Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Youth reform - poll
I think you don’t understand equal chance. Just because it’s an equal chance doesn’t mean everyone gets the same quantity. Flipping a coin has the same chance for a heads or tails but if I flipped 10 coins and you flipped 10 coins it’s not guaranteed we will get the same number of heads and tails.
Also youth system is a money sink. Money gets taken out of the game. Yes some make profit off it but it’s not new money, it’s existing money being redistributed.
I know where you stand because you’re looking at how some teams seem to benefit more than others off rng but that’s not what was being discussed nor should anyone want that. Equal chance is what we should be aiming for and that’s what it currently is. Perhaps we can remove some layers of randomness and I’d like to see older players being worth something more then what they are for example.
Also youth system is a money sink. Money gets taken out of the game. Yes some make profit off it but it’s not new money, it’s existing money being redistributed.
I know where you stand because you’re looking at how some teams seem to benefit more than others off rng but that’s not what was being discussed nor should anyone want that. Equal chance is what we should be aiming for and that’s what it currently is. Perhaps we can remove some layers of randomness and I’d like to see older players being worth something more then what they are for example.
I think you don’t understand equal chance.
I think you repeat the same thing what i was saying.
Yes some make profit (...) it’s existing money being redistributed.
Typically, "being redistributed" is not money sink.
some teams seem to benefit more than others off rng but that’s not what was being discussed
And yet it's the #1 question discussed here. And for years.
I really wonder if users read the topics and comments that precede them before giving their opinion :-p
(edited)
I think you repeat the same thing what i was saying.
Yes some make profit (...) it’s existing money being redistributed.
Typically, "being redistributed" is not money sink.
some teams seem to benefit more than others off rng but that’s not what was being discussed
And yet it's the #1 question discussed here. And for years.
I really wonder if users read the topics and comments that precede them before giving their opinion :-p
(edited)
Typically, "being redistributed" is not money sink.
He ment that the junior league on it's own IS a money sink. Sales are sales...and it's a redistribution from one account to another, not a creation of extra money, like sponsorship or revenue...
some teams seem to benefit more than others off rng but that’s not what was being discussed
And yet it's the #1 question discussed about this. For years. Even devs are aware, that's saying a lot! ;-)
No it's not. I think we all agree that superpulls should be comparable to lottery tickets. In an ideal world, everybody wins the lottery, but that will in the end only result in nobody gaining anything. The nr 1 question is: Why are there new pulls entering the school at 18y of age if we all know they're going to be rubbish for 100% of the cases.
Just leave them out and have only decent pulls coming through. If that means only 5 youth players in a season, then so be it. Now lots of managers keep players only to maintain enough players to be able to play a pointless youth game in an even more pointless league and in the end, they promote the player and complain about how bad he is.
What we need is to have guaranteed better skill distribution, improved with age, so the older the player, the better his skill distribution needs to be, guaranteed.
He ment that the junior league on it's own IS a money sink. Sales are sales...and it's a redistribution from one account to another, not a creation of extra money, like sponsorship or revenue...
some teams seem to benefit more than others off rng but that’s not what was being discussed
And yet it's the #1 question discussed about this. For years. Even devs are aware, that's saying a lot! ;-)
No it's not. I think we all agree that superpulls should be comparable to lottery tickets. In an ideal world, everybody wins the lottery, but that will in the end only result in nobody gaining anything. The nr 1 question is: Why are there new pulls entering the school at 18y of age if we all know they're going to be rubbish for 100% of the cases.
Just leave them out and have only decent pulls coming through. If that means only 5 youth players in a season, then so be it. Now lots of managers keep players only to maintain enough players to be able to play a pointless youth game in an even more pointless league and in the end, they promote the player and complain about how bad he is.
What we need is to have guaranteed better skill distribution, improved with age, so the older the player, the better his skill distribution needs to be, guaranteed.
The nr 1 question is: Why are there new pulls entering the school at 18y of age if we all know they're going to be rubbish for 100% of the cases.
It's just a concomitant question. You can already find answer about draws distribution ( its require a little effort to read, sorry).
https://sokker.org/forum_topic/ID_forum/63355/ID_topic/3621569/pg/5
TL;DR "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 (currently -2)"
(edited)
It's just a concomitant question. You can already find answer about draws distribution ( its require a little effort to read, sorry).
https://sokker.org/forum_topic/ID_forum/63355/ID_topic/3621569/pg/5
TL;DR "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 (currently -2)"
(edited)
Your specific post explicitly stated it’s not equal chance. I was simply stating that it is equal chance but isn’t guaranteed to be equal in raw numbers.
