| Forum » General » longer player career or higher progression? | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Fast progression and short player life, or Slow progression and long player life?
|
||
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@CelloG said: one other suggestion I could have added to the poll: use old faster progression for 14-19 year olds use new slow progression and longer life for 20-31 year olds. I vote for this one |
08/10/2011 05:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
425 msgs.
First-team player
|
@CelloG said: one other suggestion I could have added to the poll: use old faster progression for 14-19 year olds use new slow progression and longer life for 20-31 year olds. Isn't this technically already implemented by the way higher skill players are supposed to train slower than lower skilled players? |
08/10/2011 08:26 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
59 msgs.
Rookie
|
By using the old method many teams already have players with scores in the 70s and 80s. It is impossible to catch these teams now because training gains are so small. Net result, the winners are already pre-ordained. However ,the new system is better in my view (although training could be doubled). But changing from the old to new should have been phased in gradually over 10 seasons. This abrupt change in training values has created a huge bias in favour of those teams that have already great squads , not by great football management, but by training singular player types and then trading them to gain money. Which I and others didn't do because of a desire to play a football management game rather than a player trading game. |
08/10/2011 16:17 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2108 msgs.
Best scorer
|
nobody important said: (although training could be doubled). Doubled? Quadrupled at the least, my 95% coach I'm paying 405k a week is giving me .01 max. Tell me if this is the way things are going to be from now on, no point in keeping him around with those values. |
08/10/2011 16:34 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1118 msgs.
International
|
I partially agree, but maybe you guys are a little obsessed by avgs, @s said from the beginning that avgs won't be used anymore to generate the game's simulation. Anyway, I agree prog is being extremely slow and should be doubled (at least) in juniors. Regarding the distance between 'big teams' and normal ones, I don't really think it has ever been as close as it is right now, not because of the players quality but becuase of the influence of tactics. I've recently seen some good teams losing against quite lower ones, I've also experienced that, losing games I would have never lost with the previous sim. As said before, it's been a huge change that could have been done more gradually. We'll have to adapt... |
08/10/2011 16:37 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2108 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Balearik said: I partially agree, but maybe you guys are a little obsessed by avgs, @s said from the beginning that avgs won't be used anymore to generate the game's simulation. Anyway, I agree prog is being extremely slow and should be doubled (at least) in juniors. Regarding the distance between 'big teams' and normal ones, I don't really think it has ever been as close as it is right now, not because of the players quality but becuase of the influence of tactics. I've recently seen some good teams losing against quite lower ones, I've also experienced that, losing games I would have never lost with the previous sim. As said before, it's been a huge change that could have been done more gradually. We'll have to adapt... I'm not going off of average, I'm going off of the fact that before I could raise dribbling 1% in 3 days, now it'll be 8 days to get the same, 4 weeks because now you can't do it more than twice a week. That's about 18.667 times longer, I'm asking for four times better, that makes it a mere 4.667 times longer. The @'s said they decreased the average starting team values from 41 to 28 because they said they didn't want people taking 2 seasons to get to 80. at this rate, it'll take 2 seasons to get from 41 to 44.25, thats about 12.3 times less than what we were promised. Now, as to the fact that there are so many of us saying that average means nothing, it still does. It's a simplified value of the most important traits of a player. It's no longer used as what makes a player amazing in game, but it's still important, an 11 player will still play like crap, an 88 player will still be absolutely amazIng, a 55 player still wouldn't make it on to @Rebsiot's lineup. |
08/10/2011 17:12 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
3547 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Haha, funny last line Hewhoa . Yeah , average may not be so important but it's very important for youth | 08/10/2011 17:14 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
59 msgs.
Rookie
|
Averages less important? The transfer market is based upon players with a certain average having a certain value. This is backed up by sanctions if you acquire a player at less than his market value. Averages are integral to how the game currently operates, no matter what any admin says. |
08/10/2011 17:39 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3188 msgs.
Best scorer
|
"Current sim: slow progression/long career" And i dont think it will change. |
08/10/2011 17:46 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
301 msgs.
First-team player
|
nobody important said: By using the old method many teams already have players with scores in the 70s and 80s. It is impossible to catch these teams now because training gains are so small. Net result, the winners are already pre-ordained. However ,the new system is better in my view (although training could be doubled). But changing from the old to new should have been phased in gradually over 10 seasons. This abrupt change in training values has created a huge bias in favour of those teams that have already great squads , not by great football management, but by training singular player types and then trading them to gain money. Which I and others didn't do because of a desire to play a football management game rather than a player trading game. i agree with you, using this training is to ensure the reign of high rated teams for at least 5 0r 6 seasons.... |
08/10/2011 17:47 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
2
