 | Posts: 2229 | | Joined: 2012-07-09 | | Offline |
|
ady_aly wrote:
@Alexsoulsay
If you referring to my wish to contribute to the game, I wouldn't do anything that is not agreed here in the community.
For physicals, so far I didn't see any advantage, literally any advantage, and I had players with 16-17 physicals!
For modifications, my suggestions would be:
- Increase the training rate by some percent, so we don't need to wait 5 real years to develop a player. e.g 20%, so the player is at his peak at 28 years old
- Release ALL players on the season turnover, if they passed 40 years.
- At 33 years old, ALL skills are beginning to drop, not only physicals.
With this, we would effectively have top players in their age of 28-32, after that they are rubbish and players would be forced to find replacements.
It would be much more interesting if NTs would be with players 17/18 skills, and only some of them are 19s/the 20s
|
Interesting thoughts, but I personally see two flaws.
1) With such training, there would be few players on the market (actually in general).
2) To speed up development, one would have to constantly train new and new players, and the economy does not allow that. It is actually stupid that the strength or level of the competition is not evaluated financially.
Otherwise, I have different and very positive experiences with physical ones. And I certainly don't agree that they don't play a role. You just have to look at how Dámská jízda won twice in our Top division. 2 top players and then physically pumped players with talent 3 and 3,5. |
|
|
| Posts: 16 | | Joined: 2010-01-22 | | Offline |
|
I always thought these skill drops are normal (and the speed of the drop) .. yes, a bit fast for my taste but still ok.
The things I see that need to be addressed are the following:
1. Remove the 13 cap on physical skills .. or keep it till 35 36 and then let physicals drop to 1. This will allow people to keep their old players but in a few seasons they will be with 1s on physical so they'll start losing games and will have to go for younger guns.
2. Retirement age. Think this was mentioned millions of times ... raise it to 35 36 ( if there is really a need for this, if you lose the phy cap on 13), but right now its ridiculous to have a player peak at 29 or so just so he can retire at 31 32.
Guess there could be few more adjustments to get this going ( like having youth academy players not coming out with 1s) but the two above will address imbalance we have now.
|
|
|
| Posts: 2229 | | Joined: 2012-07-09 | | Offline |
|
Otherwise, I've been thinking a bit about speeding up training by 20 percent.
In my opinion, it would ruin the game, because then WE would stop having an effect on the player's development!
Example. I have a player with talent 4. For today's max, he needs at least 8 times 18 and 5 times 13 in physical. That's 209. However, thanks to WE, not every 4 talent can reach that. Yes, it affects the initial total quite a bit, but also WE. With 20 percent faster training, even a player with a WE under 10 would max out and then this trait would lose meaning!!!
I'm leaning more towards what vvicktor wrote. Keep current model but natural retirement later. And from the age of 36, the decline of other skills (then the discussion here is only physical or other). Both will work. |
|
|
| Posts: 169 | | Joined: 2020-06-04 | | Offline |
|
Alexsoulsay wrote:
Example. I have a player with talent 4. For today's max, he needs at least 8 times 18 and 5 times 13 in physical. That's 209. However, thanks to WE, not every 4 talent can reach that. Yes, it affects the initial total quite a bit, but also WE. With 20 percent faster training, even a player with a WE under 10 would max out and then this trait would lose meaning!!!
|
Won't that player reach max potential faster tho?
I see your point, but as it is now, there are no room for real Wonderkids either.
With faster training you could have a star player longer, 23-35 instead of, say, 28-35.
But then again, if everybody despite WE can max out, that will also be a problem as you say.
I have no real suggestion here, just a thought that hit me |
/Matteprofessorn
|
|
| Posts: 2229 | | Joined: 2012-07-09 | | Offline |
|
Hampus wrote:
Alexsoulsay wrote:
Example. I have a player with talent 4. For today's max, he needs at least 8 times 18 and 5 times 13 in physical. That's 209. However, thanks to WE, not every 4 talent can reach that. Yes, it affects the initial total quite a bit, but also WE. With 20 percent faster training, even a player with a WE under 10 would max out and then this trait would lose meaning!!!
|
Won't that player reach max potential faster tho?
I see your point, but as it is now, there are no room for real Wonderkids either.
With faster training you could have a star player longer, 23-35 instead of, say, 28-35.
But then again, if everybody despite WE can max out, that will also be a problem as you say.
I have no real suggestion here, just a thought that hit me |
Yes, players will make max faster. But every player makes max sooner or later, which I see as a problem because WE will lose the feature + people won't have to think about training. And this point makes difference between good and bad managers.
And I don't agree that there is no room to fast (what is fast?) reach the top level. And conversely. There are many managers who have been playing for 10 years and have never played in the top division anyway. |
|
|
| ady_aly |  |
|
| Okay, it means that we need to decrease the work ethics range from 1-20 to 1-(20 - 20 * percentage of faster training) and it will still be the same, but everything will happen earlier. |
|
|
| Posts: 2229 | | Joined: 2012-07-09 | | Offline |
|
ady_aly wrote:
Okay, it means that we need to decrease the work ethics range from 1-20 to 1-(20 - 20 * percentage of faster training) and it will still be the same, but everything will happen earlier. |
Probably yes, but as I said before, it's probably more acceptable for me not to interfere with the game. No one knows how the changes will play out in xx seasons. But keep the current model, but only ensure a natural retirement later (for all players - approx. 33-35 years - randomly). Players start to decline physically like now and from the age of 36 (further decline of physical or other skills). At 40 years end in the game. Easy not complicated.  |
|
|
| ady_aly | |
|
Alexsoulsay wrote:
ady_aly wrote:
Okay, it means that we need to decrease the work ethics range from 1-20 to 1-(20 - 20 * percentage of faster training) and it will still be the same, but everything will happen earlier. |
Probably yes, but as I said before, it's probably more acceptable for me not to interfere with the game. No one knows how the changes will play out in xx seasons. But keep the current model, but only ensure a natural retirement later (for all players - approx. 33-35 years - randomly). Players start to decline physically like now and from the age of 36 (further decline of physical or other skills). At 40 years end in the game. Easy not complicated. |
Yeah, this would probably be the best thing to do first. |
|
|
| Posts: 2229 | | Joined: 2012-07-09 | | Offline |
|
ady_aly wrote:
Alexsoulsay wrote:
ady_aly wrote:
Okay, it means that we need to decrease the work ethics range from 1-20 to 1-(20 - 20 * percentage of faster training) and it will still be the same, but everything will happen earlier. |
Probably yes, but as I said before, it's probably more acceptable for me not to interfere with the game. No one knows how the changes will play out in xx seasons. But keep the current model, but only ensure a natural retirement later (for all players - approx. 33-35 years - randomly). Players start to decline physically like now and from the age of 36 (further decline of physical or other skills). At 40 years end in the game. Easy not complicated. |
Yeah, this would probably be the best thing to do first. |
But this is only one opinion. |
|
|
|
