Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Youth reform - poll
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.
Equal chance never means equal distribution in anything. They’re very different terms.
The lottery the chance of winning the top prize is the same if 2 people buy a single ticket each.
It is possible that one of those 2 win more often than someone else wins despite having the same chance.
Now whether sokker is equal chance or not, all that is required is that when a junior enters the youth school that everyone has the same chance of getting the same player, which I can’t see why they wouldn’t program for that, would be crazy to have to give every user a different odds and the have to store that somewhere so every week they can refer back to it for each user. Much simpler for it to be the same percentage chance.
You can throw a thousand cases of teams with better pulls than others but it proves nothing, when the probability of a poor pull is so high given how any variables there are in pulling a junior.
So whilst I can’t prove the opposite, why would you ever go out of your way to have to come up with a different % chance for every new user and make it way more complicated then necessary ? What’s the justification for doing so and where’s the benefit. You can control good youth pulls simply from changing the odds for everyone rather than everyone having different odds. That would just be silly.
If you think from a development perspective rather than from your small observations where you’re not even tracking all the variables involved I can’t see how you can even think that certain users have a higher chance of pulling a high quality youth. However, please enlighten me if you seriously believe that.
The lottery the chance of winning the top prize is the same if 2 people buy a single ticket each.
It is possible that one of those 2 win more often than someone else wins despite having the same chance.
Now whether sokker is equal chance or not, all that is required is that when a junior enters the youth school that everyone has the same chance of getting the same player, which I can’t see why they wouldn’t program for that, would be crazy to have to give every user a different odds and the have to store that somewhere so every week they can refer back to it for each user. Much simpler for it to be the same percentage chance.
You can throw a thousand cases of teams with better pulls than others but it proves nothing, when the probability of a poor pull is so high given how any variables there are in pulling a junior.
So whilst I can’t prove the opposite, why would you ever go out of your way to have to come up with a different % chance for every new user and make it way more complicated then necessary ? What’s the justification for doing so and where’s the benefit. You can control good youth pulls simply from changing the odds for everyone rather than everyone having different odds. That would just be silly.
If you think from a development perspective rather than from your small observations where you’re not even tracking all the variables involved I can’t see how you can even think that certain users have a higher chance of pulling a high quality youth. However, please enlighten me if you seriously believe that.
The lottery the chance of winning the top prize is the same if 2 people buy a single ticket each.
Yes it is the same probabilities ^^
But it's not the question. It's the probability to get the top prize, a good prize, a medium prize, or nothing. That's what we call distribution.
Now whether sokker is equal chance or not, all that is required is that when a junior enters the youth school that everyone has the same chance of getting the same player, which I can’t see why they wouldn’t program for that
It is, typically... changing distribution !
You can read an introduction to normal distribution : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
Yes it is the same probabilities ^^
But it's not the question. It's the probability to get the top prize, a good prize, a medium prize, or nothing. That's what we call distribution.
Now whether sokker is equal chance or not, all that is required is that when a junior enters the youth school that everyone has the same chance of getting the same player, which I can’t see why they wouldn’t program for that
It is, typically... changing distribution !
You can read an introduction to normal distribution : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
I don’t need to read about normal distribution, I’m already well across it. Whether the probability of a good player is 1%,2% or 3%, the chance of getting a good player is the same for all users. Just because it might be more likely to draw a medium or bad player that’s the same for everyone. It’s not the case that for user x they have a 5% chance of a good player and user y they have a 0% chance of a good player. Therefore the chance of getting a good player is the same for everyone but getting a good player is still unlikely. Someone can get 0 and others can get 2,3,4 but the chances are the same for each user.
In any case you’re probably referring to a different context to what myself and a few others have been using. I think you’re looking at the chances in isolation of getting a good,med,bad youth which of course will have different probabilities.
The rest of us have been talking about that those same probabilities are the same for every user. So I think that’s where this confusion is coming from
(edited)
(edited)
In any case you’re probably referring to a different context to what myself and a few others have been using. I think you’re looking at the chances in isolation of getting a good,med,bad youth which of course will have different probabilities.
The rest of us have been talking about that those same probabilities are the same for every user. So I think that’s where this confusion is coming from
(edited)
(edited)
For me, just because we have the same probability it doesn't mean that is fair. A lottery is unfair until it’s not equal distribution. And usually lottery are not, it is more or less unequals. Sokker lottery is very unequal. If you like this, good for you.
Why are u talking about « the rest of us » ? While many users complain about a lottery they doesn’t care about having the same chance/probabilities, they just see an unfair lottery and too many useless juniors. But it seems that devs finally heard the rest of us… I hope so.
(edited)
Why are u talking about « the rest of us » ? While many users complain about a lottery they doesn’t care about having the same chance/probabilities, they just see an unfair lottery and too many useless juniors. But it seems that devs finally heard the rest of us… I hope so.
(edited)
I have been responding to those that were specifically talking about equal probabilities/chance and others trying to suggest it wasn’t. That was all I’ve been replying to in this thread.
