Anger management sessions

Here you can talk about wanted and upcoming game features

Moderators: Moderator, Programmer

Borderlined
Coach
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:53 am

Anger management sessions

Post by Borderlined » Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:49 pm

Some of my younger players have alot of talent, but are incredibly angry... i think it would be great if there was an option for anger management classes. Just make them really expensive, and a very slow progress so not everyone has a perfect level headed team.

User avatar
sljivovica
Member of the Soccer Project Association
Posts: 4424
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:39 pm
Location: Enschede, Nederland
Contact:

Post by sljivovica » Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:10 pm

Not bad, I like the name too :P
FC Wageningen
S2: started in E.34
S13 - S19..: B.2
S20..: A!! (12th)
S21 - S22: B.2
S23..: A!! (15e)
S24-26: B.2 (12e)
S27 & onwards: C-division and lower.
Currently (S41): E.45

User avatar
cruxify
Team President
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:54 am
Location: Fields of Annie Road

Post by cruxify » Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:10 am

I was just thinking about the same thing last night. :?

Perhaps not make it very expensive, just very slow. For example, a weekly course decreases a player's aggression by 2%, so it would take a very long time to decrease from, say, 90 to 20. And courses could cost from 5-10k each, so it would end up costing a fair bit.

Is that what you had in mind?

Borderlined
Coach
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:53 am

Post by Borderlined » Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:41 am

Ya, i wanted it to be about that speed, with sometimes it not even working at all. But money is pretty easy to come by in this game, i think it should be expensive, maybe 30k a round and have it be like coaches thing so it updates every saturday.

User avatar
terry
Member of the Soccer Project Association
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:35 pm

Post by terry » Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:57 am

It can be a good idea, but you should put a maximum on it. If you've a player with 20% agression and you decrease his agression he goes to 0% then there will be teams with 11 players with 0% agression, that doesn't seem very good...
http://www.scheidsrechters.be de site voor scheidsrechters


Jupiler-McDonalds

User avatar
keyelpk
Team Manager
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:16 pm
Contact:

Post by keyelpk » Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:02 pm

as low as agression is the longer the coures to get, to get more expencive and not good enough... something like this can be done
Image

zandyy
Team Manager
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:30 pm

Post by zandyy » Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:34 am

This is a very bad idea, it’s been suggested countless times under various names and it will never make sense no matter how you call it. Aggression is a major factor in strategy and players prices and any idea that would enable to alter it will change the game completely, in essence. It is similarly completely useless to suggest an option to change a player’s natural position, for the same reason. Some managers simply have to accept that non-aggressive players cost more and that some positions are more expensive than others.

In addition, Terry here had a point – this idea is also not realistic, because veteran teams will inevitably end up with whole squads of 0% aggression players.

User avatar
cruxify
Team President
Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:54 am
Location: Fields of Annie Road

Post by cruxify » Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:53 am

In addition, Terry here had a point – this idea is also not realistic, because veteran teams will inevitably end up with whole squads of 0% aggression players.
Like that really matters as most top teams have squads with players less than 10% aggression. And the time factor it would take to get these players to 0% aggression wouldn't really be worth it as the thread author had something in mind of taking a few SEASONS to get a players aggression lower.

YouKnowWho
Assistant Manager
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by YouKnowWho » Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:04 pm

I think it's a good idea. If people are really concern about the whole team become 0% aggression then I can suggest that make a lower limit. Like the anger management session will make the aggression only till 20-25 not below it. Or say each 10% you lower your player aggression you lose 2% of of your players main skills. Making the course costly will also help in reducing the inflation.

zandyy
Team Manager
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:30 pm

Post by zandyy » Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:55 pm

cruxify wrote:Like that really matters as most top teams have squads with players less than 10% aggression.
And it takes top teams loads of time and money to manage such low-aggression line-ups. This in fact is what this game is all about – making enough money to be able to create a low-aggression team. If this idea and the “re-training” idea are implemented, a manager can simply stay with whatever players he has, and invest money in retraining and anger-management until he accomplishes the perfect team.

