Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Onderwerp: »»Youth reform: Changes in youth academies / junior traini
That's my impression, too. I need to look at this in more detail.
My feeling is this is an overcomplicated solution for a relatively simple fix. Simply make 16 and 17 year old juniors rarer.
Personally I'd also scrap junior matches and leagues. That gameday could be better used on something else.
My feeling is this is an overcomplicated solution for a relatively simple fix. Simply make 16 and 17 year old juniors rarer.
Personally I'd also scrap junior matches and leagues. That gameday could be better used on something else.
First of all, thanks for being open and asking the community about this! This is the kind of stuff I like, so I appreciate a lot ♥
Now to comment.
As someone who has a 1 year team, I do concur that some changes hurt new teams, not immediately, but by basically stretching the time needed to get up and competing. So most of my opinion has that in mind.
Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on this:
1. Unlocking higher skills for juniors, linked to age: Would be the same to everyone. I'm not sure I like it, but I can see the point.
2. Junior analyst position: I guess my opinion on this is found down below, alongside analytics.
3. A small bonus for junior training linked to the level of junior competitions they participate in: I see no problem tbh. Like Kemk pointed out, forfeits should be penalized (As should corner tactics on official matches. It seems out of place in junior league, but it kinda works to check what you're describing as a problem.)
4. Introduction of club facilities: I think this is where most of the opinions will be different among every user commenting inside the topic :P
Scouting Department: Taking that single spot away sounds strange. I'd say to either price "Local scouting network" at 6k per week so it lines up to today's cost, or change the minimum to 1-6 and add "Continental scouting" in-between National and International to make up for the 5 spots.
Campus: To be honest... I think most people don't come closer to 30 anyways today, so I'd say it's alright.
Analytics: If the basic level has the same function as today, then I find it mostly okay. The mostly is because I'd structure this a bit like this:
Basic level of junior assessment
More effective measurement of jumps +1
Suggested position for new juniors
More effective measurement of jumps +1
Precise measurement of jumps
Simply because having suggested position earlier may be an incentive for those who wants to compete in junior league, which seems to be your goal. A Junior League restructure doesn't seem to be on this list, but the forfeits are not the only problems, also the fact that we can face teams more than once during a season even if a league has enough teams not to repeat pairings, plus the issue with home and away matches not being even at all (this season I was home almost all matches, while season 67 I was away most of it. Way too random, and the extra 2k~5k actually help small economies, something I had before my first strong sales)
Training facilities: Here I disagree quite a bit. Despite new teams having it hard, they do have the option to hire a magical coach and stick it to juniors right now and wait for a good pull. I know it quite well since it was one of the first things I did. Didn't get lucky, but I know I can be. So why would we take away this from new users? I think whatever is done to help them should be encouraged, and whatever is done to hurt them should be discouraged, so here I am discouraging it :P
If anything, training facilities could work to secure a minimum level to youngster. Nothing drastic, as it is quite clear you don't want to improve youth players and I respect that, but something appealing to users who have extra money to buy stuff, like:
Minimum level of youngster - tragic
Minimum level of youngster - terrible
Minimum level of youngster - unsatisfactory
Minimum level of youngster - poor
Minimum level of youngster - weak
This is something that doesn't hurt new users and can be attractive to establish ones imho.
Bonus Track: Basically ideas I liked from other users.
"First teams players who are u20 could take part of the youth league for training", which comes from another topic. Can't remember the user who suggested it, but it is another incentive to play the youth leagues. Maybe those training session will be worse than friendlies, but I do like the ring of it to encourage users towards the youth leagues.
"It would be nice to hire him immediately (maybe after a minimum weeks in school", this one from Kemk right above me. Nothing wrong to add an incentive to have youth school opened.
So that's that. Hope it helps the team.
Now to comment.
As someone who has a 1 year team, I do concur that some changes hurt new teams, not immediately, but by basically stretching the time needed to get up and competing. So most of my opinion has that in mind.
Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on this:
1. Unlocking higher skills for juniors, linked to age: Would be the same to everyone. I'm not sure I like it, but I can see the point.
2. Junior analyst position: I guess my opinion on this is found down below, alongside analytics.
3. A small bonus for junior training linked to the level of junior competitions they participate in: I see no problem tbh. Like Kemk pointed out, forfeits should be penalized (As should corner tactics on official matches. It seems out of place in junior league, but it kinda works to check what you're describing as a problem.)
4. Introduction of club facilities: I think this is where most of the opinions will be different among every user commenting inside the topic :P
Scouting Department: Taking that single spot away sounds strange. I'd say to either price "Local scouting network" at 6k per week so it lines up to today's cost, or change the minimum to 1-6 and add "Continental scouting" in-between National and International to make up for the 5 spots.
Campus: To be honest... I think most people don't come closer to 30 anyways today, so I'd say it's alright.
Analytics: If the basic level has the same function as today, then I find it mostly okay. The mostly is because I'd structure this a bit like this:
Basic level of junior assessment
More effective measurement of jumps +1
Suggested position for new juniors
More effective measurement of jumps +1
Precise measurement of jumps
Simply because having suggested position earlier may be an incentive for those who wants to compete in junior league, which seems to be your goal. A Junior League restructure doesn't seem to be on this list, but the forfeits are not the only problems, also the fact that we can face teams more than once during a season even if a league has enough teams not to repeat pairings, plus the issue with home and away matches not being even at all (this season I was home almost all matches, while season 67 I was away most of it. Way too random, and the extra 2k~5k actually help small economies, something I had before my first strong sales)
Training facilities: Here I disagree quite a bit. Despite new teams having it hard, they do have the option to hire a magical coach and stick it to juniors right now and wait for a good pull. I know it quite well since it was one of the first things I did. Didn't get lucky, but I know I can be. So why would we take away this from new users? I think whatever is done to help them should be encouraged, and whatever is done to hurt them should be discouraged, so here I am discouraging it :P
If anything, training facilities could work to secure a minimum level to youngster. Nothing drastic, as it is quite clear you don't want to improve youth players and I respect that, but something appealing to users who have extra money to buy stuff, like:
Minimum level of youngster - tragic
Minimum level of youngster - terrible
Minimum level of youngster - unsatisfactory
Minimum level of youngster - poor
Minimum level of youngster - weak
This is something that doesn't hurt new users and can be attractive to establish ones imho.
Bonus Track: Basically ideas I liked from other users.
"First teams players who are u20 could take part of the youth league for training", which comes from another topic. Can't remember the user who suggested it, but it is another incentive to play the youth leagues. Maybe those training session will be worse than friendlies, but I do like the ring of it to encourage users towards the youth leagues.
"It would be nice to hire him immediately (maybe after a minimum weeks in school", this one from Kemk right above me. Nothing wrong to add an incentive to have youth school opened.
So that's that. Hope it helps the team.
OK, let's take a look in more detail.
Significant lack of control over the academy and its excessive randomness
Arguably this is a good thing. The more you allow users to optimise, the more triple-divines you'll have in the game.
Lack of interesting options for managing the academy
True and honestly I don't think it can be fixed. Tactics are pointless without player skills, the ratings are nonsense, games aren't profitable, forfeits ruin the competition. As said, I really think that gameday could be better used on something else.
Significant advantage of 16-year-old juniors over older ones.
Yes, so either reduce the number or remove the possibility of 16 year completely. No-one joins the main team before 18.
Analysts, Campus, Scouts, Facilities
I understand the desire to take money away from the big clubs but it won't work. They'll pay the extra, the gap will get bigger and that part of the game will become even more out of reach for smaller clubs than it already is. Then you'll just end up back here further down the line.
Significant lack of control over the academy and its excessive randomness
Arguably this is a good thing. The more you allow users to optimise, the more triple-divines you'll have in the game.
