I am pretty sure that the extra experience is based on the youth flag. And yes, they get released based on random factors. But the age maybe an interesting factor too… Here is one more idea:

- 3 x the experience for youths
- 2 x the experience until age 20

What do you guys think? The numbers might not be exactly those, but the idea is to give more experience to youths and also more experience to players before a certain age, even if they are not youths anymore. (not cumulative multipliers)

i would love that… this is an even better idea…

I don’t agree…. it will create a lame spinoff effect that it will be harder and harder to sell people above 20 year old players. I think it’s nice to see 21 or 22 year olds suddenly increase greatly. I’m not likeing this idea at all….

i don’t agree with sly. improving players is much more fun than buying a well established.
if the idea proposed by danilo goes ahead, then, we could go and buy some players aged 17/18 on the free transfers list and develop them to good players. That way teams on with less funds and on the lower end of the table could get more chances of upsetting a well established teams. otherwise i don’t see how the lower ranked teams can improve.
currently there are so many players on free transfers list who will never be given any contracts, who knows things may change. but this should not happen to players who are above 19. (teenage should be the maximum limit)…

For e.g. i bought this player Geoffrey Tesson on free transfer last season as a 17 years old . He has already improved 13 points in around 75 turns. at the same time his main skill has gone from 79 to 82 which is decent for a 18 year old lad. Now, if someone thinks buying players on free transfers is cheating (as i have read some posts) then, so be it. but then with my team income being lower, i only have one way to go forward. and it only natural that player improve more when they are teenager. now if anyone sees anything wrong with that, then it is because they want to have their monopoly in the league.

Hey that’s my guy ;)

I personally think it’s a good thing they grow much slower. This will make the game more realistic, since sometimes players do get better at a higher age and sometimes talent gets wasted. Also economically this could get things more stable.

I’m experimenting with the youths for myself now, I’ve stopped hiring other players except for my own academy.

So Sylvain I’ll back you up.

Sorry Parag, I’m not agreeing with you. You say “improving players is much more fun”. Well that’s your opinion :). I think both things can be enjoyable. It’s nice to see a young talents grow, but it’s also nice to find just that right player for just that right price who some how got missed by all these other big teams. Also you say “otherwise I don’t see how litte lower ranked teams can improve”. Please…..I won the league in my 3rd season with a team that just got promoted. I made it to the semi finals in the UEFA cup and the year after I held my own in CL vs some of the big teams out there like Benfica and Getafe. Last season even Lyon WON THE UEFA CUP!. This shows you don’t need the best players to do well. Those tactics are there for a reason Parag. I say keep things as they are now. Don’t forget when it comes to talent there is a fair amount of luck involved. You will never really know if a player will get very good or not.

Hopjes, we are not saying lets improve younger players astronomically. What we are saying is, let the players improve more than they are doing currently, especially when they are in their teenage. if you calculate properly, that period is only around 3 to 4 seasons from 16 yrs to 19 yrs.
If this is not the case then, no one will develop youngsters, mangers will continue investing in well grown players, which means after some seasons, we will run short of players to replace the current ones. And watch this space, at that time everyone will demand the same thing that i am asking right now…

well that’s good! That was the point of the entire youth system change! There are to many superstars right? Well…. let things go as they go now and this will deffinately happen. Problems solved…..

well… sly, thats just my opinion… i am not going for a personal battle out here… it should be more of consensus… let other players raise their voices too… if everyone agrees with you, i don’t have any problem with that…. but it seemed logical for me that younger players improve faster than the established ones, like they do in real life. nothing more to say in this post from my side :)

cheers…

to underline my opinion of a higher improvement in the first years i’d like to do an example:
- a 16yro youth starts in your academy with 70 in shooting
- let’s say he has 20 points potential (at the end he’d be 90 in sho)
- with training, friendlies and some official matches he improves 60% of his potential in the first 4 years: with 20yro he would have 82 in shooting
- the last 40% potential points he earns in the next 4-6 years (24-26yro)
- exceptions (~1-10% of all generated players) from the norm could be: reversed improved (strong improvement when gets older), improvement till 30 yro, no improvement after 20yro, etc …

in summary: that’s not too much improvement in the first years, but they still would reach a decent skill level to support a minor club etc. – isn’t that more realistic?

Hello everybody, just got back from my trip :)

I like Philipp’s percentages, sounds reasonable. Currently what we have is around 20% for each season on youth academy and around 10% in the following seasons. So we could have 3 different scenarios:
-youth player leaves academy on 16: he will have 20% when he is 16 and 10% in the following years – reaches maximum with 24 years old
-youth player leaves academy on 17: he will have 20% when he is 16 and 17, and 10% in the following years – reaches maximum with 23 years old
-youth player leaves academy on 18: he will have 20% when he is 16, 17 and 18, and 10% in the following years – reaches maximum with 22 years old

If we change to age-based instead of youth academy based we could give around 15% of potential per season until 19 years old (and the player would earn 1.5 times the regular amount of experience points from matches), so when he turns 20 we’d have around 60% of his potential already given. For the following seasons the player receives around 10% of his potential per season, reaching his maximum from 23 to 24 years old, in the average.

welcome back gabriel…
i am fine with what you and philipp have said… in fact i like the idea.

Let’s have a vote, since I really don’t like the age idea. I’m ok with the acadamy thing, but after that it should be fair game. I think it’s nice to see a 21-23 year old player increase. It gives more chances to smaller teams to get decent players. This has 1 simple reason. If you know a player will increase more or is more likely to increase from 17-20, those players will never be sold or found anywhere. And if they are sold it’s unlikely they will be cheap and affordable for the smaller teams. In the current way it’s possible a superstar is being missed because he’s 22 but never really played any real matches. Managers could mistake his age for a player that is “done” increasing. This gives way to a smaller team to pick up this player for a decent price and later find out he got a superstar in the rough. PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS CHANGE! I truly think it’s a bad idea and will give a negatice spinoff for smaller teams!

