|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 1, 2011 12:24:45 GMT 2
Hi. The training system is working good right now, but I think it needs some improvements. One of them will be that all the players will train. Users will be able to set for every player wich skill will he train and there won't be two employees for this, only one: assistant coach. Because some teams could buy a lot of players, let's say 100 and train them, the maximum players that can train in a team is 30. If you have more then 30 players, then only 30 of them, selected random every training session will train. Next improvement will be talent or potential, I haven't got a name yet for this skill. So players won't train with the same speed. I'M WAITING FOR YOUR SUGGESTIONS HERE! Will every skill have a potential? Or all the skills will have the same potential. What values will the potential/talent have (from 0 to 10 or from 0 to 100)? Will this values decrease?
And the last will be primary and secondary positions. When you register your players will default have a primary position. And no secondary position. This way, new users will recieve a little help when setting their lineup. You can't change the primary position, and if your player plays at his primary position he will give 100% efficiency. You can have maximum 2 secondary positions. If your player plays a few games in another position then this primary, that position will become his secondary position. Players will have 80% efficiency when they play on one of their secondary positions. If they play other postion then their primary/secondary position they will have 50% efficiency.
I'm waiting for your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by ohdaesu on Dec 1, 2011 16:55:15 GMT 2
Potential will either have 0-10 or 0-100. It will be a multiplier for a training formula but we have to decide what percentage of players are very talented. Distribution is also important. And what will be the difference of training very talented and non talented. To provide justice we should balance how a talented player gains advantage. Talent should be just one for player and effect every skill training. Or we will define that "this player's forward talent is high so he can improve his fwd skills faster but back talent is somehow low" maybe there will be a few players both talented. E.t.c and maybe they will become monsters. but personally i suggest one talent point effects all of the skills.
|
|
|
Post by ohdaesu on Dec 2, 2011 12:28:35 GMT 2
I have a question about primary position. What will be the initial pri.pos. of our players in squad?can we decide the pos. of our current players or will it be generated by random?
|
|
|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 2, 2011 13:12:32 GMT 2
The position will be generated based on their skills. So, if your players best position is as winger, he will be winger.
|
|
|
Post by alexiosas on Dec 2, 2011 14:06:14 GMT 2
I'm not sure that would be a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 2, 2011 14:13:57 GMT 2
Why? I think it will add some realism to the game and will make users think more before setting training for their players.
|
|
|
Post by ohdaesu on Dec 2, 2011 15:15:49 GMT 2
I also support your ideas. You should do this changes for game to be more realistic and joyful. Training just 1/3 of team is unrealistic. Every player should be trained, but not with the same speed. The talent of the player should effect on the training speed. As another idea maybe a coach may have only 3 skills focus and just only trains player's these skills. Or coaches may have also skills as players but these skills may show how effectly he can train. (like in charazay basketball game.) just an idea. I dont how does it effect on gameplay or server speed.
|
|
|
Post by LA-wezegaga on Dec 2, 2011 15:54:51 GMT 2
I don't think training all players is a good idea for one reason : it will create a big gap between those who started the game early and those who will come later : all your players train, it means all your team gets better at the same time (and in all the skills if I understand what you say). The idea of choosing a bunch of backs and forwards force you to think about your future team, more than if you can improve all your players at the same time ! OK that's not realistic but most (all ?) of the management games I play do that. About potential, in Buzzerbeater it's like a training limit. It doesn't affect the training speed but once you achieved the limit training gets very very slow (= the player achieved his best level and can't progress anymore). I think it's a better idea than a potential on speed training
|
|
|
Post by ohdaesu on Dec 2, 2011 16:11:02 GMT 2
For example, With a low potential, player will get 10skills in a season, while talented will gain 20, very talented will gain 25(percentage of very talented players should be very low.) what is wrong with that? All the players can not train same amount so there isn't such a thing that players improve all the same. There will be some superstars, stars and just a good team member or ordinary players due to their talent.
|
|
|
Post by LA-wezegaga on Dec 3, 2011 15:53:58 GMT 2
I understand the principle of training speed, but I do believe a limit on the level max is better (mainly because training speed is already pretty fast so it won't create big differences) I think there are 2 subjects : - training on all or some players, - introduction of a potential. Furthermore, I noticed something : maybe the sum of skills should be different for backs and forwards (it can create "false" gaps between 2 similar players because a forward sucks in kicking for example). Why not add a column (in the players page) for Back/Forward and a skills sum which would be only on the main skills for the category, like speed + handling + tackling + breakthroughs + stamina + kicking for backs and strength + handling + stamina + tackling + breakthroughs + handling + maybe something for height and weight). What do you think about this idea ? About salaries, maybe it will be better to have a formula which take into account the 3 or 4 biggest skills than only the 1rst one because players will tend to become multiskilled
|
|
|
Post by vanquisher on Dec 3, 2011 19:19:21 GMT 2
I'm not a fan of these changes. I would prefer the game stays as it is. These changes will limit managers' control over their team. I don't think "realism" is something that should be strived for. These aspects of the game are working well as is. No need to train all players, it removes a strategic element of the game as well as the previously stated risk of scaring off newer users who would be left behind by the changes.
|
|
|
Post by ohdaesu on Dec 3, 2011 23:45:32 GMT 2
Why are people afraid of new features?what do they expect from game?if there is a change, it's all for us. The competition facts are all equal for everyone. So again your way of team management makes you a champion or not. What will be the difference?why are you afraid of so much? looking from new member clubs' side, their new team is naturally not so good. In every menager game user begins with a team below avarage with not so good players. But with the right decisions he makes his team better. The rules are all equal for every user. I began the game a mount after some managers, so i havent got good players like them. So what? It's totally natural. Maybe i will come to their level with the right strategy. Maybe my team will beat them in future. What is wrong with the new suggested training system. Like now, you can only train a few players faster. Like now, every player gets at least a little training also. I really can not figure out why do people closed to changes. With innovation game will become more dynamic other than to be so static.
|
|
|
Post by GA-itzanuke on Dec 4, 2011 1:21:58 GMT 2
I agree with ohdaesu if there are no changes how will the game develop,
|
|
|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 4, 2011 1:50:35 GMT 2
I will make a few design changes, this and next week, then I'll read this topic, get a conclusion and try to implement your suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by LA-FerGilmour on Dec 4, 2011 3:17:37 GMT 2
If there will be "big" changes, they would be implemented right now. Game is in development process, we are supporting and analyzing. Massive changes, updates hard to be understood, new rules over old rules, those things make users get away. People hates changes, this is a fact. We should assume our role of beta testers, for helping in development and improvement of RS, i think Talent is OK for me, if it´s a random and unknown factor. Training for all players is also OK. Different levels of training, based on manual selection and played matches (always thinking of talent as an unknown variable) should be considered for determining levels of received training. Only one thing about this. An account should be: a) Very easy to do, or b) Based in unknown algorithms. No intermediate terms. Difficult things attempts against playability. When a game is difficult for being understood by new players, they try once and just leave. Just a matter of common sense, game need more users, abstract mathematics conspires against the most obvious initial objectives as, for instance, popularity. Sorry because of my English! Please tell me if anything has been tough to be understood. And correct me each time I make mistakes! Greetings!
|
|