Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Asunto: NEWS Sokker- big changes are coming!
You can read the official rule :
The distribution of individual skills is set for each junior when he comes to your junior team; each individual skill grows proportionally with the overall skill when your junior trains each week.
Your alt theory didn’t match :-p
The distribution of individual skills is set for each junior when he comes to your junior team; each individual skill grows proportionally with the overall skill when your junior trains each week.
Your alt theory didn’t match :-p
Proportionally is not percentage...
It means bit by bit.
So your once tragic always tragic theory doesn't match either...
It means bit by bit.
So your once tragic always tragic theory doesn't match either...
Sure it doesn’t mean factor / percentage in the rules, but for sure it doesn’t mean randoms. Now, how do you explain that a zero skill remains zero if every skills grows proportionally ?
I’ve no theory how it’s work, maybe like terrion said. But for sure we can throw away few theories, like yours.
I’ve no theory how it’s work, maybe like terrion said. But for sure we can throw away few theories, like yours.
If the skill would rise proportionally, then there would be very low probability of any skill to be tragic (0). Therefore some or all of the information in the rules are false.
Now, how do you explain that a zero skill remains zero if every skills grows proportionally ?
It doesn't remain at 0, I don't know where did you get that.
Here are gk skill statistic for fresh out of the school youths with 26-28 overall sumskill and for 52-56 sumskill (so double the first one)
Somehow they go from 62% having 0 in gk to only 11.5% having gk in range 0-1. If it was just increasing proportionally based on starting skill then skills 0 in gk should stay in that 0-1 range (because e.g. 0.6 could increase to 1.2), yet it doesn't.
Here is even better statistic, for youths that only spend 2 weeks in youth school and had overall sumskill higher than 20:
You can conclude that when you get outfield youth (with initial level 6-7, otherwise they wouldn't have that high sumskill) he starts at level 0-1 gk (maybe always with 0 if cases of skill 1 are caused by random pops in these 2 weeks in YS, but I can't be sure). Cases of 5-6 are obviously gk youths (but it's not limited to these skills, if I include youths with 3 weeks in YS I would get range 4-9).
So fresh field youths start with 0-1 gk (almost always 0), yet when they become unearthly-divine youths they usually end with gk level 1-5.
---
My theory is that youth starts with some skills, then his increases in these skills are done based on talent, but with some randomness in which skills and how much they increase, and because of that their overall sumskill gets "detached" from overall skill displayed (that steadily increases without randomness).
It can't be steady increase in all skills, because sometimes you end up with high sumskill player that has very low skill. For example this youth that had overall sumskill 50 and 0 in striker:
Also I've seen in the past the example of gk that regularly played with ratings >50 in youth league (suggesting that his gk skill was excellent), but then over the next ~10 weeks his rating steadily dropped to about 40 and his gk skill was solid when he got out of the youth school. This suggests that individual skills in youth school can sometimes drop despite the overall skill increasing.
It doesn't remain at 0, I don't know where did you get that.
Here are gk skill statistic for fresh out of the school youths with 26-28 overall sumskill and for 52-56 sumskill (so double the first one)
Somehow they go from 62% having 0 in gk to only 11.5% having gk in range 0-1. If it was just increasing proportionally based on starting skill then skills 0 in gk should stay in that 0-1 range (because e.g. 0.6 could increase to 1.2), yet it doesn't.
Here is even better statistic, for youths that only spend 2 weeks in youth school and had overall sumskill higher than 20:
You can conclude that when you get outfield youth (with initial level 6-7, otherwise they wouldn't have that high sumskill) he starts at level 0-1 gk (maybe always with 0 if cases of skill 1 are caused by random pops in these 2 weeks in YS, but I can't be sure). Cases of 5-6 are obviously gk youths (but it's not limited to these skills, if I include youths with 3 weeks in YS I would get range 4-9).
So fresh field youths start with 0-1 gk (almost always 0), yet when they become unearthly-divine youths they usually end with gk level 1-5.
---
My theory is that youth starts with some skills, then his increases in these skills are done based on talent, but with some randomness in which skills and how much they increase, and because of that their overall sumskill gets "detached" from overall skill displayed (that steadily increases without randomness).
It can't be steady increase in all skills, because sometimes you end up with high sumskill player that has very low skill. For example this youth that had overall sumskill 50 and 0 in striker:
Also I've seen in the past the example of gk that regularly played with ratings >50 in youth league (suggesting that his gk skill was excellent), but then over the next ~10 weeks his rating steadily dropped to about 40 and his gk skill was solid when he got out of the youth school. This suggests that individual skills in youth school can sometimes drop despite the overall skill increasing.
