sry for english
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Moderators: Moderator, Programmer
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.Notwell wrote:Its not good to make it more random, it makes the skill factor smaller. We want the best to win, right?
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.Notwell wrote:"Realism" is used all the time when it comes to suggestions which aim to make the game easier.
This would be the next step, I agree. This would make it even more realistic, and I would totally support it.Notwell wrote: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 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 wrote: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.
"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.
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.C.A. Peñarol wrote:Though, I believe it's a one-man show only, Sjarel is doing most of the work himself, so we can't blame him.