Player's age

[Evandro Adauto]

I agree with zandyy, that change will make game very easy. Because everyone will buy 32yo ( or more ) players cheap, and will play still full performance. I mean, that in this is game set good.

sry for english

[Notwell]

Several things come into my head.

What about managers who have played the game like it is today, and kept a focus on good rated youth? Changing it would be punishing people because they play the game right. Make no mistake, they have paid for their young well rated squad. A change would punish these managers and reward those who have depended upon increasing experience to get a good squad maybe 1-2 seasons before they drop.

Maybe some players should be able to keep going longer, but it can not be random. We should be able to spot it somehow? Who likes too many random things in the game, we are not playing a lottery after all.

Experience + age drop goes hand in hand IMO, it works well today and tinkering with one without touching the other would be wrong.

[Razvanica]

@Xapo: I agree with this part too. The random could cover it also.

@Notwell: What I understand from your message is exactly what is driving me nuts about SP. "We played it like this for 3 years, why change anything?". It's called progressing. It would bring another dimension in the game, it would make SP more realistic. You say this would have a big impact on some managers' strategies. I agree with you. But you find it normal that a team wins A division in season 24, SP Cup in season 25 and it relegates in season 26 just because its players turned 31? This is the kind of strategy you are talking about and it's clearly unrealistic, but we have to accept it just because people didn't think about it in the beginning... I really think it would be a good feature and the random would make the game more fun. It's true that right now the decline it's too abrupt and I would suggest to make it 1-2 points/season, but the age when the decline starts should be random. It doesn't need to be implemented right away, it could be tested on beta and introduced in SP in 3-4 seasons, after properly announcing it 2-3 seasons before (as it would be a huge feature).

[Notwell]

I wrote some BS here, but in essence I like to plan, improve according to factors known and act according to it.

Its not an improvement to make it easier and cut out good factors in the game. Its not good to make it more random, it makes the skill factor smaller. We want the best to win, right?

Work to improve your squad all the time and put an effort in it, if you do not you do not deserve to improve or stay the same level as before.

Squad management IS important.

Oh, and I am a rather new player.

[Razvanica]

Its not good to make it more random, it makes the skill factor smaller. We want the best to win, right?

I don't agree with this. In this case, randomness wouldn't make the skill factor less important. It would force managers to adapt to the situation, just like in real life. If a players starts loosing points (1 or 2, not 5 or 6 like now) when he turns 28, it would be a known factor, and you could act according to it. The same if the player turns 31 but he still plays at his best. You would know that you can count on him for another season.

I too want the best team to win, but for me a manager with a 29-30 years old team who has no back-up plan is not a good manager. You seem to forget that this game is meant to be a football simulator and its purpose has to be to gain in realism. You say squad management is important... Of course it is important. And this feature would not make it less important. It would just change a little bit the meaning of the words "good management".

[Notwell]

"Realism" is used all the time when it comes to suggestions which aim to make the game easier. In this case, it can be a two edged sword. Players in real life don't always have careers lasting until 30's. They can be cut short by injury, by early loss of skills by other factors - like lifestyle or just a drop of motivation. Or maybe they just die.

But not surprisingly I don't see any managers promoting such factors.

The main issue should be if prolonging players careers will make the game better or not? I don't agree with it for the reason I wrote, it means less work at renewing the squad.

[Shreyansh]

It will help the managers who just bought good rated 32 years players for Cheap.

[Jaynk]

I think we should drop this plan. Good plan though still makes the game simple and makes managing team easier. Then 'Can You Manage It...?' should be changed to 'You can manage it easily.. Nothing Big Deal.....".

There are things which are not realistic is SP but works good. But introducing such realistic thing in SP will not make game interesting, makes the job simple. Ok if you are Supporting increasing Age bar, then i will say to make the game more realistic there should be only 2 transfer window per season.

Now what you say about this.? Increasing players age will help people to have good players in the side, so no need to have transfer market open for whole season. Have transfer only 5 days in mid season and 7 days at the end of the season. Then depend only on youth center to have new players during other time.

It will make more sense. But people will not like that, you cant dump your players. or you cant have immidiate replacement for your injured player. Makes more interesting right...?

[Razvanica]

"Realism" is used all the time when it comes to suggestions which aim to make the game easier.

I don't see how something unpredictable makes the game easier. Why do you find it harder when you know precisely that the day a player turns 31 he looses in performance. With my idea he could start loosing at 25 or at 35. Good managers would need back-up in every position and this would not be easy to achieve.

Players in real life don't always have careers lasting until 30's. They can be cut short by injury, by early loss of skills by other factors - like lifestyle or just a drop of motivation. Or maybe they just die.

But not surprisingly I don't see any managers promoting such factors.

This would be the next step, I agree. This would make it even more realistic, and I would totally support it.

The main issue should be if prolonging players careers will make the game better or not? I don't agree with it for the reason I wrote, it means less work at renewing the squad.

The idea is not to prolong careers. This would be just useless. The feature should keep the current age (31 for field players, 34 for GK), but use it as a mean age, not as a threshold. As I see it, managers would even have to work harder to renew their squad.