As for money sink. You pay per youth school place and for youth coach wage every week that takes money out of the game. That’s the money sink. It doesn’t generate money in the game like gate receipts/sponsor payments. On top of this selling a youth player still has a tax added to it so that takes money out of the game too. So all that happens is when you sell a player (junior) it’s a money transfer from one user to another, it’s not being created and in fact money is taken from the game during such a transfer as well. So I was again stating your opinion of it not being a money sink was false.
I have read the whole thread this time as well so how many more times do you want to strike out being factually inaccurate :D
As for money sink. You pay per youth school place and for youth coach wage every week that takes money out of the game. That’s the money sink. It doesn’t generate money in the game like gate receipts/sponsor payments. On top of this selling a youth player still has a tax added to it so that takes money out of the game too. So all that happens is when you sell a player (junior) it’s a money transfer from one user to another, it’s not being created and in fact money is taken from the game during such a transfer as well. So I was again stating your opinion of it not being a money sink was false.
I have read the whole thread this time as well so how many more times do you want to strike out being factually inaccurate :D
Your specific post explicitly stated it’s not equal chance. I was simply stating that it is equal chance but isn’t guaranteed to be equal in raw numbers.
Come on ...
"Like a lottery, only a few lucky ones getting talented and young juniors. The chance is not equally distributed."
distributed. ^^
Come on ...
"Like a lottery, only a few lucky ones getting talented and young juniors. The chance is not equally distributed."
distributed. ^^
What we need is to have guaranteed better skill distribution, improved with age, so the older the player, the better his skill distribution needs to be, guaranteed.
I think that 90% of the job can be done by removing stamina from the youth's level sum. in that way we can asses better our players and see the real level, do proper cleaning and probably we will end with only keeping 5 players per season
The stamina can be assesed by the useless junior games, which anyway nobody cares if stamina=0
edit: also Gk=0 for field players
I am not against the idea of randomness, but when stamina and gk steals 3-4 levels, you just want to fire the coach and close the academy
(edited)
I think that 90% of the job can be done by removing stamina from the youth's level sum. in that way we can asses better our players and see the real level, do proper cleaning and probably we will end with only keeping 5 players per season
The stamina can be assesed by the useless junior games, which anyway nobody cares if stamina=0
edit: also Gk=0 for field players
I am not against the idea of randomness, but when stamina and gk steals 3-4 levels, you just want to fire the coach and close the academy
(edited)
It is nice idea. It's simpler that define skills distribution for position at start (devs proposal), and a less harmful.
thank you cometer and Dtox9.
Yes, same chance means same probability. It's a good thing if big clubs have the same probability as smaller ones, so in youth school they cannot buy better players.
Money sink: like has been said, it takes money out of the system.
The value of players out of youth school is something the devs do not control. We do with the transfermarket. Now let's say it would be true that a player with 20y is really worth nothing compared to a 19y or 18y old player with identical skills and talent. This would be the logical cause, if the game produces more youth than it needs, so big teams will fight for the best players and the other players aren't used because there are not enough training spots in the game to actually use them.
Logically Devs have only a few options to solve this: if you make a system that makes all players more useful by getting rid of 20y old, then you would have the same problem that all 19y olds would be worthless, because there is not more need for players since the number of training spots is identical. The only way to "solve" this, is to reduce the number of youth players that come out of youth school or to increase the number of training spots, both aren't a good idea for other reasons. The other option is to get more growth with new managers that buy the players, this increased demand would solve the problem, but is hard to control.
So the only suggestions I would think to be useful are changes that at least make the player more useful for the team that pulled him, so only a selection of where the highest skill lands seems useful to me.
"Well, no offense, but after 10 years XP and 3rd try..." you know, some players like to play the same savegame for 20 years, some actually like all phases of the game, leave voluntarily and want to play it again from start to finish. You're lucky that I don't take this as an insult, because I think most people would see this as an inappropriate insult that ads absolutely nothing to the discussion.
(edited)
Yes, same chance means same probability. It's a good thing if big clubs have the same probability as smaller ones, so in youth school they cannot buy better players.
Money sink: like has been said, it takes money out of the system.
The value of players out of youth school is something the devs do not control. We do with the transfermarket. Now let's say it would be true that a player with 20y is really worth nothing compared to a 19y or 18y old player with identical skills and talent. This would be the logical cause, if the game produces more youth than it needs, so big teams will fight for the best players and the other players aren't used because there are not enough training spots in the game to actually use them.
Logically Devs have only a few options to solve this: if you make a system that makes all players more useful by getting rid of 20y old, then you would have the same problem that all 19y olds would be worthless, because there is not more need for players since the number of training spots is identical. The only way to "solve" this, is to reduce the number of youth players that come out of youth school or to increase the number of training spots, both aren't a good idea for other reasons. The other option is to get more growth with new managers that buy the players, this increased demand would solve the problem, but is hard to control.
So the only suggestions I would think to be useful are changes that at least make the player more useful for the team that pulled him, so only a selection of where the highest skill lands seems useful to me.
