Author Topic: Youth camp proposition, read and replay, THANKS! (Read 5347 times)

Andy · « **Reply #1 on:** September 06, 2013, 12:02:52 PM »

I like it - nice !

In my opinion once you get to the "Best" status, I think you should need to carry on investing 175,000 each week or even more, otherwise its is too easy to hang for a LA10+.

Good idea it would great if they chose to go with a version of this model but too me honest I hve never really understood what they were trying to achieve with this versio, other than as a deflationary measure.

Kr10s · « **Reply #2 on:** September 06, 2013, 12:41:58 PM »

It seems fair considering that high investment should give better players worth the investment done, but what about lower division teams? It's a lot easier to invest 3M if you are in top level than if you are in D level or lower

If those min values should depend on wich division you're playing, i would say that its great.

Maybe 1.5M for D level teams or lower should be enough to receive the best academy players, what do you think?

xerexy · « **Reply #3 on:** September 06, 2013, 12:45:23 PM »

Quote from: CarlosT on September 06, 2013, 12:41:58 PM

It seems fair considering that high investment should give better players worth the investment done, but what about lower division teams? It's a lot easier to invest 3M if you are in top level than if you are in D level or lower

If those min values should depend on wich division you're playing, i would say that its great.

Maybe 1.5M for D level teams or lower should be enough to receive the best academy players, what do you think?

They can invest lover amounts go comulative 1 200 000 and then CAN PROMOTE player same as they have GOOD academy in that position, in any time you promote your calculation start from 0, so in theory small team can invest 1 200 000 and from good academy got LA 7 player I saw even La8 player from good academy so luck is alaways need and random is present

Advantage is they can refuse positions they do not need and keep level good with low investment untill finaly that position come, etc. etc. this system offers diferent aproaches !

xerexy · « **Reply #4 on:** September 06, 2013, 12:58:29 PM »

Quote from: Andy on September 06, 2013, 12:02:52 PM

I like it - nice !

In my opinion once you get to the "Best" status, I think you should need to carry on investing 175,000 each week or even more, otherwise its is too easy to hang for a LA10+.

Good idea it would great if they chose to go with a version of this model but too me honest I hve never really understood what they were trying to achieve with this versio, other than as a deflationary measure.

Andy someone has just invested 3 mil and now every week maintainence he can have bad luck and wait 6-7 weekas aditionaly because even if it is BEST it is random or even get LA9 or La8 player with good PR and position he needs now he can gamble go further or promote one he needs if promote then he start from 0 again, it is not easy because of random:)

Kr10s · « **Reply #5 on:** September 06, 2013, 01:59:41 PM »

Quote from: xerexy on September 06, 2013, 12:45:23 PM

Quote from: CarlosT on September 06, 2013, 12:41:58 PM
It seems fair considering that high investment should give better players worth the investment done, but what about lower division teams? It's a lot easier to invest 3M if you are in top level than if you are in D level or lower

If those min values should depend on wich division you're playing, i would say that its great.

Maybe 1.5M for D level teams or lower should be enough to receive the best academy players, what do you think?

They can invest lover amounts go comulative 1 200 000 and then CAN PROMOTE player same as they have GOOD academy in that position, in any time you promote your calculation start from 0, so in theory small team can invest 1 200 000 and from good academy got LA 7 player I saw even La8 player from good academy so luck is alaways need and random is present

Advantage is they can refuse positions they do not need and keep level good with low investment untill finaly that position come, etc. etc. this system offers diferent aproaches !

Yes, i understand what you meant, but with this change you would only increase the chances to receive quality players in smaller countries, i am far more concerned on equal oportunities, i mean, i could promote 3 players in the same time that a small club could pull 1, that would only increase the gap between high division teams than those who plays in lower divisions.

Andy · « **Reply #6 on:** September 06, 2013, 02:09:52 PM »

Quote from: xerexy on September 06, 2013, 12:58:29 PM

Andy someone has just invested 3 mil and now every week maintainence he can have bad luck and wait 6-7 weekas aditionaly because even if it is BEST it is random or even get LA9 or La8 player with good PR and position he needs now he can gamble go further or promote one he needs if promote then he start from 0 again, it is not easy because of random:)

Drifter · « **Reply #7 on:** September 06, 2013, 06:14:29 PM »

This might solve some problems but I think it might create a few more. Unless there is some kind of random factor involved, what is to stop managers from just buying youth camp players that will be guaranteed to be at a certain level. At that point, what happens to the transfer market when people are no longer willing to invest there because its better to just put your money into something that will guarantee a limited 8 player. I am against anything that guarantees success. This idea seems a sure-fire way to buy success. I also disagree with the idea that you can pay to promote players.
Everyone seems so concerned about fairness in some circumstances but it seems totally a foreign idea when it comes to other things. If you make the access to players outside the market a situation where you can just pay, I think that has a detrimental effect on the game as well as creates notable inequalities in teams.