That’s what I said, it s nearly impossible, until skills are growing proportionally with a factor not an addition. Ultimately official rules are wrong when we decide that’s wrong, true :-)
It doesn't remain at 0, I don't know where did you get that.
From the junior case (Juan Pablo Fritis) for example. I didnt say that 0.1 will remain 0.
My theory is that youth starts with some skills, then his increases in these skills are done based on talent, but with some randomness in which skills and how much they increase, and because of that their overall sumskill gets "detached" from overall skill displayed (that steadily increases without randomness).
The return of the random. It could explain everything for sure ;-)
Something could be explain with just factor (or percent of...) of progression and match official rules (all skills growing with same factor). And you prefer a theory introducing random progression for some random skills.
The simplest explanation is usually the best one.
(editado)
From the junior case (Juan Pablo Fritis) for example. I didnt say that 0.1 will remain 0.
My theory is that youth starts with some skills, then his increases in these skills are done based on talent, but with some randomness in which skills and how much they increase, and because of that their overall sumskill gets "detached" from overall skill displayed (that steadily increases without randomness).
The return of the random. It could explain everything for sure ;-)
Something could be explain with just factor (or percent of...) of progression and match official rules (all skills growing with same factor). And you prefer a theory introducing random progression for some random skills.
The simplest explanation is usually the best one.
(editado)
From the junior case (Juan Pablo Fritis) for example. I didnt say that 0.1 will remain 0.
That's just one youth player. I gave you statistical evidence that youths can increase their gk skill from 0.x to 5.x (so at least 5 times) while increasing their overall sumskill by less than 3 times, meaning it's not proportional in this sense.
And it's not just "+x in each skill / training" either, because then you wouldn't have players like Perlai, who gained >25 skills over his stay youth school, yet he still was 0 in striker.
So no, it can't be explained with just factor (or percent of...) of progression or the rules saying something.
The simplest explanation is not the best one if it doesn't work.
That's just one youth player. I gave you statistical evidence that youths can increase their gk skill from 0.x to 5.x (so at least 5 times) while increasing their overall sumskill by less than 3 times, meaning it's not proportional in this sense.
And it's not just "+x in each skill / training" either, because then you wouldn't have players like Perlai, who gained >25 skills over his stay youth school, yet he still was 0 in striker.
So no, it can't be explained with just factor (or percent of...) of progression or the rules saying something.
The simplest explanation is not the best one if it doesn't work.
Factor progression doesn't presume it's proportional in term of skills (or any sumskills) progression, it just mean it's the same factor progression for each skills. You can't find any statistical evidence using sumskills against factor progression, only if you think that each skills receive the same gain of skills.
Let's take this (fictive) pattern, factor progression (talent) 0.02 and 20 weeks :
end skills = start skills + (start skills*f*w)
starting skill = 6 --> 6+6*0.02*20= 8,4 end skill
starting skill = 2 --> 2+2*0.02*20= 2,8 end skill
starting skill = 0 --> 0+0*0.02*20= 0 end skill
...
Same factor, not same gains of skills.
(editado)
Let's take this (fictive) pattern, factor progression (talent) 0.02 and 20 weeks :
end skills = start skills + (start skills*f*w)
starting skill = 6 --> 6+6*0.02*20= 8,4 end skill
starting skill = 2 --> 2+2*0.02*20= 2,8 end skill
starting skill = 0 --> 0+0*0.02*20= 0 end skill
...
Same factor, not same gains of skills.
(editado)
Same progression, same factor, not same gains proportionally.
But it is proportional in terms of initial skill level?... It's exactly 40% gain in each skill in your example, you just found a fancy way to write multiplying by 1+ 0.02*20 = 1.4
But it is proportional in terms of initial skill level?... It's exactly 40% gain in each skill in your example, you just found a fancy way to write multiplying by 1+ 0.02*20 = 1.4
The expectation is not relevant. It's not absolute that a player will ''fluctuate'' more when not playing compaired to a player that is playing youth matches.
It probably might be that the chance will rise, but it's certainly not absolute. Players who don't play, receive the exact same amount of training, and I can back the fact up, that my players don't fluctuate less as before, when they were not playing youth matches. The entire problem lies in the fact you know nothing about your players.
They might come into your school as being poor and rising to excellent within 21 weeks. So here you would think the player has max talent since he rose 7 times within 21 weeks... But at the same time it might be that he was wrongly estimated by 4 points at the start, so your player actually had good as a starting skill, which would mean he rose only 3 times within 21 weeks, equally to talent 7...