"Well, no offense, but after 10 years XP and 3rd try..." you know, some players like to play the same savegame for 20 years, some actually like all phases of the game, leave voluntarily and want to play it again from start to finish. You're lucky that I don't take this as an insult, because I think most people would see this as an inappropriate insult that ads absolutely nothing to the discussion.
(edited)
Equal chance is what we should be aiming for and that’s what it currently is.
How can you be so sure of that? We don't know the code. We do, however, have examples of clubs with incredible "luck" as well as clubs with absolutely no "luck" during an insane amount of seasons.
This should simply not happen in an ideal scenario. In an ideal scenario there should be differences and variations in luck, of course, but absolutely not to the extent that we're seeing currently. This needs to be adjusted.
How can you be so sure of that? We don't know the code. We do, however, have examples of clubs with incredible "luck" as well as clubs with absolutely no "luck" during an insane amount of seasons.
This should simply not happen in an ideal scenario. In an ideal scenario there should be differences and variations in luck, of course, but absolutely not to the extent that we're seeing currently. This needs to be adjusted.
Equal chance as in equal probability to get juniors that are high level and young for all clubs when they join your club on Saturday. I have never ever heard anyone saying that this wasn't the case.
Now of course there are teams that get lucky and teams that don't. But prices aren't made by the devs. Prices are made by supply and demand. To change the system would not solve the problem as I explained above. It would just move the problem as long as supply and demand don't change.
Now of course there are teams that get lucky and teams that don't. But prices aren't made by the devs. Prices are made by supply and demand. To change the system would not solve the problem as I explained above. It would just move the problem as long as supply and demand don't change.
I have never ever heard anyone saying that this wasn't the case.
I have seen plenty examples of the extreme cases, I'm mentioning. These examples are real. The assumption that equal chance is an actual thing in the game code is, on the other hand, merely speculation.
I have seen plenty examples of the extreme cases, I'm mentioning. These examples are real. The assumption that equal chance is an actual thing in the game code is, on the other hand, merely speculation.
Whilst not guaranteed, thinking about it logically having the same random chance of coming in each week would be the easiest scalable solution rather then if your team ends with a 1 you have different odds to someone else or some other really weird individual calculation for every team.
Much easier to say if you have the same coach setup you get the same chance to produce a player. The problem is there are many layers of rng (age/talent/skills/week entered/number of weeks to be in school) so you may hit lucky on one or some of them but not others).
Problem is you might be lucky on all but one of those but sack the player before seeing what the rest looked like as your standards might be so high.
Unless otherwise told I choose to believe they went with a single shared solution for every team based on weightings for all the factors to control the talent pool. Those weights are the same for everyone and so tells rest comes down to luck. Some people have won lotto more times than others too but it’s the same chance for everyone still.
Much easier to say if you have the same coach setup you get the same chance to produce a player. The problem is there are many layers of rng (age/talent/skills/week entered/number of weeks to be in school) so you may hit lucky on one or some of them but not others).
Problem is you might be lucky on all but one of those but sack the player before seeing what the rest looked like as your standards might be so high.
Unless otherwise told I choose to believe they went with a single shared solution for every team based on weightings for all the factors to control the talent pool. Those weights are the same for everyone and so tells rest comes down to luck. Some people have won lotto more times than others too but it’s the same chance for everyone still.
Elmomo Is right.
Its very confuse to say "equal chance". Equal chance in a lottery would mean an equal distribution, and the same chance : to have a good, a medium or a poor junior draw. It's not the case.
Judging from juniors database 1/5 junior draws are valuable (i mean... more than 1 euro)
The current draw 4/5 is unsellable.
It's finally ending - following a gauss curve normal distribution - by 1% top draws that fall in the hands of so few lucky clubs, 20% possibly sellable, and 79% we could named a "money sink".
(edited)
Its very confuse to say "equal chance". Equal chance in a lottery would mean an equal distribution, and the same chance : to have a good, a medium or a poor junior draw. It's not the case.
Judging from juniors database 1/5 junior draws are valuable (i mean... more than 1 euro)
The current draw 4/5 is unsellable.
It's finally ending - following a gauss curve normal distribution - by 1% top draws that fall in the hands of so few lucky clubs, 20% possibly sellable, and 79% we could named a "money sink".
(edited)
It's a good thing if big clubs have the same probability as smaller ones, so in youth school they cannot buy better players.
And so what ? :-)
Typically, this "money sink" doesn't hurt so much big clubs (max 1 million lost per season) and the system produce just a few valuable juniors that finally comes into the hands of big clubs. Great deal.
And so what ? :-)
Typically, this "money sink" doesn't hurt so much big clubs (max 1 million lost per season) and the system produce just a few valuable juniors that finally comes into the hands of big clubs. Great deal.