Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Onderwerp: [idea] Automatic sale players of team bot
Still, such change could be done with additional limiting weekly number of juniors from 1-6 to e.g. 1-4. Improvement, but to a lesser degree.
like extra skills
Never happening if we want to be realistic, certainly not anytime soon as the whole ME would need to be modified and practically everything training wise would too. Huge chunk of work. Besides which, juytt wanted 18yos scrapped basically now, not after any future developments.
making training harder on top level
How is that any different to now? That's just a different bandaid. You'd end up with people changing expectations then to say well 17yo's are useless because training takes so long etc etc. We've seen that already with 13 week seasons and 18yo's. That's just perceptions, nothing worth even looking into.
But having much more well balanced trainees is something everyone will benefit from. Skill distribution is still completely random
That's again a perception and it's a relative measure. At the moment people just want the cream of the crop because they were use to that. That's not the reality anymore so those expectations have to come down and if they do the current system isn't too bad. Sure refinements can be made but that's the point of the YS redesign is it not?
Never happening if we want to be realistic, certainly not anytime soon as the whole ME would need to be modified and practically everything training wise would too. Huge chunk of work. Besides which, juytt wanted 18yos scrapped basically now, not after any future developments.
making training harder on top level
How is that any different to now? That's just a different bandaid. You'd end up with people changing expectations then to say well 17yo's are useless because training takes so long etc etc. We've seen that already with 13 week seasons and 18yo's. That's just perceptions, nothing worth even looking into.
But having much more well balanced trainees is something everyone will benefit from. Skill distribution is still completely random
That's again a perception and it's a relative measure. At the moment people just want the cream of the crop because they were use to that. That's not the reality anymore so those expectations have to come down and if they do the current system isn't too bad. Sure refinements can be made but that's the point of the YS redesign is it not?
A lesser degree in same direction as dtox propose, would be to cut 18 yo in second half of season.
I would also like to see more quantity and quality in medium prospects. Now most cheap trainees that Are trained and have got bad distribution or low skillsum have crap talent too. But top end talents Are good balanced since 13 weeks seasons change i feel.
My biggest reasons for thinking this is the minimum level of skills to make proper viewable matches and the fact that only top end talents can be used age 22-25 on A team while others Are first decent at age 27-28
I would also like to see more quantity and quality in medium prospects. Now most cheap trainees that Are trained and have got bad distribution or low skillsum have crap talent too. But top end talents Are good balanced since 13 weeks seasons change i feel.
My biggest reasons for thinking this is the minimum level of skills to make proper viewable matches and the fact that only top end talents can be used age 22-25 on A team while others Are first decent at age 27-28
How big?
Starting age is just one part of other randoms to get a top juniors.
Starting level, talent, nb of weeks, Skills distribution , Nb of juniors by a week….
Many dices require many luck. Random distribution is already set to poor draws at its medium point: basically a median draw is 17y talent 4.5 16 weeks, It will becomes 16.5y talent 4.5 16 w. Huge !
(gewijzigd)
Starting age is just one part of other randoms to get a top juniors.
Starting level, talent, nb of weeks, Skills distribution , Nb of juniors by a week….
Many dices require many luck. Random distribution is already set to poor draws at its medium point: basically a median draw is 17y talent 4.5 16 weeks, It will becomes 16.5y talent 4.5 16 w. Huge !
(gewijzigd)
That's imo the only issue this game has. Different opinions and no consitency.
@Cometer: You always talk about perception, but that counts also for the current methods. It's ok if all stays as it is, until it's not ok anymore...
It's ok if things change until it's not ok anymore. If we 're only going to shoot ideas down and refuse to think as a whole, then we'll get nowhere...
@Cometer: You always talk about perception, but that counts also for the current methods. It's ok if all stays as it is, until it's not ok anymore...
It's ok if things change until it's not ok anymore. If we 're only going to shoot ideas down and refuse to think as a whole, then we'll get nowhere...
I call a spade a spade, if it is just a bad idea I say it. If it’s an interesting idea or problem that has merit or somewhere to work from I’ll respond with more thought. If you actually looked at most of my posts you’d know that. I even mostly agreed with your third point above but since it’s already I assume part of the youth school reform I mentioned that as we have some idea what that is going to look like already. AnywayI think enough from me because this thread is for a different topic which was interesting before it went off topic :)
There is no point in wasting time thinking of how to better an idea that will never work in practice or should never see the light of day. Short term fixes or bandaids just make things worse longer term anyway. You need ideas with the bigger picture. Better to brainstorm get a whole lot of nopes and come to a better solution and then spend time refining that. The youth school system needs work, think we all agree with that but simply cutting out 18yos isn’t the solution either because it’s a delicate balance when wanting to limit the amount of world class superstars and to keep the economy working.
There is no point in wasting time thinking of how to better an idea that will never work in practice or should never see the light of day. Short term fixes or bandaids just make things worse longer term anyway. You need ideas with the bigger picture. Better to brainstorm get a whole lot of nopes and come to a better solution and then spend time refining that. The youth school system needs work, think we all agree with that but simply cutting out 18yos isn’t the solution either because it’s a delicate balance when wanting to limit the amount of world class superstars and to keep the economy working.
I assure you that my contribution also lies in my emphasis on a global view of the game as a whole. When planning the next changes, I make sure that I do not treat them as separate. Not forgetting that many mechanics influence each other.
I can honestly say I'm glad you joined the developpers staff! The game was in need of someone with insight of how the game really works, and not only for coding.
