| Forum » General » longer player career or higher progression? | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Fast progression and short player life, or Slow progression and long player life?
|
||
|
Username
715 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
The above example was for an exceptional player  This way, star players stay good for a while, and most teams are able to develop at least one or two and hopefully pay them well enough to keep them... unless a rich team wants them, then, sadly (in this current financial system), there is nothing newer teams can do (even mid teams like me). Normal players of course will most likely get their red "P" at 19, keep getting good till 20 or 21, progress slowly (like the training is right now), then feel similar effects of aging as the star player mentioned above did. Edited by jacobpark 09-10-2011 02:35 |
09/10/2011 02:34 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
570 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
Really bad the training system, first we see players training when injured, LOL! Then we see new veeery slow daily progress. If programmers wants to make trainings a thing like any real, all players must to grow in every training, not only in some.. Why goalkeeper doesn't grow when we train e.g. Shots On Goal?? Unsuitable system, almost as bad as the simulator. |
09/10/2011 02:39 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
3547 msgs.
Best scorer
|
The training doesn't make sense at all - Ball training : i mean , in football , everyone have to control the ball very good . Even Van de Sar ( Gk ) or Kung fu master : De jong - Penalty shot : i'm pretty sure CF always the best penalty kicker - Running with the ball : uhm , who doesn't have to run with the ball . - Running : i guess winger like LM ,RM , RW and LW never have to run so they don't need this type of training !!! Edited by Uruguay1950 09-10-2011 02:46 |
09/10/2011 02:44 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
715 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
Don't forget: (and yes, I'm being sarcastic) - In depth passing: because no one other than midfielders can pass the ball And other related stuff to this post: - Rookies not getting better quickly: Cause players never learn anything in their first couple of years as a pro. - Jr's not getting better quickly: Cause youth (even prodigies) just don't get better as they are being taught things. Edited by jacobpark 09-10-2011 04:28 |
09/10/2011 02:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
149 msgs.
Substitute
|
make training a little faster and players can retire a few years early mayb like age of 33~35 or something | 09/10/2011 03:38 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
28 msgs.
Child's coach
|
if the progress will be slow, what is the point of having a high class coach? | 09/10/2011 04:41 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
562 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
vokkie said: if the progress will be slow, what is the point of having a high class coach? that's what i think, maybe now with the new training it's not so important a very good trainer or a progression search with GB, we will see |
09/10/2011 05:18 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2737 msgs.
Best scorer
|
I feel weak joining this discussion since everyone is against the new training. I personally like the new training, and no it wont take 20 seasons to get a 50 average player. With a 30/14, 80+ prog player. At that much of an average, he will go up at least 0.15-0.2. If you train his position the whole time, then in 9 days you have over 1 point. The season is about 90 days, so he goes up by 10 points a season. So you will get a 15/40, 16/50, 17/60...which i think is a very good increase, i do not want to see 1000+ teams who can field 70+ line-ups. That being said, I like grantis' idea of resetting everyone's team averages to lower values with the highest being decreased most. Just make a new start with the new training, it will be fair to newer players and will still give the older ones a bit of an advantage. |
09/10/2011 05:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5205 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
solirocket said: I feel weak joining this discussion since everyone is against the new training. I personally like the new training, and no it wont take 20 seasons to get a 50 average player. With a 30/14, 80+ prog player. At that much of an average, he will go up at least 0.15-0.2. If you train his position the whole time, then in 9 days you have over 1 point. The season is about 90 days, so he goes up by 10 points a season. So you will get a 15/40, 16/50, 17/60...which i think is a very good increase, i do not want to see 1000+ teams who can field 70+ line-ups. That being said, I like grantis' idea of resetting everyone's team averages to lower values with the highest being decreased most. Just make a new start with the new training, it will be fair to newer players and will still give the older ones a bit of an advantage. Hi, Your calculations are wrong. My 86% progression CF (who was gaining .4/day) is gaining .08/day this season, and he is a 53/19. So, your example player will probably gain more like 10 points, then 7, then 5, then 3 per season as his average increases, resulting in 15/40, 16/47, 17/52, 18/55. |
09/10/2011 06:07 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2737 msgs.
Best scorer
|
i havent checked other people's squads, i was using numbers from my squad only. My senior 90+ prog fullbacks increase by about 0.28/sprint training. My outside mids increase by about 0.17-0.18/sprint training and my wingers increase by about 0.12/trainings. And im talking about those in the ~40 average. So i can see my fullbacks going 50+ by end of the season (including the decrease in training values). My outside mids/wingers wont go as much, but thats because this training increases fullbacks more than outside mids/wingers. And yes, i am taking into consideration that i wont be doing sprint all season long. A scenario for training fullbacks to the max would be as follows: sprint 2x per week. 0.28 each, total 0.56 tackling 2x per week, 0.13 each, total 0.26 corner kicks 2x per week 0.13 each, total 0.26 (tackling will give a bit more and corner kicks a bit less...but the average will be approx the same) this gives me about 1.1 point/week not including the 7th training. about 12 weeks in a season so slightly over13 points. To include the decrease in training as average increases, assume they only go up by 12, 11, or even 10. I think thats a good approximation and I like these values of increases in average. The numbers you used, you had a 50 avg players increasing half as much as a 40 average players. I dont think that is an accurate value. EDIT: Also, i dont think training will increase linearly with progression. So a 90 prog player might not necessarily give you 112.5% of the training an 80 prog training will give. Edited by solirocket 09-10-2011 06:25 |
09/10/2011 06:21 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
5