Lack of interesting options for managing the academy
True and honestly I don't think it can be fixed. Tactics are pointless without player skills, the ratings are nonsense, games aren't profitable, forfeits ruin the competition. As said, I really think that gameday could be better used on something else.
Significant advantage of 16-year-old juniors over older ones.
Yes, so either reduce the number or remove the possibility of 16 year completely. No-one joins the main team before 18.
Analysts, Campus, Scouts, Facilities
I understand the desire to take money away from the big clubs but it won't work. They'll pay the extra, the gap will get bigger and that part of the game will become even more out of reach for smaller clubs than it already is. Then you'll just end up back here further down the line.
I see just adding various paid features. With such there are always two possible scenarios:
1. The features are worth it in the long run and those who can afford them gain an extra advantage over new and poor teams.
2. They're not worth it and are just meaningless features that nobody uses - just like stadium capacity is now
You need to carefully consider prices to be on the borderline between worth it/not worth it.
The only non-paid features:
1. Unlocking higher skills for juniors, linked to age - Still useless older juniors if the sumskill remains the same.
3. A small bonus for junior training linked to the level - sounds interesting, but still no sane person would bother to watch and follow the youth leagues. They're just painfull to watch.
1. The features are worth it in the long run and those who can afford them gain an extra advantage over new and poor teams.
2. They're not worth it and are just meaningless features that nobody uses - just like stadium capacity is now
You need to carefully consider prices to be on the borderline between worth it/not worth it.
The only non-paid features:
1. Unlocking higher skills for juniors, linked to age - Still useless older juniors if the sumskill remains the same.
3. A small bonus for junior training linked to the level - sounds interesting, but still no sane person would bother to watch and follow the youth leagues. They're just painfull to watch.
Sometimes I wonder if the owners actually play the game. The game is already too complicated for new users and they want to add more information and more charges. Now I inderstand why they run out of money. I don t think it would ve cost a fortune but how come after such a long time there is no proper video tutorial? Nowadays people don t read anymore and you expect new users to read War and Peace in order to learn how to play sokker?
When it comes to YS it seems like again you are trying to overcomplicate things and by doing that you might break something that is not broken again.
Just limit the age of academy players, make it easier for people to know if they should keep a player or not and help smaller countries by allowing people to train for other countries. Thats it. Any other changes are not important or it might give older user an unfair advantage.
When it comes to YS it seems like again you are trying to overcomplicate things and by doing that you might break something that is not broken again.
Just limit the age of academy players, make it easier for people to know if they should keep a player or not and help smaller countries by allowing people to train for other countries. Thats it. Any other changes are not important or it might give older user an unfair advantage.
This type of suggestions should disappear from newsroom. What is an use of brilliant (heck, even unearth assuming 3.0 talent) 20y junior, who will be out of YS in W5. None. He will be outperformed by most of junior, who came out at age of 18 and will receive training appropriate to their position (instead of extra points in keeper/stamina). But new player would keep such player and then be disappointed.
I think that proposed ideas are unnecessary complications trying to force some strategic elements into youth school system. New users will be confused and old users will just find out what suits them the best and then hardly ever change it. Plus it will be hard to balance, so most users will probably choose similar strategy.
Important note. We're discussing here the reform of a specific element of the game - of course, it has an impact on the entire game and other challenges we face (e.g., inflation, etc.), but from our side, reforms are part of a larger plan - so if you have concerns, for example, that there's a lack of introduction for new players, or we'll add too much money to the game and further inflate the economy - these are valid comments, but addressed by other changes. Try to remember this when evaluating a particular idea.
However, I see the direction of comments you're suggesting. The shape of the reform comes from the system of club facilities, which we presented to you 3 years ago - hence we assumed it's something you want to develop because such reminders often appeared on the forum.
From what you're currently writing, the most important thing is simply to balance the youth system to be less disappointed with illogical skill distribution, for example.
1. balance skill distribution, for example, predefine a player for a position they're suitable for to avoid situations where points go to goalkeeping or defense with shooting, leaving all others at a tragic level.
