Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Youth reform - poll
This problem with 16/17 year olds is such an easy fix. Just make sure they can't be pulled until they're 18.
16 year old comes in at Week 1? 28 weeks in the youth system.
Week 2? 27 weeks etc
16/17 year olds have no business being the main team anyway.
16 year old comes in at Week 1? 28 weeks in the youth system.
Week 2? 27 weeks etc
16/17 year olds have no business being the main team anyway.
it works the same for all countries, so yes, that is normal that country with one user cant be as stron as nation with 100 users.
But it can be solved with that idea of international juniors - i think we will somehow address it.
But it can be solved with that idea of international juniors - i think we will somehow address it.
Not really, they will still be the best ones in the game (except for those without talent, now you can get money for talentless 16yo that goes out after 1-4 weeks with great start skill and distribution)
Yes, but you would have much less time training to fix their skill distribution. Right now if you buy a talented 16 year old, you can pretty much do what you want with them in terms of what position you train them for. If they're stuck in the youths until 18, there's nothing you can do. That lowers their value to nearer a talented 18 year old.
Not really, the top value 16yos are those that have great position distribution, there’s no point in fixing anything - you buy them for specific position
And with your system they would still be the players with highest possible sumskill & their value would differ based on distribution, so same as now
And with your system they would still be the players with highest possible sumskill & their value would differ based on distribution, so same as now
Just make youth skills visible, leave the talent factor as it is, scouting network is good, facilities are okay, try not to make it more expensive than it already is (for a lot of people is and probably will not be profitable having an academy )... maybe add specific traning for youth academies.
Don't complicate it too much, it will become frustrating, annoying and then boring!
Don't complicate it too much, it will become frustrating, annoying and then boring!
I don't see it. If I ask myself, would I rather have
A) A talented 16 years I can train in whatever I want
Or
B) A talented 18 year old I can train in whatever I want
The answer is obviously A, because it's easier to mould them. So simply remove A) as an option.
The best players will always be worth more, that's how it should be, but there is a need to narrow the value gap between 16-18. You can do that to some extent by simply removing 16-17 from the main team.
A) A talented 16 years I can train in whatever I want
Or
B) A talented 18 year old I can train in whatever I want
The answer is obviously A, because it's easier to mould them. So simply remove A) as an option.
The best players will always be worth more, that's how it should be, but there is a need to narrow the value gap between 16-18. You can do that to some extent by simply removing 16-17 from the main team.
but in the end curve is proper and we statisticly get well balenced juniors overall.
I m curious to know more details about this. I publish data from a descent juniors database (1000+ juniors) and i didn’t see the same thing. So what is a balanced draw for you ?
If you percive that we have to much weak juniors in sokker, that is a problem of perception mostly.
it is not a perception. I publish and analysis data by myself and the vast majority are at the top of gauss distribution are worthless. But once again It’s depend of our own perception of what is a « balanced » draw.
you say that talent like 4,5-5 is useless. why is that?
Really ? Well if you think that training at long term a player at talent 4.5-5 is a winning strategy I can’t help for your own game.
So i would say opposite - actually we have to much good juniors (in terms of talent and long term potential).
Sure, the market is so smooth, we can find too much good juniors for one penny.
Off course We can spend many seasons training a lower-skilled player at talent 3 for sure… it could be your perception of a good juniors and long terms strategy….
I m curious to know more details about this. I publish data from a descent juniors database (1000+ juniors) and i didn’t see the same thing. So what is a balanced draw for you ?
If you percive that we have to much weak juniors in sokker, that is a problem of perception mostly.
it is not a perception. I publish and analysis data by myself and the vast majority are at the top of gauss distribution are worthless. But once again It’s depend of our own perception of what is a « balanced » draw.
you say that talent like 4,5-5 is useless. why is that?
Really ? Well if you think that training at long term a player at talent 4.5-5 is a winning strategy I can’t help for your own game.
So i would say opposite - actually we have to much good juniors (in terms of talent and long term potential).
Sure, the market is so smooth, we can find too much good juniors for one penny.
Off course We can spend many seasons training a lower-skilled player at talent 3 for sure… it could be your perception of a good juniors and long terms strategy….
The answer is obviously A, because it's easier to mould them. So simply remove A) as an option.
The best players will always be worth more, that's how it should be, but there is a need to narrow the value gap between 16-18.
but you are not doing that
the same 16yos will still be the best when they are 18yo
they might be worse because of lack of perfect molding, but they will still be the best
so it will still be about who gets the high talent, high level 16yo in first weeks of season - in the core nothing changes, you just have to wait longer for him to come out
in practice:
season 1, week 1: you get a 16yo with good skill, talent 3.0 - he has to spend 2 seasons in ys as per your idea
season 3, week 1: this player is now a 18yo with unearthly skill (28 weeks/3 = 9 pops) and he comes out as a total beast
season 3, week 1: you get a good 18yo with 5 weeks to come out
how does that help with anything? getting that 16yo is still millions times better than getting any 18yo
(edited)
The best players will always be worth more, that's how it should be, but there is a need to narrow the value gap between 16-18.
but you are not doing that
the same 16yos will still be the best when they are 18yo
they might be worse because of lack of perfect molding, but they will still be the best
so it will still be about who gets the high talent, high level 16yo in first weeks of season - in the core nothing changes, you just have to wait longer for him to come out
in practice:
season 1, week 1: you get a 16yo with good skill, talent 3.0 - he has to spend 2 seasons in ys as per your idea
season 3, week 1: this player is now a 18yo with unearthly skill (28 weeks/3 = 9 pops) and he comes out as a total beast
season 3, week 1: you get a good 18yo with 5 weeks to come out
how does that help with anything? getting that 16yo is still millions times better than getting any 18yo
(edited)
Sure. It feel like Camus discover the game. He has a good excuse. But Raul…
It would only have sense if you could receive (for example, without doing the math)
16yo tragic-adequate
17yo adequate-excellent
18yo excellent-incredible
then yes, maybe, but then it would create far too many good players
16yo tragic-adequate
17yo adequate-excellent
18yo excellent-incredible
then yes, maybe, but then it would create far too many good players
The good juniors will be a new standard :-) At this point of price inflation and huge inequality between teams it couldn’t hurt.