Voting is fine, there is nothing decided yet :)
We plan to have a formal system for voting important change like that, but for now we’ll have to use the forums.
So far Parag and Philipp vote YES and Sly votes NO.

read above… Hopjes votes NO aswell :)

Definitely a YES vote from me. Lets bring back the fun in youth development.

A little extra question here. If a 18 year-old player haven’t been played at all and therefore haven’t recieved any experience points is bought, what happens with his potential growpoints? Will he then be able to improve e.g 45% of total skillpoints in one season (15% for each age 16-18) or will he just keep on growing to a later age?

YES: Parag, Philipp, Alexander (3)
NO: Sly, Hopjes (2)

Answering your question Alexander, the player would have 45% of his skill points available for improvement. A team with high coaching would be able to catch up these extra points in a few seasons while in a team with low coaching level the player would probably keep on growing to a later age.

I like Philipp’s suggestion because the maximum potential is only reached at the age of 24 – 26. I think 22 is too soon to reach a maximum potential. Then everybody will search for new young players and you can’t sell old players anymore. And with old I mean players above 27. This is not good for the game I think.

So when the age of reaching maximum potential is 26 y.o. (or older) then I vote ‘yes’ otherwise ‘No’.

In this system we also need extra skill improvement by experience for older players. This makes it more interesting to buy or hold older players.

my vote goes to YES.

abracos

damago

I must admit I still have some issues with the new way players develop. I simply think it takes to long time to see any changes. I think it sounds reasonable that players shouldn’t peak at age 21-22, but it shouldn’t take so many experience point in order to grow. I will refer to my own player Davide Brollo (again): He has played a total of 108 matches 11 of these has been official games. He may or may not have star potential, but he does not grow. It’s like time stands still with this guy. I generally like the idea of a skill pool with 10-20% percent being released every season, but if you can’t get the players to improve even with a coaching level of 10 and a heck of games something is wrong.

My couple of points:

1) we need at least 10 more countries for balanced skills and players’ transfers
2) we could change from 120 points on average to 110 or 100. But don’t forget that lots of good players will only increase the importance of good tactics

My opinion is NO. If we speed up the youth growing process, it will make everything more predictable, less future stars will go on a free transfer list….but it is more real

Update
YES: Parag, Philipp, Alexander, thorpedo, DaMaGo (5)
NO: Sly, Hopjes, Alban (3)

Gabriel, thorpedo votes NO not yes, since if you are level 10 like him you have a player at his maximum @ 23….. so in his case he meens NO since players currently won’t reach there maximum at 27, otherwise he would vote yes…

so that makes it 4-4 in votes if you ask me….

Gabriel, what is the effect of the coach department right now. Will the player improve faster or will he just improve to the maximum potential he has which isn’t the case in a level 5.

Let me clarify my opinion. I don’t want a system that improve players to their maximum on the age of 22. Let that be clear.
If your intention is to make a little faster improvement in the first years (60% – 40% or someting like that) I’m ok with the change. But there may not be a reach of maximum potential @ 22

So can you clarify what you suggest to implete.

After that I will give a clear yes/no.

The coaching effect is faster improvement, but limited to the current potential. So let’s say you’ve got a player has 10% of his potential to improve. With coaching 10 it would take him half season while it would take him 1 season with coaching 5 and 2 seasons with coaching 0. So if you have coaching 10, you’d unleash all his available potential in half season and would have to wait until the next season (when he gets more points) to continue improving the player. You may think it’s not worth to have coaching 10, but it’s useful when you get underdeveloped players from the market or when you want to see the players potential faster. These are not the exact numbers, it all depends on the matches being played, but I guess you’ve got the idea.

So my suggestion for voting is around 15% of potential every season from 16 to 19 years (turns 20 with 60% of potential released, 45% developed, in the average) and 8% for the following seasons (turns 24 with 100% of potential released, 92% developed, in the average…of course some players may still improve after that).

So thorpedo, what is your vote? :)

I can find me in this suggestion.

But I guess we have to make a system that older players doesn’t make useless. For instance, an older player has more experience and will make less mistakes in a match. So I suggest a system with experience points. To make it easy a player gets every season 10 experience points starting when he leaves youth academy. These experience points can be used in a ratio like keepers do it for heading.
Let’s say a player uses 80% skills (first & second ones) and 20% experience points for his performance in a match.

So my vote is a yes, as long as there comes a system for older players.

I am for Thorpedo’s suggestion. A player with high experience should be more valuable for the club. I would also add some international experience.

More useful old players were already in our plans. My initial idea was that their presence would give other players some kind of bonus. I also like the experience suggestion, we could use it instead. So your vote is tied to this other enhancement…well, I could do both at once so I’ll consider it a yes.

YES: Parag, Philipp, Alexander, thorpedo, DaMaGo (5)
NO: Sly, Hopjes, Alban (3)

Gabriel

Please dont take away the prospect that at 21yrs old they can still grow and a few rough diamonds are out there.
Damago can vouch for this but i sold my A88 striker at 23yrs old and he continued to grow to a A92 when i last looked.
The easier you make it for big clubs the harder this fast tick will get for beginners. Look at my Monaco, except for the free listed player wages, pushing the bankruptcy theory. LOL
I have bought some nice 21 22 year olds at small ticket prices, they are growing and giving me hope of a decent squad in 1.5 seasons since i started.

I would vote to keep your current change as is for at least two full seasons before we could quantify its success. Guys dont become too impatient.

I believe more energies in the tactic algorithms would be better invested in our time

cheers Luc