These ideas show lack of experience in and understanding of this game. I don’t mean to sound patronising, but they could only have come from younger managers.

Those with slightly more understanding suggest to limit aggression reduction to a final of minimum 20%, maximum 20% reduction in all or penalising aggression reduction with less good performance – these ideas are more realistic, but I suspect those that offer anger management and other magic solutions to make your team better with less hassle won’t like them...

Finally, for those who prefer real-life-like solutions, aggressive players will never turn completely non-aggressive. I think younger players tend to be more aggressive than older ones, but even that was debated and contested in previous forum threads discussing aggression. But if you really want altering aggression, I suggest having a one-off course to reduce aggression once, by 5% and at a high cost, for players above a certain age – 25 say. In order to keep things real though, if average aggression of youth players in now 50%, it will have to be raised to 55% in order to keep the average the same.

I prefer keeping things as they are now though.

Borderlined
Coach
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:53 am

Post by Borderlined » Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:01 pm

Maybe when the player is signed up for sessions , he cant play games. I think its also a good point that there should be a limit to the overall reduction, make it depending on his starting aggression: 25% or under-max 5-10% reduction, 26-50%:15%-20%, 51-75%:20-30%, and 76%-100%-30-40%

gazza88
Team Manager
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 8:45 am

Post by gazza88 » Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:03 pm

i think it should be limited to one "course" per player. because a young player is less likely to calm down more than an older experienced player.

because some people adapt better to these courses than others i feel a "random" factor should be introduced to the amount of aggression that can be lost.

17 - 21 MAX reduction of 4-10% (after 1 season, 64 days)
22 - 26 MAX reduction of 11-14% (after 54 days)
27 - 32 MAX reduction of 15-19% (after 44 days)
32+ MAX reduction of 20-25% (after 34 days)

the above figures may need adjusting a little bit
Manager Name: gazza1988
Team Name: Mansfield Town

User avatar
keyelpk
Team Manager
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:16 pm
Contact:

Post by keyelpk » Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:08 am

it can be done for us to be able to send limited [say, 3] number of players, limited [say, 3] times per season, with the option to be avalable in limited time [say, only monday]. the course can cost 50k per player, to last for 5 days, and to have a little random factor 8)
Image

Howl
Team Manager
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:02 am

Post by Howl » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:25 pm

In the real world, incredibly angry, aggressive players have the ability to calm down. They can go to tai chi, they can meditate, they can see sports psychologists, etc. However, there is always a downside to trying to reform extremely aggressive players. In decreasing aggressiveness, you run the risk of changing how a player plays the game and decreasing his overall effectiveness.

In extreme cases, attempting to remove aggressiveness could prematurely end a player's career. Say a cocky, but talented young centre midfielder starts seeing a therapist, 'discovers' himself, realizes that his aggression is a subconscious attempt to sabotage his playing career and promptly retires with the intention of becoming a gym teacher in inner city schools.

Essentially, I support the idea of being able to train aggressiveness, but there must be a potential downside. Players should randomly lose 5 - 10 points from their GR while aggressiveness is being trained and in extreme cases, they should retire. Imagine what this would do to the game - say you acquire a 19 year old CM with a GR in the mid 80s but an aggressiveness in the 70s. Would you risk dropping his GR to the mid 70s to get his aggressiveness down to the 50s? Would you risk seeing him retire?

User avatar
SBroccoli
Member of the Soccer Project Association
Posts: 1421
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:05 pm

Post by SBroccoli » Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:48 am

I think this might work if anger management only has a temporary effect.

Players will revert to their natural level of aggression over time if left unattended.

Call it the Rooney-effect ;)

I also think it shouldn't be possible to briung aggresion down to 0%, but only reduce it by 25% of original value or something like that.
Currently playing in D11
FC The White Caps fan

Locked

Return to “Requested / Upcoming features”