As I understand it, players have a limited number of evolutions and currently improve by playing matches. In order for a match to count the player has to play at least 30 minutes, but it makes no difference whether they play 30 or 90 minutes in one game. This seems to be leading to friendlies where teams will replace the whole team in order to improve more players at the same time. Ideally, if a player played longer then they should get more experience.

My suggestion is that players should improve based on number of match minutes they play. The increments could be either at a fixed number of minutes for all players or randomly generated for each player, so for instance a new youth player might increase after 30 minutes, then 100 minutes then 250 minutes, then 600 minutes etc. until reaching their maximum potential. This way if they get more match time then they will improve quicker. If you make lots of substitutions then more players will improve but at a slower rate.

Also, I think you said that eventually players would improve through being coached even without playing any matches. When this is implemented you could say that each tick a player would increase by the equivalent of 5 or 10 minutes of match time experience.

cheers!

… quality of the opponents team (player skills or/and club glory) should be a factor for the level of an improvement aswell.

… type of the match – Champions League appearence should give like 2x or even 3x points, especially on later stages

I really liked all the suggestions…minutes approach instead of number of matches, match importance and opponent quality…it all makes sense. You’re doing a great job guys! :D

It takes a lot of courage to expose your team in a League, cup game in the belief of developing a young player. Hence the reward should be the VS risk of losing an important game that affects, future results,board etc

cheers Luc

luc, if you believe a certain player will improve and u want him badly in your team or to sell i think some managers will take that risk. Ofcourse you decide if you do it or not. In my opinion all above suggestions are great, but won’t all these suggestions make bigger teams more powerfull? They can sub earlier in say like champ. league matches when they are ahead by 2/3/4 goals and they will improve faster. Also with the loans, it will make loans more usefull!

won’t the problem be that all these loans will only help the big teams? A small team can train a young player very fast (since he is playing officials) and when he’s a star he go’s back to the big club. So…all the power is still with the big clubs.

If the general idea of the new youth system was to balance things out, this isn’t the best of idea’s. There has to be a way small teams benefit more from this instead of just helping out the big teams get good youth going…..