| Forum » Suggestions » Too many 90+avg players in the game? | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
3066 msgs.
Best scorer
|
We need a sindicate for football players here.  |
29/10/2015 00:05 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@illex said: IMO they underestimated how easy training would be and should have made the reality of training closer to a max out of 80. That way you could get a player to 95 average, but you'd need to focus training on 2-3 players for 10+ seasons. What does that mean exactly? |
29/10/2015 01:10 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
ForzaJuve! said: DirkDiggler said: Similar prices are deceptive only when they involve young player. If they are 28+ yrs then you see alot of these elevated salaries and low hostile clause Yeah, but I honetly doubt that you can find me a transfer of 90 average player below 26 years old going for less than 200mil. except for hostile. Also, if mid season is not the time to sell and with influx of players without clubs in the beginning of season.....when is the time to sell? Who will buy at the end of the season if he will calculate to try and hit the market at the beginning? Edited by ForzaJuve! 28-10-2015 21:36 I corrected myself and i changed it to under 300M |
29/10/2015 01:12 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
138 msgs.
Substitute
|
part of the issue is that every time someone build a decent school you get more good players, maybe the number of good players provided by each country should be limited across the entire game? I have an excellent brazil school too, so doing that would harm me the same as everyone else, but it would add to realism. Edited by mr_euskaltel 29-10-2015 01:57 |
29/10/2015 01:56 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
If it is across the board then it shouldnt be a problem | 29/10/2015 02:23 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5633 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
DirkDiggler said: @illex said: IMO they underestimated how easy training would be and should have made the reality of training closer to a max out of 80. That way you could get a player to 95 average, but you'd need to focus training on 2-3 players for 10+ seasons. What does that mean exactly? When the sim changed from text based to 2D, there was also a change in training system because player stats changed to reflect the sim. The training was slowed considerably, but it sucked, and after everyone threatened to leave the game they juiced it up. If high average players are too rare then only the rich will ever have them. At least you have more competition with teams bringing up the rear. Remember too that a fair amount of money was sucked out of the game by star sales too. It's funny because when the game first started you had prices you have now for players of high average. Deflation has brought it full circle. You should see spanish server market if you want to know the future - it only gets worse (or better, depending on who you are, or I am). Edited by @practicesquad 29-10-2015 07:58 |
29/10/2015 07:57 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
3066 msgs.
Best scorer
|
mr_euskaltel said: part of the issue is that every time someone build a decent school you get more good players, maybe the number of good players provided by each country should be limited across the entire game? I have an excellent brazil school too, so doing that would harm me the same as everyone else, but it would add to realism. Edited by mr_euskaltel 29-10-2015 01:57 I am still waiting for a bomb player from my 6 schools. But its true. 80(ish) progress and 90-91 forecast are rather abundant. |
29/10/2015 15:41 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
82 msgs.
Rookie
|
Personally think progression should be slower for all players. I would also prefer it if you could never see progression or forecast, so finding a gem would be much harder for everyone. There are definately too many 90+ players. It keeps being mentioned that in real life this and in real life that. Well in real life there are only 2 90+ players and they are messi and ronaldo. | 01/11/2015 23:26 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
932 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
Marvel1 said: Personally think progression should be slower for all players. I would also prefer it if you could never see progression or forecast, so finding a gem would be much harder for everyone. There are definately too many 90+ players. It keeps being mentioned that in real life this and in real life that. Well in real life there are only 2 90+ players and they are messi and ronaldo. I kinda of agree with you. Progression should be slower now that there are so many 90 avg players around. There are already ways to help elevate FC like GB for coach training. With that in mind maybe taking out youth 80+prog players from the game from season to season might level out prices (not deflated) once again bc most 80+ prog players have FC reaching 90's+. It once again elevates true 90 prog talent and the 90 avg talent currently in the game can still be moved transfered for a fairly decent price. You wont see this stand still of 90 avg players sitting in in auction for 300M without an offer. Just a few seasons ago if that was the price for a 90 avg players there would be thousands bidding, now it looks like ghost town. I never thought of this perspective but I brought up something similar to gem additions, where you dont find out he is a star until he turns 17. |
03/11/2015 17:02 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2186 msgs.
Best scorer
|
This trend will continue in as far as the approach to farming of players still exists. But then, if drastical changes is made to it, the well trained players will only be bought by the managers with the cash. Though the Market structure of this game is unique and attractive (from my perspective), the current trend will make the game to become technical and tactical prowess based. |
05/11/2015 11:59 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
3