I never said talent changes from playing matches or that skills improve any differently. I tried to suggest (and I thought it was clear) that a coach estimates players skill level (not their actual skill level) and the accuracy of that estimation is amongst other factors partly dependent on how often the player plays in junior matches. Therefore that junior in question wasn't playing junior matches and thus the coach estimate is likely to be less accurate then if he played. Hence why my comment was that I would expect based on that, there is a higher chance that the estimated skill level of formidable was wrong and it was likely lower (e.g very good/excellent) even though they have a magical youth coach.
Apologies if that wasn't clear. I was actually supporting your earlier notion that he likely wasn't a formidable pull.
I mean we can debate about the size of difference in accuracy of playing vs non playing but I think that's difficult to determine given all the other factors, so I choose to believe what is in the rules until otherwise proven/informed otherwise.
You are right that talent can vary significantly which is also why I said the chance of him being 3.1 talent was incredibly small. I think I calculated an approximate 3.5 but it could just as easily be 4 or 5 because any method you take is an approximate without knowing what's happening behind the scenes due to the size of the misjudgement and not even knowing if they get small enough by a certain week or if they're still wildly fluctuating 20 weeks on.
(editado)
It probably might be that the chance will rise, but it's certainly not absolute. Players who don't play, receive the exact same amount of training, and I can back the fact up, that my players don't fluctuate less as before, when they were not playing youth matches. The entire problem lies in the fact you know nothing about your players.
They might come into your school as being poor and rising to excellent within 21 weeks. So here you would think the player has max talent since he rose 7 times within 21 weeks... But at the same time it might be that he was wrongly estimated by 4 points at the start, so your player actually had good as a starting skill, which would mean he rose only 3 times within 21 weeks, equally to talent 7...
I never said talent changes from playing matches or that skills improve any differently. I tried to suggest (and I thought it was clear) that a coach estimates players skill level (not their actual skill level) and the accuracy of that estimation is amongst other factors partly dependent on how often the player plays in junior matches. Therefore that junior in question wasn't playing junior matches and thus the coach estimate is likely to be less accurate then if he played. Hence why my comment was that I would expect based on that, there is a higher chance that the estimated skill level of formidable was wrong and it was likely lower (e.g very good/excellent) even though they have a magical youth coach.
Apologies if that wasn't clear. I was actually supporting your earlier notion that he likely wasn't a formidable pull.
I mean we can debate about the size of difference in accuracy of playing vs non playing but I think that's difficult to determine given all the other factors, so I choose to believe what is in the rules until otherwise proven/informed otherwise.
You are right that talent can vary significantly which is also why I said the chance of him being 3.1 talent was incredibly small. I think I calculated an approximate 3.5 but it could just as easily be 4 or 5 because any method you take is an approximate without knowing what's happening behind the scenes due to the size of the misjudgement and not even knowing if they get small enough by a certain week or if they're still wildly fluctuating 20 weeks on.
(editado)
No problem...I was only clarifying things.
@ Mikoos: Where and how do you determine the fact that a youth player, who starts with 0-1 range skills will stay in that range?
Isn't it more credible to assume skills will gradually, but randomly grow between a small range of growth, each week, depending on both youth coach general skill and personal talent? So f.e. a player with tragic defender (0.28 f.e.) will be able to grow in that skill between 0.00 and 0.50 or something, but this..each week after training?
I mean, we cannot know that skills are distributed at the start, when they come into the school, and then only gradually rise in those skills, but then equally for all skills?
Also, if the rules are false then we actually don't know anything about the work of them, for sure, do we?
Then it all stays with an assumption and our ''guess'' might be as accurate as the estimation of the youth coaches...
@ Mikoos: Where and how do you determine the fact that a youth player, who starts with 0-1 range skills will stay in that range?
Isn't it more credible to assume skills will gradually, but randomly grow between a small range of growth, each week, depending on both youth coach general skill and personal talent? So f.e. a player with tragic defender (0.28 f.e.) will be able to grow in that skill between 0.00 and 0.50 or something, but this..each week after training?
I mean, we cannot know that skills are distributed at the start, when they come into the school, and then only gradually rise in those skills, but then equally for all skills?
Also, if the rules are false then we actually don't know anything about the work of them, for sure, do we?
Then it all stays with an assumption and our ''guess'' might be as accurate as the estimation of the youth coaches...
It is proportional in term of relative progression, I think I keep repeating this, It’s not in term of absolute gain for each skills, only globally.
Even if Sumkills (or general level) growing proportionally each skills did not grow the same (in term of absolute). So why your data are relevant when you count 0 gk? Since one skill can start and ends at 0-1 it doesn’t say anything about other skills. It didn’t presume that you can’t reach high sumskills even with one skill at zero since other skills will gain more skills than this one.