Kr10s · « **Reply #8 on:** September 06, 2013, 06:57:19 PM »

Actually, Xerexy's suggestion doesn't guarantee success just paying, it only makes that money invested brings chances to get quality players outside Argentina, Spain, Germany, Brazil or England.
I mean, Xerexy suggest that after investing 3M you could have the chances to receive a player that you would pull using the best academy.
That said, some people pulled LA10 players with the best academy but many people didn't get talent, for instance my best player this season were a 3/8/3 (good, but not that good), but i also got a 2/5/4 and a 2/6/3. You could invest 3M and get a X/10/X or a X/5//X, seems reasonable IMO, the random factor still should be there, the only difference would be the chance to get those players outside big investment countries, that's all!

spamrulez · « **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2013, 07:27:59 PM »

Right now the Youth Camps is, IMHO, a senseless suicide run since too many teams are spending huge amount of money in a senseless and bottomless manner.

You have 10.000.000 to invest? Well, for 10.000.000 you can buy my 17 yo FC 4/10/4 from my accademy. I had a couple of LA 10 in these last 2 seasons. I am the one who sold a player for the largest amount of money in the whole game.

xerexy · « **Reply #10 on:** September 06, 2013, 07:41:04 PM »

Quote from: Drifter on September 06, 2013, 06:14:29 PM

This might solve some problems but I think it might create a few more. Unless there is some kind of random factor involved, what is to stop managers from just buying youth camp players that will be guaranteed to be at a certain level. At that point, what happens to the transfer market when people are no longer willing to invest there because its better to just put your money into something that will guarantee a limited 8 player. I am against anything that guarantees success. This idea seems a sure-fire way to buy success. I also disagree with the idea that you can pay to promote players.
Everyone seems so concerned about fairness in some circumstances but it seems totally a foreign idea when it comes to other things. If you make the access to players outside the market a situation where you can just pay, I think that has a detrimental effect on the game as well as creates notable inequalities in teams.

Now read again all post it say THEY WILL HAVE CHANCE TO PROMOTE PLAYER SAME AS XY ACADEMY OFC IT IS RANDOM!

xerexy · « **Reply #11 on:** September 06, 2013, 07:45:46 PM »

Please read all post it is random there is no place that say guarantee player, there is GAP in this game carlos already huge one only thing is how can smal teams get player they can invest in academy, they can invest in camps and they can buy player, academy is only last upgrade 10 mil but last forever, to buy LA9 player you can do that for 3 milion sure, so camp is to give one more dimension how to obitain player, big clubs have 11 great players someone who start game do not have neither, so every good player small team obitain reduces diference AS there is only 11 players on field, so gap is already here this will not extend it not will completly reduce it but will help!

Drifter · « **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2013, 11:08:38 PM »

I disagree. In my opinion, it only widens the gap. The people with the most access with the least negative effects from the costs spent in the youth camps to have the chance of a potentially good player are those players who have nothing more to do with their cash. It think the gap widens when smaller teams spend their money in the youth camp when they could be using that money to improve the quality of their club and its facilities. Lets all remember that all money spent in the youth camps is lost after a few seasons. You have nothing to show for that investment except a player who you didn't have any say in joining the team. That player might not play how your team plays, be of a very low level or have no potential at all. In this case, you have rolled the dice and set your team back a few seasons with nothing to show for it. You can't augment that cash loss in the market cause most smaller teams don't turn over that much.
Its a fools hope. A gamblers chance. Not the kind of thing teams should be spending their rent money on. I think that time in the market and time spent improving the quality of your facilities is a far better way to go about things. Small clubs don't be fooled by a fools chance. Let the big clubs waste their money in the camps while you plug away and improve your clubs.
I think it is far better to be frugal in the market, research your buys, try to buy as low as you can and train your players well. Its a longer road and success is not guaranteed, but in the long run, even though it takes longer, you will keep everything you have worked for. Eventually, your academies will kick out good players and you will only be paying maintenance at that point. You can make good buys in the market and keep your budget as low as possible. Avoid vanity shopping and buy what you need. Those who excel at this will be successful. Success comes to those with vision and a long term plan. That has been my experience with those managers I consider are successful. In the long run, its not about players at all. Its about how you use them and run the club that supports them.

