| Forum » General » longer player career or higher progression? | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Fast progression and short player life, or Slow progression and long player life?
|
||
|
Username
3188 msgs.
Best scorer
|
hewhoamareismyself said: The @'s said they didn't want people taking 2 seasons to get to 80. |
08/10/2011 17:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
1237 msgs.
International
|
I think most of us agree that they should *2 the junior ave and hewhoiam is right ave still matters | 08/10/2011 17:54 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
59 msgs.
Rookie
|
Admins say they don't want anyone to get an 80 player in 2 seasons. I have just read. Here is a more accurate statement, because there are already teams packed with players in 70s and 80s. They actually don't want ANYONE ELSE to get to get a player to 80 in 2 seasons. I don't mean that the admins have implemented a rule to protect their supremacy, I'm sure most admins have average teams. However that is a consequence of the training change. Edited by nobody important 08-10-2011 18:16 |
08/10/2011 18:15 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
797 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@Bisho said: hewhoamareismyself said: The @'s said they didn't want people taking 2 seasons to get to 80. Nobody wants to go back to that. We're just not happy with "people taking 20 seasons to get up to 50"! Something in the middle would be good. Something that makes it impossible to have any 18-year-olds with an average of 80+ running around but makes it still possible to get a very talented player up to 80 before he reaches retirement age! The way things are now You can be happy if You train a talented youngster up to 60 before he tops out at the the age of 32. With this training simulator forecasts of 70, 80 or more become a folkloristic detail without any meaning, because it can never be reached. Edited by beachbernie 08-10-2011 18:34 |
08/10/2011 18:33 |
| Union RS Marburg - Div3/Gr9 | ||
|
Username
3188 msgs.
Best scorer
|
beachbernie said: Nobody wants to go back to that. We're just not happy with "people taking 20 seasons to get up to 50"! Ok, i like it. Something in the middle would be good. |
08/10/2011 18:37 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
283 msgs.
First-team player
|
@Bisho said: Ok, i like it. Something in the middle would be good. Agree, I don't want to pay my players 1m 2m a week to avoid super lazy rich managers get my players. It's not I'm a bad manager but it's so unreal. |
08/10/2011 18:44 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
@Bisho said: beachbernie said: Nobody wants to go back to that. We're just not happy with "people taking 20 seasons to get up to 50"! Ok, i like it. Something in the middle would be good. I kind of agree. But maybe 4 seasons to get up to 80 (if you know what you're doing) would be fine. Most teams will never get up to 80 AV even with the old sim. There needs to be a way for new teams to be able to challenge the older teams. If the new trainings were brought in in season 1 that would be fine. But at the moment div 7 managers would need 3 season to be able to challenge div 6 managers. It needs to be much faster, this is a game after all and needs to be fun. Building a team from your own juniors is a massive part of the fun. Seeing your team get better every day is fun. Knowing that players created in your school can be really good players in 3-4 seasons is fun. Watching your team gain 4 points a season is not fun. I'm sorry to say @Bisho that however much you want to feel that your not biased, you are and so am I. Although your team is better than mine, however we've both gained massively from the old trainings and it's just not fair to new managers if they have to play for 4 real years just to match me. Let alone match the likes of you or @Shengli. |
08/10/2011 19:50 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Edited by grantis45 08-10-2011 19:50 |
08/10/2011 19:50 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
I'd like to suggest something to make to new trainings fair. Anyone with a team average of 80 or more should have them reduced to 53 Anyone with a team average of 70-80 or more should have them reduced to 49 Anyone with a team average of 60-70 or more should have them reduced to 47 Anyone with a team average of 50-60 or more should have them reduced to 45 Anyone with a team average of 40-50 or more should have them reduced to 43 for reduced read reduced/increased. This will make the playing field level and is fair. And yes I am being delibrately an arse. But I can't see how the current situation is going to do anything apart from put off new player. Edited by grantis45 08-10-2011 20:56 |
08/10/2011 20:54 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5205 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
grantis45 said: I'd like to suggest something to make to new trainings fair. Anyone with a team average of 80 or more should have them reduced to 53 Anyone with a team average of 70-80 or more should have them reduced to 49 Anyone with a team average of 60-70 or more should have them reduced to 47 Anyone with a team average of 50-60 or more should have them reduced to 45 Anyone with a team average of 40-50 or more should have them reduced to 43 for reduced read reduced/increased. This will make the playing field level and is fair. heh  Oh look! A can of worms. mmmmmm yummy. worms. |
08/10/2011 20:55 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
3