2. balance talent drawings and the level of youths, more along the Gaussian curve (i.e., many moderately talented players, huge talents appearing rarely, and equally huge failures).
3. I would keep the idea of releasing the skill limit of a player leaving the academy at an older age so that there is still a chance that some players can almost enter the first team directly from the academy (or at least from the bench without great harm to the game level).
4. I would keep the idea of the analyst position - it can even be expanded, a divine analyst would, for example, give a glimpse of a player's skills during training.
I would give up on those more difficult solutions, like club buildings - perhaps this idea should be reworked into the infrastructure of the entire club, which would provide bonuses to various aspects of club development, but we can put that idea aside for now.
Okay, we can do that, it's true that it's a simpler change and also easier for us to implement.
But - such a direction requires balancing from the other side, it would generate a huge number of good players - at their current level - yes, a huge number are being released and go to waste, but those who remain give the game a huge number of players with maximum skills. We don't want that. So such a reform would also require:
1. reducing the number of juniors coming in each week (probably by at least half, if not more)
2. better distribution of their age, most players should leave the academies at the age of 18/19+
It's important for us to understand that where we improve players, we must reduce the frequency of their generation.
However, I see the direction of comments you're suggesting. The shape of the reform comes from the system of club facilities, which we presented to you 3 years ago - hence we assumed it's something you want to develop because such reminders often appeared on the forum.
From what you're currently writing, the most important thing is simply to balance the youth system to be less disappointed with illogical skill distribution, for example.
In other words, the direction of change would be okay for you if we:
1. balance skill distribution, for example, predefine a player for a position they're suitable for to avoid situations where points go to goalkeeping or defense with shooting, leaving all others at a tragic level.
2. balance talent drawings and the level of youths, more along the Gaussian curve (i.e., many moderately talented players, huge talents appearing rarely, and equally huge failures).
3. I would keep the idea of releasing the skill limit of a player leaving the academy at an older age so that there is still a chance that some players can almost enter the first team directly from the academy (or at least from the bench without great harm to the game level).
4. I would keep the idea of the analyst position - it can even be expanded, a divine analyst would, for example, give a glimpse of a player's skills during training.
I would give up on those more difficult solutions, like club buildings - perhaps this idea should be reworked into the infrastructure of the entire club, which would provide bonuses to various aspects of club development, but we can put that idea aside for now.
Okay, we can do that, it's true that it's a simpler change and also easier for us to implement.
But - such a direction requires balancing from the other side, it would generate a huge number of good players - at their current level - yes, a huge number are being released and go to waste, but those who remain give the game a huge number of players with maximum skills. We don't want that. So such a reform would also require:
1. reducing the number of juniors coming in each week (probably by at least half, if not more)
2. better distribution of their age, most players should leave the academies at the age of 18/19+
It's important for us to understand that where we improve players, we must reduce the frequency of their generation.
4. I would keep the idea of the analyst position - it can even be expanded, a divine analyst would, for example, give a glimpse of a player's skills during training.
So other than being able to see players skills it won't bring anything, right? Since we ain't gonna be able to choose what to train and "progress" will stay as it is now. And in the end we will get same skillset that is predefined during junior creation.
So other than being able to see players skills it won't bring anything, right? Since we ain't gonna be able to choose what to train and "progress" will stay as it is now. And in the end we will get same skillset that is predefined during junior creation.
Could be great a "fans level" just for junior team, that would increase if you play better for youth leagues, and decrease if not.
This level could affect to the juniors level entering the school. If you waste ur time trying to win the junior matches, you could get better juniors. More strategic, because you should decide between a 20 yo players with higher level than one of 16 yo, but you could not know with better aproach his level.
Then you should "force" users to have juniors schools in a basic mode with at least 11 juniors.
This level could affect to the juniors level entering the school. If you waste ur time trying to win the junior matches, you could get better juniors. More strategic, because you should decide between a 20 yo players with higher level than one of 16 yo, but you could not know with better aproach his level.