Kr10s · « **Reply #13 on:** September 07, 2013, 02:48:25 AM »

If you want to get rid of inflaction, you should remove youth camps actually. This game's biggest problem is that people receive too many new players each season, every single online manager with controlled finances grants only few new players each season, GKO has inflaction coming when added weekly wage in discussion and then increased the new youth per season, from 8 (up to 15, using token only, with only few teams pulling extra youth) to 7 (up to 16, using camps), allowing reselling again only increased the problem, let's face it, the demand is low and the offer is huge.

That said, if you want to remain youth camps, each team's posibilities should be granted to not increase the current gap.

I firmly believe that Xerexy's proposal might be really good only if it consider each team's capacity to generate income:

Any top level team can easily generate 2.400.000G (15 league matches, 20.000 seats at very bad stadium level), a D level team should get 840k (7.000 seats, 15 league matches, very bad stadium).
Clearly, if new teams want to invest in camps, they can't compete with bigger teams unless their potential incomes would be considered.

That said, the 3M barrier that xerexy suggested seems okay to me, but lower division teams should require less money to obtain same results than top level teams (maybe 1M or something like that), with a schem like that big and small teams should compete in camps under similar circumstances.

Today i received another report about my academy players, i have 1 more player left to pull, there's a DC 3-4/5-5/3-3 and an AML 3-3/5-6/3-4, those are "the best" academy players too, under xerexy's suggestion i could run in the "youth camp dice" and get one of these too, so big teams would also be risking money on it, the only difference would favor lower division teams: they might invest 1M to get a 3/5/3 player at worst, a big team would invest 3M to get a 3/5/3, who do you think that lost more? Not to menction that if that lower division team pull a really high LA player, they could easily get millions for that player, alowing him to grow faster than usual!

I am aware that lower division teams needs to improve facilities, but i am also aware that they don't need great players to win matches, they can get incomes in market, far easier than a team playing a competitive league: you can beat bot teams using CA2/CA3 players, but having CA5 players, you can easily be relegated in an active league, not to menction that older teams had far more problems to improve facilities than new teams (lower % selling, lower prices as general, less potential buyers), even if some people didn't realized, improving facilities is a lot easier now, those who experienced the game from the beggining knows that getting 1M for a player was impossible in season 2 or 3, now it's quite possible.

xerexy · « **Reply #14 on:** September 07, 2013, 11:22:48 AM »

I agree with everithing you guys say, but facts are:

- gap is here and is created in first few season of game when first people get the best academies, then they could get 15 players per year in 2 years 20 youths amazing, and secon those youths had enourmous PR like 4-5 was regular and 6-7 came, that was 1st step of unbalance and by my calculation diference between PR 4 nd PR 6 player in finish of traning is HUGE if we talk about LA 8 or more players. afetr that new seasonc come and new players got the best but hm problem is PR is much lower and PR 5 is in last 2 seasons RARE.

Le's notice one thing if player is ca 2 LA 9 PR 3 (that is my best pol) and CA 3 LA9 Pr 6 those was back then regular, in traning PR 3 needs to come to LA9 cca 4 season min even more, and PR 6 cen do it allmost in 2 seasons something more, EXP is problem if traning time of player is lower he will get less exp and you will be able tot rain him more abilities than a player who need 4-5 seasons as his exp will influence in his abilities, I know that I have trained 9 of 11 my players from start!

Second is HOW GAP IS BIGER AND BIGER simple teams with money and BEST academy will do this,

got 7 player on start in academy then pay 900 000 for 3 more first week, then 900 000 for 3 more second week, and then again for 3 000 000 he can pay for 10 ADITIONAL PLAYERS ?!?!?!? and now have pool of 7 + 10 = 17 players to chose and he will wait to see what are the best GAP IS HUGE BACAUSE OF THAT in this game btw, in CAMP by my proposal he can get 1 good player for 3 000 000 investment and it is gamble, so CAMP proposal is closing that gap a bit, not extenden it, ofc it is not final conclusion as that is proposition for CAMP not for money in the game it will resolve nations problem and problem people who are damaged because lack of info, I firmly belive that you can not resolve money problem with CAMP.

News:

Author Topic: Youth camp proposition, read and replay, THANKS! (Read 5347 times)