But just removing the worst numbers draws range it’s a joke to say it will hurt and flood many good juniors. Raul’s proposition to make a position skill distribution at start will hurt and flood much more than any of my simple and modest proposals :-)
But just removing the worst numbers draws range it’s a joke to say it will hurt and flood many good juniors. Raul’s proposition to make a position skill distribution at start will hurt and flood much more than any of my simple and modest proposals :-)
but you are not doing that
the same 16yos will still be the best when they are 18yo
they might be worse because of lack of perfect molding, but they will still be the best
Well yes, of course but that's not the problem and you've just stated my point.
They will be worse.
Therefore they will be worth less.
That closes the gap for 18-20 year old, making them less useless.
It's not a perfect solution but it's a start in addressing the skill gap between 16 and 18.
Or just scrap 16-17 entirely. The money then moves to the older trainees, but it'll largely put an end to the Triple-Divines.
the same 16yos will still be the best when they are 18yo
they might be worse because of lack of perfect molding, but they will still be the best
Well yes, of course but that's not the problem and you've just stated my point.
They will be worse.
Therefore they will be worth less.
That closes the gap for 18-20 year old, making them less useless.
It's not a perfect solution but it's a start in addressing the skill gap between 16 and 18.
Or just scrap 16-17 entirely. The money then moves to the older trainees, but it'll largely put an end to the Triple-Divines.
People buy to train, not to play matches.
People sell to get richer, not to get a stronger team
Youth players need to have high talent to be interesting. That is the main thing the players need in this game. But the game needs better youth players, so they need less useless players.
16yo tragic-adequate
17yo adequate-excellent
18yo excellent-incredible
This only works if their talent is high, their skill distribution is not broken and they are not on the brink of ageing.
My opinion. adjust ceilings for youth players skills to the max that equals the pulling level, remove talent from youth poules and give the players a distribution which ''makes sence'' in a random order for GK, DEF, MID and ATT. Then, when they come into your team. U21 or A-team, whatever... only then, the talent should be given to the player, so you could have a hot prospect in skill distribution, but having a bad talent, which will make him an average player in the end. On the other hand, you can have a ''late bloomer'' who comes into the school will less promising skill distribution, but with amazing talent so he rises above the former player with better starting skills but worse talent.
Still I feel the distribution too often is broken due to useless passing / scoring combo's or players with tragic pace, excellent def and adequate GK.
Imo, the game needs to categorise players into a specific position and let the game mechanics devellop the player onto his qualification for that particular skill, mainly.
So each position should have it's own skill classification.
F.e.:
GK: Primary skills: keeper
Secondary skills: Pace, passing
3th rank skills: Technique, defending
4th rank skills: Playmaking, stamina, scoring
Value for youth talent equals value of primary skill. So, if in this case you would have a youth player with incredible youth level, then also give him incredible keeper to begin with.
As the other skill distribution it would be 1/3th on primary skill, 1/2th on secondary skills, so in this case it would be +- 20 skillpoints divided onto pace and passing, again with ceiling which max equals primary skill level
People sell to get richer, not to get a stronger team
Youth players need to have high talent to be interesting. That is the main thing the players need in this game. But the game needs better youth players, so they need less useless players.
16yo tragic-adequate
17yo adequate-excellent
18yo excellent-incredible
This only works if their talent is high, their skill distribution is not broken and they are not on the brink of ageing.
My opinion. adjust ceilings for youth players skills to the max that equals the pulling level, remove talent from youth poules and give the players a distribution which ''makes sence'' in a random order for GK, DEF, MID and ATT. Then, when they come into your team. U21 or A-team, whatever... only then, the talent should be given to the player, so you could have a hot prospect in skill distribution, but having a bad talent, which will make him an average player in the end. On the other hand, you can have a ''late bloomer'' who comes into the school will less promising skill distribution, but with amazing talent so he rises above the former player with better starting skills but worse talent.
Still I feel the distribution too often is broken due to useless passing / scoring combo's or players with tragic pace, excellent def and adequate GK.
Imo, the game needs to categorise players into a specific position and let the game mechanics devellop the player onto his qualification for that particular skill, mainly.
So each position should have it's own skill classification.
F.e.:
GK: Primary skills: keeper
Secondary skills: Pace, passing
3th rank skills: Technique, defending
4th rank skills: Playmaking, stamina, scoring
Value for youth talent equals value of primary skill. So, if in this case you would have a youth player with incredible youth level, then also give him incredible keeper to begin with.
As the other skill distribution it would be 1/3th on primary skill, 1/2th on secondary skills, so in this case it would be +- 20 skillpoints divided onto pace and passing, again with ceiling which max equals primary skill level
This only works if their talent is high, their skill distribution is not broken and they are not on the brink of ageing.
Better tell this to Raul, Borkos already know that and can do nothing for this game :-p
(edited)
Better tell this to Raul, Borkos already know that and can do nothing for this game :-p
(edited)
Yeah, I freely admit I'm not really sure how the proposed changes will play out.
Also, yeah Terrion, you're awesome, but you really should have spelled out what number is least and most, because not every country or person think the same way when rating things :)
Also, yeah Terrion, you're awesome, but you really should have spelled out what number is least and most, because not every country or person think the same way when rating things :)