Then you should "force" users to have juniors schools in a basic mode with at least 11 juniors.
Then you should "force" users to have juniors schools in a basic mode with at least 11 juniors.
yes, and with a real GK in each team, in order to maintain fairness.
a real GK is a player with one skill in GK that it is not ok for now.
a suggestion : if a junior plays matches with his team, why not have the junior evolve according to his position during the match like the seniors. this would bring added value to junior matches bce it would be an in-depth evolution of sokker, imagine starting with tragic players and you develop them until they leave the center at 18-19 years old.
yes, and with a real GK in each team, in order to maintain fairness.
a real GK is a player with one skill in GK that it is not ok for now.
a suggestion : if a junior plays matches with his team, why not have the junior evolve according to his position during the match like the seniors. this would bring added value to junior matches bce it would be an in-depth evolution of sokker, imagine starting with tragic players and you develop them until they leave the center at 18-19 years old.
yes, you get just more direct informations than now (direct talent vs estimated, and preview of skills or some range of predicted skills (like defending: 8-10).
@raul
I predict the high frustration of coaches months ago (vote to save juniors) and also programming a sokker tools for the community to evaluate juniors potential (sktables academy), I feel legitimate in giving my opinion about juniors.
First, It’s good to see you again.
A main problem seems to remain in your analysis.
Juniors are not responsible of producing multi high skills players, the players training system is the only one system that produce higher skills.
It doesn’t matter if we produce too much good youngster, if you don’t change and control the player training system there will be « too much » multi-high skilled players.
Also, 4 main facts about juniors.
Good luck!
(gewijzigd)
I predict the high frustration of coaches months ago (vote to save juniors) and also programming a sokker tools for the community to evaluate juniors potential (sktables academy), I feel legitimate in giving my opinion about juniors.
First, It’s good to see you again.
A main problem seems to remain in your analysis.
Juniors are not responsible of producing multi high skills players, the players training system is the only one system that produce higher skills.
It doesn’t matter if we produce too much good youngster, if you don’t change and control the player training system there will be « too much » multi-high skilled players.
Also, 4 main facts about juniors.
Good luck!
(gewijzigd)
The problem with too many bad Juniors IS not that they are bad but that they are too many. The distribution curve of good Juniors is the problem
Too few clubs are getting millions by their Juniors while most of the rest get barely what we pay to keep the School active
I remember this kind of graph somebody posted time ago and we all agreed with him:
Improving the skills of all the Juniors Will keep the same curve form, like you said, but reducing the wrong Juniors could help to change the curve to a more balanced one
Too few clubs are getting millions by their Juniors while most of the rest get barely what we pay to keep the School active
I remember this kind of graph somebody posted time ago and we all agreed with him:
Improving the skills of all the Juniors Will keep the same curve form, like you said, but reducing the wrong Juniors could help to change the curve to a more balanced one
1, I would keep the current skill distribution. It is a working mechanism to prevent overloading the game with too many good players.
3, I would focus on 2 aspects:
A) Currently any 16y will after 3 seasons of the training always beat 19y freshly pulled junior with similar talent and skill distribution. So if you pull 19-20y junior within the new system, his skills should be closer to the one trained several seasons.
B) Both 16y at week 1 or 18y at week 13 will arrive with level 0 to 7. The entry level should fluctuate depending on the age and the week of the season. This would bring in new strategy aspect as it would be much harder to immediately tell whether keep the player or not.
(gewijzigd)
3, I would focus on 2 aspects:
A) Currently any 16y will after 3 seasons of the training always beat 19y freshly pulled junior with similar talent and skill distribution. So if you pull 19-20y junior within the new system, his skills should be closer to the one trained several seasons.
B) Both 16y at week 1 or 18y at week 13 will arrive with level 0 to 7. The entry level should fluctuate depending on the age and the week of the season. This would bring in new strategy aspect as it would be much harder to immediately tell whether keep the player or not.
(gewijzigd)
Also, is there any vision on what to do with the current junior matches and junior leagues system?