[Notwell]

I see. Done that way, I agree. If I understand you correctly the average career with top performance wouldn't be prolonged, it would just be a bit more unpredictable.

Sounds good to me.

[Rosen]

Totally agree! Actually,when a player is getting retired by now? On 34 or it is indivudual?

[daniel_texan]

Hmm, nice discussion here.
Very well argued, Raz, agree totally to your thoughts.
I would like to put up my comment posted on another similar thread started by Noapp on English forum recently here in quotes:

"Experience combined with age" should be one of the player characteristics(similar to morale) that can affect the performance of a old player positively initially, negatively towards end of player's career. Two factors, experience and age, should weigh against each other equally. This will also make the transfer market balanced.

A highly experienced 30 year old player should be as valuable as a 18 year old, inexperienced prospect, whilst the old player's value(and salary demands) will go down with age. In real life football, do we find so many young prospects being sold at almost always high prices than players around 30? I am not sure. A Kaka at 32 should worth as equally as a C. Ronaldo at 16.

I have tried to put this graphically in following plot, where
- 'age line' is a linear,
- 'age factor line' and 'exp factor line' vary inversely
- 'peak performance' is achieved when the two factor lines meet

To make this unpredictable, and let the managers keep guessing all the time, this peak time and nature of those curves can be made dependent on hidden skills of the players.

I think, the point of all the suggestions on this forum turns out not to check whether it is a good or a bad change, but to the one point most of the time and that is - whether to change or not.

Any change will not be welcome at all, first of all, by any game developer, unless it is some bug, or by the managers playing this game because it will change the way they are playing it now. Some of the managers might not like the idea and they might think, why bring this change, I have mastered this game now and know every bit of it and only a random factor is against me, and with this change, I will have to learn and change a lot things, it will take another season's time, others will get better than me etc. But my argument to that is, as Raz has already said it earlier, the game has to develop a few changes and not look like it is stagnated. Any game mastered, is a game reaching dead end. After all our suggestions, in favour of Yes or No, it is up to the developers to decide what this change will cost them and what benefit they will get from it.

From a developer point of view, although I don't have any specific knowledge in this field, I can feel, that this is a big change. But what the developers must realize is that, if you search "online browser based football game", you will get at least hundred good options to chose from. Now, the point is, why would you chose 'soccerproject' over the other games. Many of them are free, so it is not money issue. But it is 'how the game is played and does the game offer enough challenge and success to make you feel better'. Beside Soccerporject, I have tried another one and I gave up that game after day 2. Reason: Totally crap website.

So, there are few developments, a game can always afford and there are few developments that a game must afford to survive in competition. Some managers might not like the idea of changing game today, but I think many of those managers, who feel betrayed after any change, will also feel the joy of success after early failures, once they start winning again.

I don't think I will talk anymore about any suggestion, discuss it further on these forums. There seems no point in doing that and wasting my time, when I know that developers of this game don't have enough time to interact with the players of the game on forum. If the game developers are thinking that their interaction might have any negative effect, they need to know that, having no interaction has the biggest negative impact on any game in long terms. I play another browser based, non-sport game, and I tell you, the day we players put any suggestions/talk, next day we have a change coming up. Any good change accepted is rewarded with a a few days of SPFA type account. Talk of not only the development, but a fast, and mind you, good, development, that keeps game moving up.

I can assure you that, if I don't see any good change coming up in this game in a few seasons, I will quit myself because by that time I will have figured it out how to play successfully every match, when I will win/lose and imo, that is a no-brain challenge. It is a personal choice, after all, others can have different opinions.

[C.A. Peñarol]

Good stuff daniel, totally agree with ya

But in this game it seems we (the players) are having a chess match with the developers, at the moment it seems like it's a stalemate. I haven't seen any positive changes since they changed the site layout, I think it was late 2006 or around there. Many good suggestions have been made on here, but only minor changes have taken place. Though, I believe it's a one-man show only, Sjarel is doing most of the work himself, so we can't blame him.

It's still an entertaining game though, somewhat unpredictable, which gives it some spice(but not enough). Stay around, enjoy it, have fun until you get bored of it, seems like the new slogan these days. As we continue to sing, better days will come.

[Razvanica]

Though, I believe it's a one-man show only, Sjarel is doing most of the work himself, so we can't blame him.

This wouldn't be a problem. He could say he doesn't have the time, most of us would understand it. But when you see all the energy going into things like talkerbee or daily news and then you hear Sjarel saying stuff like "managers wouldn't like another random", it just makes you wonder if it's really a lack of time or a lack of interest. How does he know managers wouldn't like another random? Did he made a poll? But hey, as I said before, in the end he can do whatever he wants, even kill the game slowly as he is doing now.

[Notwell]

Additions to the game like Talkerbee and Daily news do not interfer with the match engine. They are not drastic game changes. And like we have seen with Talkerbee, it can be dropped if it doesn't work without much hassle. But a change like the one suggested here really can't be undone after it is implemented, and it is vital that it is bug free as it has implications when it comes to match results. So the dilemma might be, is it worth it? Is this really such a vital change?

I think Sjarel should be given some slack, he has a life outside SP.

Be happy that we have a developer who cares for the game, is active in the community and I am sure we will see interesting changes with some patience.