Asunto: Fix randoms in Sokker [bug]

External tools? Nah, Sokker junior potential appraisal (press room) is a masterpiece !

Thanks for the clarification, Dtox9. I like a themed team too. And I'm not so concerned about that individual skill cap, because further down the lane the inducible trumps the visible in the state of progress. Of course you can still have both. Sometimes.

I update my stats :-)

7 weeks in a row without any 16

Marin Mousset 18 2 (unsatisfactory) outfield
Elie Manceau 18 2 (unsatisfactory)

Pierre-Alexandre Binet 18 3 (poor)
Bérenger Belver 18 5 (average)
Jean-Philippe Lechantre 18 2 (unsatisfactory)
Hassan Cheuva 17 4 (weak)
Jérome Claude 18 1 (hopeless) gk
Wissam Cheron 17 2 (unsatisfactory)

Julien Canu 18 6 (adequate)
Bertrand Gonnet 18 6 (adequate)

Ken Koczur 18 4 (weak)
Yvan Letellier 18 7 (good)

Enzo Delaunay 18 ans (good)

Luis Platini 18 ans (adequate)
Matteo Le Brun 17 ans (adequate)

new:
Youssef Jarry 18 (good)

Matteo is the only one with potential. All the rest is rubbish. Another proof that older pulls and youth players are rubbish.

I already knew that. I just have to keep at least 11 juniors (better coach evaluation)
But yes, I should have fired them all.

Again...another proof that the junior academy is rubbish and pointless. U21 should be youth and within youth I think having 2 youth squads would be great. One U18 and one U21.

In that case it's not a proof. Just me and very very bad luck. We can calculate median draws and probability (I may suppose it will rubbish too).

Actually, the opposite of "very back luck" (only 16y) could also happen to someone too. At least it is a proof of huge inequality. Not surprising.

Last 6 weeks my youth school info
Coming always tragic hopeless juniors
Now i have only 7 juniors in my youth school

U21 should be youth and within youth I think having 2 youth squads would be great. One U18 and one U21.

do you think things through before writing them? you want to have 3 different squads in which you could train players? any idea how that would impact the game and the market?

If it's for everyone then I don't see any problem. The only problem I see here is you destroying a perfectly good idea before it gets a chance and off course without any Alternative except leaving things as they are... In cryo state.

No he just tried tell you the flood it would create of players causing the seniors market crash to 5 for 1 prices and make everyone have better players even if they were bad managers, creating economic havoc.. but youth players would be in so huge demand that the only thing now to use all the money you dont need for making results now is to buy enough trainees so you dont waste training spots... and guess what would happen to forementioned senior players price crash cause overflood, if they tried solve the problem of too little players to train... but he didnt care tell you, how you failed.. (there Are many other aspects)

What you could do was to make ys a place you set positional training (gk/def/mid/att) for the players you get more info about when they arrive.... but to redo effects too good distribution making too many good players you should not have full control over pops


But your idea and My other idea does nothing to the unfair amount of worthy juniors you get or not.... long time since should give better dices and often should give worse dices.... thats the only way to make socialistic fair system

Next time you try write an idea about game mechanics, dont just think it through, simply just dont write
(editado)

Ach...the 2nd professional comes to give his opinion.

Look... I Came with An idea. Not a completely worked out mechanism, but a base to build on.
But as it is now, youth is not working good at all and I would trade my base idea any time with the mechanism we currently have, any day.
You guys are so worries about the effect on the market. Look at how GK evolved with the new training system. Is that a good evolution? No. But we make it work anyways. It could be that my idea makes transfers more like a side thing and most People would more play with own youth. Hey...who knows People need to actually play tactically to win in stead of buying their way to the top. But of course, professionals like you could not make a Profit from Selling anymore...

But as it is now, youth is not working good at all and I would trade my base idea any time with the mechanism we currently have, any day.

yes, but that's because you don't understand or you didn't even try to think about the effects it would have on the game

doing something terrible is worse than doing nothing, an idea in itself is not good just because it's an idea

Corrected randoms seems to work, producing much less waste (tragic draws) and about twice as many “excellent draws” to give us a chance of having a player with minimum value (before skill distribution, excluding talent).

Not a revolution, but it's simple, its work, doesn't produce much tops, and finally reduce inequalities between team (and frustration). Done.
Meanwhile, devs are absent, spending a lot more time coming up with a complete reform that isn't going to happen any time soon. It was obvious.

Random Corrected Rules
--------------------------

1.Junior starting levels should be at least the current week divided by 3 to ensure interesting juniors throughout the season. Starting levels are drawn between this minimum and 7.

2. Training weeks in school should be at least 7 to reduce tragic draws and under-trained 16-year-olds.

3. Talent should be limited to 5, reducing the median talent to 4 in random.

4. The age of starting school should not exceed 17, as most juniors starting at 18 are tragic draws. After mid-season starting age should be 16.

5. The number of new juniors each week should be around 3. Currently, new recruits range from 1 to 6 (for 6 open slots), creating significant inequality between teams. To address this, we can still have new juniors between 1 and 6 but with 50% chance of having 3.
(editado)

Corrected randoms Will always work better than the Sokker random.
But that's just a Tiny piece of the problem.
Borkos and adaca seem to believe change is always bad. Well then let's never share any more ideas and just continue to live the game like a chamber plant.
If we need to keep the current devs and owners work in consideration while having ideas then having no ideas might indeed be the least energy wasting motion. No one is forcing ideas to anyone. We just try to find a better and more Fun way to play the game. Guess that's a crime now

Conservatism is not unique to Sokker. Some have no interest in changing, so yes, it's a crime to ruin their business.
"Tiny changes" have a better chance of being suitable for more users; plus, it's easier to achieve.