market regardless of anything else.

Even if they make it so that all players come in at 16 with top talent, still 96.4% of them won't sell on the market because the best 3,6% will fill all available training spots.

For me general level of youths globally is not a problem

The problem is:

a. totally random distribution (lucky ones make 25m euro, unlucky ones make 0.25m euro)
b. lack of any impact on youth school (activity/time/resources spent)
c. clear advantage of short-week 16yos over any other youths
d. lack of value among high level (magical+) 19-20yo youths
(edited)

It's amazing the guys in this game the longest(like 2005), who have amassed the most wealth inside the game, are the ones who don't want to see changes to the system instead of making changes that would help newcomers and grow the game and experience. Got any solutions to go with all those complaints?

That's a nice theory but

a. I want changes
b. I want GOOD changes
c. I want changes that will help small/medium teams
d. I want changes that will make the game more interesting/equal for everyone
e. I want changes that will limit the stupid mass-trading in the game

Yes, I have a lot of money - so what if I don't care about playing the game anymore? I'm just training since many, many seasons
(edited)

The solution is easy from my point of view and little efford:
a.- totally random distribution (lucky ones make 25m euro, unlucky ones make 0.25m euro)
b. lack of any impact on youth school (activity/time/resources spent)

- Instead of giving 1-6 random players, Show 1-6 players with all stats, then choose one to incorporate.
- Choose for each player a training (or a position like GK,DEF,MID, ATT a training)
- Give a % youth training to the chosen skill, the rest, random or randomized by position.
- If player played a youth game, your choosen % will be more and the random less.
- stamina should be pure random and player "level" should not be distributed on stamina never.
- player templates in randomnes. No more field players with high keeper or things like that.


c. clear advantage of short-week 16yos over any other youths
d. lack of value among high level (magical+) 19-20yo youths
Easy too:
- Lets take in account all weeks and age for all levels. Initial level should be 0-6 + age/week adjustment. For each 4 weeks, a +1 level adjustment. One year older should count like 13 weeks or nearly a +3 level adjustment.
- The level achieved in academy is the real cap for the abilities. So a formidable (11) level youth can have formidable stats and so on. This will make keepers, for example, stronger on age (and not having high level keepers like all around midfielders).
This adjustment tone down early-week youngs and give stronger late-week youngs, but i think it's fair.
It would be desirable you can choose when to move the youth to first team, not a random one. If youth ages 21, then automatically go to team a.

Allthough it seems powerful, some important notes.
1.- Talent is far more difficult to see, you see individual stats (with no information of their decimals) grow mostly random. Only long-term or promoted youths can be guessed. So it's possible that a young with mediocre talent go to team a. I would propose to complicate this further that talent in team a would be randomized again based on initial one (-0.5 to +0.5) reflecting adaptation to team a.
2.- young are indeed two level lowers at start in this system to prevent fear to devs, but it can be improved or modified (less points per level, actually it seems that a young gets about 3-3.6 points per level)


As a player, i do not want to fire 45 youngs. I want to manage less, but meaninful ones.
(edited)

Any system that leads to more good youths will crash the economy. That is bad news for everyone, but much worse for the smaller clubs.

We don't need more good youths, we need a system that balances the value of youths. Right now, that balance favours 16 & 17 year olds too much. That gap needs to either be tightened (16/17s can't be pulled til 18 or skill restriction) or removed entirely (no more 16/17s). Do that and suddenly 18-21s aren't useless. The player levels overall would drop, but that's certainly not a bad thing as it would eventually increase the competition of the game on the whole.

Well, the system i propose is neutral about good/worse youths. You simply manage less and randomize less the youths you manage.

On the other hand, i think that "a system that leads to more good youths will crash the economy" is, at least, a debatable statement.

More good youths (not better ones) implies that the money already spend on several big-luck youngs will be distributed on the other good youths. Or being paying less for that star. The money simply will be redirected.
The real change for more good youngs is simply better average squads for the same money. Or put in other words. The actually "shining" 20M youths would be less important, because these would be a little better, but not far better.

But, in the changes i proposed i adopted a neutral viewpoint of this question than can be toned up or down. It doesn't make better youngs in average (in average does it a bit worse), but player has the control and youngs should be more meaningful.
(edited)
(edited)

Interesting idea but too complicated and hard to prepare properly & code because they admitted that they have very low resources, creating this completely new idea of youth school would probably take them years before they finished it.

It would also be way too complicated for new users to understand. This game has to be simple. Nuanced, but simple in its core.

I think it would take a lot of time to create it properly so that the players are not too strong after leaving the youth school.
And they would probably mess it up terribly.

It also has some weak spots, for example:
- Choose for each player a training (or a position like GK,DEF,MID, ATT a training)
the only good choice would be pace (every position needs it, it's the hardest skill to train later on)
with max pace the only good choice would be technique (every position needs so whether other training will go to def/pm/pass/striker it won't be a problem)