ANd I trust that changes will be made with consideration of all managers and not to refrain managers from playing the game solely for training, cause that's just a big portion of the game, which everybody tends to love. I see at least 50% of the active users neglecting their sportive success to at least a degree. So imo the sportive side needs an update to make it more attractive to users, before making additional restrictions to punish managers not playing the game for sportive purposes. The neglection of the game for 10 years, before Raul and other staff arrived has made a serious bruise to the game and how people wants to play it. The last changes made besides the extra bench places and extra orders, were all restrictions for people who play the game sitting in the lowest divisions, trading. This is good, were it not that it also has a big influence on new managers, cause they also play in that division! In here I have discussions with Borkos and Cometer about something that I still think would be an ok change. You've read their reactions and they may be right...I leave that to the side. But my feeling is that all changes made and to come are also made like my idea. There was an idea, you teamed up and thought it to be a good change and poof...there comes the next restriction. Then afterwards it becomes clear that that idea wasn't really the finest idea and it became a punishment on all teams struggling already... So therefor I just want to ask that you keep aneye out for all changes that might do more harm than initially predicted. Cause for me, all I want is to play a great game and have fun. So my ideas are nothing more than that! Ideas to think about and consider to implement, to alter or to neglect. I'm not a developper, I'm a player. I want to have fun. But that is also only my perspective. Other people can have other perspectives, so in the end, changes must be made to the benefit of the game. However...if 20% leaves due to a miscalculated change, then it wasn't a change for the benefit of the game imo.
ANd I trust that changes will be made with consideration of all managers and not to refrain managers from playing the game solely for training, cause that's just a big portion of the game, which everybody tends to love. I see at least 50% of the active users neglecting their sportive success to at least a degree. So imo the sportive side needs an update to make it more attractive to users, before making additional restrictions to punish managers not playing the game for sportive purposes. The neglection of the game for 10 years, before Raul and other staff arrived has made a serious bruise to the game and how people wants to play it. The last changes made besides the extra bench places and extra orders, were all restrictions for people who play the game sitting in the lowest divisions, trading. This is good, were it not that it also has a big influence on new managers, cause they also play in that division! In here I have discussions with Borkos and Cometer about something that I still think would be an ok change. You've read their reactions and they may be right...I leave that to the side. But my feeling is that all changes made and to come are also made like my idea. There was an idea, you teamed up and thought it to be a good change and poof...there comes the next restriction. Then afterwards it becomes clear that that idea wasn't really the finest idea and it became a punishment on all teams struggling already... So therefor I just want to ask that you keep aneye out for all changes that might do more harm than initially predicted. Cause for me, all I want is to play a great game and have fun. So my ideas are nothing more than that! Ideas to think about and consider to implement, to alter or to neglect. I'm not a developper, I'm a player. I want to have fun. But that is also only my perspective. Other people can have other perspectives, so in the end, changes must be made to the benefit of the game. However...if 20% leaves due to a miscalculated change, then it wasn't a change for the benefit of the game imo.
However...if 20% leaves due to a miscalculated change, then it wasn't a change for the benefit of the game imo.
90% left because of inaction and poor decisions. The community can't have it both ways. They want change to improve the game, but when change comes they complain because it affects them negatively.
Change is necessary and long overdue. If people don't like it, let them leave. You can't allow a game to remain broken just to appease the people who benefitted from it being broken.
90% left because of inaction and poor decisions. The community can't have it both ways. They want change to improve the game, but when change comes they complain because it affects them negatively.
Change is necessary and long overdue. If people don't like it, let them leave. You can't allow a game to remain broken just to appease the people who benefitted from it being broken.
You can't allow a game to remain broken just to appease the people who benefitted from it being broken.
I was talking about things that were fine but got broken due to changes... I guess it depends on how you look at things now versus how they were or will be...
Like I said...people hve different perspective on certain points. It will always be like that. But making changes and have them leave 20% of active managers cannot possibly be called a succes, right?
I was talking about things that were fine but got broken due to changes... I guess it depends on how you look at things now versus how they were or will be...
Like I said...people hve different perspective on certain points. It will always be like that. But making changes and have them leave 20% of active managers cannot possibly be called a succes, right?
+1 to Geston sentiments. He continues to be a tremendous asset to this game.
Geston: Please, do not take any of this personally. Please :)
Geston: Please, do not take any of this personally. Please :)
I am calm. We have a long way to go. No one is sitting happy yet.
Absolutely! I'm very glad they finally decided to take in an internal dev straight out of the game! I wonder how many times they needed to press recruit though :-p
Still, such change could be done with additional limiting weekly number of juniors from 1-6 to e.g. 1-4. Improvement, but to a lesser degree.
you can also get 0 new juniors, if it's at the beginning of the season then it's great....if he comes at the end=rubbish....
one solution could be to give them age + 0 days when they come to school...I know that this change would require a lot of adjustments in various areas, so it probably won't happen anytime soon....
you can also get 0 new juniors, if it's at the beginning of the season then it's great....if he comes at the end=rubbish....
one solution could be to give them age + 0 days when they come to school...I know that this change would require a lot of adjustments in various areas, so it probably won't happen anytime soon....
Are you sure that there is possibility to get 0 juniors?
I know that this is how it's written in the rules, but I don't remember seeing such case (although, I don't pay much attention to that) and always thought it is an example of mistake in the rules.
I know that this is how it's written in the rules, but I don't remember seeing such case (although, I don't pay much attention to that) and always thought it is an example of mistake in the rules.