The system is fair (we all play by the same probabilities so it’s not unfair) but it can and does result in unequal distribution. Can there be a better solution, I believe so. Think I stated so earlier that it would be nice to have less layers of rng and to make older players more useful as one such change. If you wanted everything equal then throw the whole system out and just give every user the same junior every week, you’ll never get equal distribution and fair otherwise. Any rng at all will always produce unequal distributions.
(edited)
The system is fair (we all play by the same probabilities so it’s not unfair) but it can and does result in unequal distribution. Can there be a better solution, I believe so. Think I stated so earlier that it would be nice to have less layers of rng and to make older players more useful as one such change. If you wanted everything equal then throw the whole system out and just give every user the same junior every week, you’ll never get equal distribution and fair otherwise. Any rng at all will always produce unequal distributions.
(edited)
Think I stated so earlier that it would be nice to have less layers of rng
Sure. It would result to flatten the curve of normal distribution, finally it's about distribution :-p
2 years ago i suggest to reduce one or more of those ranges in vote to save our juniors. 2 years later we are back to that point.
(edited)
Sure. It would result to flatten the curve of normal distribution, finally it's about distribution :-p
2 years ago i suggest to reduce one or more of those ranges in vote to save our juniors. 2 years later we are back to that point.
(edited)
Cometer perfectly covered the probability-fairness part.
To the "my juniors aren't worth enough problem": Look, the main problem here seems to be that some people here don't really want to see that the prices are made by us that buy players from the transfermarket. The only reason, why most juniors are worth nothing, is not that the system of getting juniors is bad and has to be changed so all your youth would magically suddenly be valuable, it's that the supply of juniors is higher than the demand of teams that want to buy and grow those juniors. There are a lot of factors going into this, it's a complicated thing and I tried to explain it with only a few factors that go into it. Since my posts to this are getting ignored I will just say this:
- it will always be the case that the best juniors will be the most expensive ones (you are talking here about very few percent and that's correct) and reach ridiculous prices, because that's when very rich clubs battle for the best ones. Changing distribution changes nothing, as there will always be some juniors that are the best.
- the suggestions I've seen here (removing 18 year old juniors, flattening the curve) don't solve this "problem", as they don't impact supply or demand. They move the problem over and we will have the exactly same thing just with different ages etc.
- atm some juniors are subjectively worth more money. But from a statistical standpoint to the game engine on the pitch and the resulting final player and the sell profit etc. it doesn't actually matter that much, if a junior is 17 or 18 years old. yes the 17 year old player will reach higher levels in skills, but if you want to sell either player after 6 years of training you have to calculate the profit as sell price minus the buy price. And then it may actually be the case that atm the 18 year old player would be the better deal, as you paid a lot less for him. Prices are made by people that act subjectively. Changes in game should solve actual problems instead.
(edited)
To the "my juniors aren't worth enough problem": Look, the main problem here seems to be that some people here don't really want to see that the prices are made by us that buy players from the transfermarket. The only reason, why most juniors are worth nothing, is not that the system of getting juniors is bad and has to be changed so all your youth would magically suddenly be valuable, it's that the supply of juniors is higher than the demand of teams that want to buy and grow those juniors. There are a lot of factors going into this, it's a complicated thing and I tried to explain it with only a few factors that go into it. Since my posts to this are getting ignored I will just say this:
- it will always be the case that the best juniors will be the most expensive ones (you are talking here about very few percent and that's correct) and reach ridiculous prices, because that's when very rich clubs battle for the best ones. Changing distribution changes nothing, as there will always be some juniors that are the best.
- the suggestions I've seen here (removing 18 year old juniors, flattening the curve) don't solve this "problem", as they don't impact supply or demand. They move the problem over and we will have the exactly same thing just with different ages etc.
- atm some juniors are subjectively worth more money. But from a statistical standpoint to the game engine on the pitch and the resulting final player and the sell profit etc. it doesn't actually matter that much, if a junior is 17 or 18 years old. yes the 17 year old player will reach higher levels in skills, but if you want to sell either player after 6 years of training you have to calculate the profit as sell price minus the buy price. And then it may actually be the case that atm the 18 year old player would be the better deal, as you paid a lot less for him. Prices are made by people that act subjectively. Changes in game should solve actual problems instead.
(edited)
Cometer : would be nice to have less layers of rng and to make older players more useful as one such change
If you are agree with @cometer so it’s ending to better distribution, and it was this kind of fairness I was talking about.
Your analysis is focused only on the great players that exist, and the fact that we'd all have the same chance, however small, of having one. It's ok, but that's not the problem.
I'm talking about something different, an equal chance of having a good, an average or a bad junior. Currently the chance of having a great junior is very low, a good to medium junior is low (valuable more than 1 euro), and a poor junior, very high.
(edited)
If you are agree with @cometer so it’s ending to better distribution, and it was this kind of fairness I was talking about.
Your analysis is focused only on the great players that exist, and the fact that we'd all have the same chance, however small, of having one. It's ok, but that's not the problem.
I'm talking about something different, an equal chance of having a good, an average or a bad junior. Currently the chance of having a great junior is very low, a good to medium junior is low (valuable more than 1 euro), and a poor junior, very high.
(edited)