Asunto: NEWS Sokker- big changes are coming!

it doesn't really matter because the season is not a finished cycle, but a part of constant cycle

every week you have a same probability of getting a youth

with shorter seasons it might even be better in a way for user... because best youths are those that come right at the start of season and you will get "more start of season" periods yearly than before so also more chance of "high price" beginning of season 16yo players

with previous season system in 16 weeks you had 16x 1-6 chance of getting good youths
with current season system in 16 weeks you have 16x 1-6 chance of getting good youths

not much really changed here...

pace for youth 0-1-2-3-4?????

pace must set minimal skill.... it is inborn skill

Ronaldo have in 20y similar max pace like 27y...

but sokker stupidity born like 5 but end like 18...

youth league??? Why have this stupid league and do not make U21 league for youth and players to 21y....

Let me repeat a solution that would make sure everyone has equal chances of having good juniors.
It is called "seed for random numbers". Here is the php docs for it.
Its so .....ing simple. Just implement the seed per team junior school.

I have mentioned it in the forum at least twice before.

But the discussions here are absolutely useless. Because the owners either do not read the forum or dont care anymore (which leads to not reading the forum).

There are many possibilities...for example - a chance of top youth [max starting age 16, level good-excellent, talent 3.0-3.5 etc.], you start with 5% chance, then it improves by 0.5% chance every week so even when you have bad luck after 10 weeks you have 55% of chance to get one, then after you get this top youth, the % goes down to 5% again etc. so with time everyone will always get a top youth

But as you say, there's no point in writing all this...

well, 12 x 1-6 chance

not much really changed here...

As you calculate between 1 or 4 dices it can change drastically. Well It's "just" -4 weeks of draws, up to 24 chances less of getting good youths, and it's definitely not relative.

At least you change your mind in only 2 posts ("of course it is relative because it affects the average global level, same as above")

just by limiting the age to max 17 and minimal number of youths from 1 to at least 3 you already HUGELY impact the change of very good draws on a global scale.

What is the probability of having a 18y in a draw. easy. 1/3

What is the probability of having a junior to sack directly ? Same as above, 1/3. We can sack all the juniors that start at 18y.

Just by limiting to 17y you remove all that sh*.

Then too much probabilities of having a good draw ? But did you calculate anything before saying that ? Because hey, you just tell me that having up to 24 less draws in a season it's not 'much really changed here', so I've doubts.

Let me repeat that setting seed per junior school would change absolutely nothing. It would be indistinguishable from the current implementation, it would still be as random as it is now, and no, it wouldn't even out after many seasons.

well, 12 x 1-6 chance

nope, in 16 weeks it's always 16 x 1-6 chance, 12 in season X, 4 in season Y, but it's always same number in 16 weeks

At least you change your mind in only 2 posts ("of course it is relative because it affects the average global level, same as above")

I haven't changed my mind a bit, as I've said - it's aways 16 x 1-6 in 16 weeks, doesn't matter how long the season duration + there are more "top youth school beginning of season draws" in the long run

What is the probability of having a 18y in a draw. easy. 1/3

What is the probability of having a junior to sack directly ? Same as above, 1/3. We can sack all the juniors that start at 18y.

Just by limiting to 17y you remove all that sh*.

obviously, but as I've said, when you make 3 changes as the ones you proposed, you are suddenly having MANY more top youths. suddenly average youths will become bad youths because the medium level will go up A LOT and then 18yo are not the problem, but suddenly 17yo with lower level than good (for example) are becoming the new "very bad juniors to sack"

Then too much probabilities of having a good draw ? But did you calculate anything before saying that ?

have you made ANY calculations in your idea? Because I haven't seen a single one :)

So we are still relatively in 16 weeks by season, we have the same amount of draws than before. Welcome to multiverse :-D

have you made ANY calculations in your idea? Because I haven't seen a single one :)

I just give you one ^^ 1/3 are bad draws. But that's the more easy.

1) Same as talent. from 3 to 5 it's easy to get another probability of good and bad talent.
2) From starting level 0 to 7 (or 6 max, didnt remember...) it's easy to get another probability of good level start.
3) From 1 to 33 weeks it's easy to get another probability of good progression in school.

To get a "very good draw" you need to cumulate all those "very good probs" (multiply), distribution of skills apart. Because you are so smart, i let you calculate a theoretical probs to get a very good draw compare to a bad draw :-p

Off course, it's becomes much more difficult to calculate probabilities when adding random skills "distribution" for 8 positions in the good position (aka not statima usually). But it's easy to understand that you have better chance of good position/distribution with more sumskills.
(editado)

Let's take it to the limits:

- Seasons of 1 week: every week you can have the BEST possible Juniors
- Seasons of 100 weeks: only 1 every 100 weeks you can have the BEST possible juniors

So, the shorter the seasons, the higher IS the chance to get better Juniors globally :)

Sure :-)

Let me repeat that setting seed per junior school would change absolutely nothing. It would be indistinguishable from the current implementation, it would still be as random as it is now, and no, it wouldn't even out after many seasons.


:D :D :D

Thank you for your input, as always.
Proving you wrong was easy last time. This time i dont even need to do it. Because the definition of seeds proves you wrong by itself. Statistics, ever heard of it?

Anyway, i do not need to be right on the internet. I am old for that.
Peace

You didn't prove anything last time.

Seed is just a starting point in 2^19937-1 long sequence of seemingly random numbers, that's how big the period in Mersenne Twister is. If you take two random seeds then the space between them in that sequence is on average 2^19935 long. You won't get from one seed to the other by asking for the next numbers in that sequence, even if you had all the time in the universe.

And using seed for each user does not guarantee fairness. It will be exactly as unfair as it is now (in the "short" time spans like, let's say, 10 seasons). If some user is less lucky in the first 100 random numbers then it says nothing about the next 100 random numbers. Every random number you get from Mersenne Twister will be indistinguishable from a truly random number (in such a simple problem like this), otherwise it would fail basic tests for statistical randomness. You don't have higher probability of getting "better" number after some "worse" numbers.

Of course if someone plays for 200 seasons then he will get similar number of good youths as the other person who plays for 200 seasons, that would be long enough for "statistics" to be relevant... but it doesn't matter how the youths will be drawn, using rng seeded automatically at the start of the script (I assume that's how it works) is just as good as your idea.

I did. Geston's tool is not 80%, its about 60% correct.

Anyway.... lets not repeat the history.

These stupid nonsense things should not happen

Pop with 36 (bought with 14 tech)


2 level drop because why not



But all they care about is making the game less playable
(editado)

wow, it's huge :-) skill drop is random ?

Of course it is, I've written examples here where a player in 50 weeks dropped 3 times in one skill and not even once in a different skill :-)

Here's one of mine:


(editado)