(editado)
Even if Sumkills (or general level) growing proportionally each skills did not grow the same (in term of absolute). So why your data are relevant when you count 0 gk? Since one skill can start and ends at 0-1 it doesn’t say anything about other skills. It didn’t presume that you can’t reach high sumskills even with one skill at zero since other skills will gain more skills than this one.
(editado)
Where and how do you determine the fact that a youth player, who starts with 0-1 range skills will stay in that range?
I don't understand?
I've shown examples - statistical one about field youths increasing from 0 to 5 in gk skill, and then a direct one about player who stayed at 0 in striker despite getting big increase in their overall sumskill compared to his probable initial sumskill (which shouldn't be higher than ~22, 50-22 = 28 increase which means he got on average ~4 skill increases in other 7 skills). Something must be responsible for this inequality in skill increases. And it's not "0 stays at 0", I already argued why it's not possible.
Isn't it more credible to assume skills will gradually, but randomly grow between a small range of growth, each week, depending on both youth coach general skill and personal talent?
That's pretty much what I said? Quoting myself:
My theory is that youth starts with some skills, then his increases in these skills are done based on talent, but with some randomness in which skills and how much they increase
I mean, we cannot know that skills are distributed at the start
We can look at players who where in youth school for 2 weeks, that's as good as you can get to seeing skill distribution at the start. And that's what I did to determine that huge majority of field youths start with 0 gk (possibly all, but can't be sure).
Also, if the rules are false then we actually don't know anything about the work of them, for sure, do we?
Then it all stays with an assumption and our ''guess'' might be as accurate as the estimation of the youth coaches...
We can determine a lot of things by analysing data, we don't need to rely on rules to do that.
I don't understand?
I've shown examples - statistical one about field youths increasing from 0 to 5 in gk skill, and then a direct one about player who stayed at 0 in striker despite getting big increase in their overall sumskill compared to his probable initial sumskill (which shouldn't be higher than ~22, 50-22 = 28 increase which means he got on average ~4 skill increases in other 7 skills). Something must be responsible for this inequality in skill increases. And it's not "0 stays at 0", I already argued why it's not possible.
Isn't it more credible to assume skills will gradually, but randomly grow between a small range of growth, each week, depending on both youth coach general skill and personal talent?
That's pretty much what I said? Quoting myself:
My theory is that youth starts with some skills, then his increases in these skills are done based on talent, but with some randomness in which skills and how much they increase
I mean, we cannot know that skills are distributed at the start
We can look at players who where in youth school for 2 weeks, that's as good as you can get to seeing skill distribution at the start. And that's what I did to determine that huge majority of field youths start with 0 gk (possibly all, but can't be sure).
Also, if the rules are false then we actually don't know anything about the work of them, for sure, do we?
Then it all stays with an assumption and our ''guess'' might be as accurate as the estimation of the youth coaches...
We can determine a lot of things by analysing data, we don't need to rely on rules to do that.
It is proportional in term of relative progression, I think I keep repeating this, It’s not in term of absolute gain.
I said exactly why it's not possible:
I gave you statistical evidence that youths can increase their gk skill from 0.x to 5.x (so at least 5 times) while increasing their overall sumskill by less than 3 times, meaning it's not proportional in this sense.
So why your data are relevant when you count 0 gk? Since one skill can start and ends at 0-1 it doesn’t say anything about other skills.
Do you even read what I write? I said that there are youths that start at 0 gk and end with 5 gk. That's EXTREMELY RELEVANT to your theory. If the growth was proportional and it was possible to get more than 5 times growth to the initial skill with high enough talent then it would be enough to have 5x [2] initial skill mid (which happens a lot of time) to produce 5x [10] youth at the end of the youth school. You would get 5x[10] mid from initial (good enough talent) 5x[3] mid in ~22 weeks. That's not what is happening with youths, and that's why your theory is wrong.
I said exactly why it's not possible:
I gave you statistical evidence that youths can increase their gk skill from 0.x to 5.x (so at least 5 times) while increasing their overall sumskill by less than 3 times, meaning it's not proportional in this sense.
So why your data are relevant when you count 0 gk? Since one skill can start and ends at 0-1 it doesn’t say anything about other skills.
Do you even read what I write? I said that there are youths that start at 0 gk and end with 5 gk. That's EXTREMELY RELEVANT to your theory. If the growth was proportional and it was possible to get more than 5 times growth to the initial skill with high enough talent then it would be enough to have 5x [2] initial skill mid (which happens a lot of time) to produce 5x [10] youth at the end of the youth school. You would get 5x[10] mid from initial (good enough talent) 5x[3] mid in ~22 weeks. That's not what is happening with youths, and that's why your theory is wrong.