Assistant Manager -How to manipulate his offers

[Tactician]

Wow you know less about the game than I was thinking. Sorry, then I will explain a bit further to you.
The pictures above are values from Level 13. If you didn't know, the youth player who cost Token always is a faster trainer. With every year the player gets older, his market value decreases slightly, yet as DC Tackaert is 1 year older but also 25% worse in quality, he has, compared to the recommended player, only a slight less value, which is still reasonably higher than other 20 yo slow trainers of that quality. If I was to show you all of that, it would take me many pictures and I didn't want to put so much work into disproving your made-up theory without you backing it up here so far.

Also I have value tables for fast trainers (18 yo) for every level between 1 and 69. For a level 13 player of the highest quality 99% in auctions the maximum value is around 67M. If you take into consideration that the offered player posesses the maximum quality, however is one year older, it should be slightly below, around 63M.
With 52.1M it is very obvious that this player cannot be a fast trainer.

One more information - wage also is completely irrelevant for determining a fast trainer. Wage always increases with quality increase, when buying a player. (So if you train, obviously not unless you then renew the contract)
So if you know the market values of players, you don't need information on wage.

PS: Your tests in that other thread are not representative, as you didn't show the skills of the player (GK) or in the first post also didn't show if the player you put in was a fast trainer or not as well. Also no comparison values to 1st class FT.

Given the tone in your reply, it seems that this will end up in some mess. Better do whatever you think is right and is best for you according to your knowledge and experience, and others can make their own research, make tests and make their own conclusions. As for me, I quit this game and do not want to continue furthur with discussions here. I only replied here because you replied directly to what I said to say that I am wrong. I know that I did not give wrong advise here; what I said is correct. This will be my last reply in this thread.

How many times should I repeat myself for some people to understand? What is even more annoying is that I have to make effort to explain again and again for something that I no longer play or support. My fault... I should not have bothered to reply to this thread here.

What I meant to say in what I posted here on this thread is that those daily offered players are based on the players to be as improvements for, whereby the progress in training will be near the same as the player that was to be replaced. I said this based on past observations. The same applies to what I said about the age (need an 18 or 19 y.o to fish out an 18 y.o player). You replied to me to say that I was wrong about the type of trainer thing (speed of progress in quality) because you got an offer of a player having lower than what you expected as market value for a fast trainer and also comparing him to another player you have which is that MC. Did you you buy this player and make tests to see if this player was not the same type of the DC he was suggested as a replacement for? No, you did not. I bought a few players from this feature and tested. My point to you is that this replacement player should be near same (near same, not exactly same) as the player to be replaced in terms of speed of progress in training. If that DC is a fast trainer, then the DC/DMC should be one too. It has no relation with that MC and its value. That MC might be a faster trainer than the DC you have, and hence why the value is higher. If you want a player that is like the MC (training progress and market value), then the recommended player should be offered as one for an improvement over the MC and not the DC. You are not wrong for using the market value of the MC as reference, but you are wrong to just settle on the value thing and say that what I said is 'not correct' despite that you did not even buy and make tests to confirm if the player was close to the DC you already had, but I did it for a few cases on my side in my past and I found relations (which include the trainer type) between the older player and the suggested offered player.

You said token youth players are always fast trainers, but what I told you is that not all token youth players are very fast trainers (VERY FAST TRAINERS - very fast trainers are expected to have the highest possible training factor which is the ratio of value to wage for its original, untouched quality). What are you arguing for here? There are faster trainers than certain token youth players and is why those faster training players will have a higher market value but near same wage for the same average quality. I had youth academy players (the lower tokens valued ones that were noticeably slower trainers compared to what some users would consider as fast trainers). For the case of your DC, only you yourself know. I have not said your DC is not a fast trainer, but I indicated that he might not be a very fast trainer and thus maybe why the DC/DMC offered has a lower expected value compared to the MC. So, again, what are you arguing for? I do not understand how can some people not see and understand what was posted, but they rush to make arguments and even provocations. Ok, some people have lower level of understanding things (some have language understanding problems too) and some are also biased but I did not expect that from you.

Did you read further in that thread which I gave the link for in my previous post here? There are 3 players that I bought - a GK, an MC and a ST. Those posts show that those were daily players and that I bought them and made tests. They do not prove the relation because I did not post further details because those posts were not meant to prove anything as such at that time as they were done as a method of communication between me and those replying to me there helping me on the matter discussed there. I did not save much further details about those tests else I would have posted them here, but I can say that the GK was a medium trainer, the MC a second class fast trainer, and the ST a fast trainer, and that those that were already in the team were medium trainer, second class fast trainer and fast trainer respectively. The speed of progress of those daily players matched close enough to the players they were recommended as improvements for to say that that those players were the same type of trainer as the ones that were already in the team. Can 3 out of 3 be due to randomness? I also bought another daily recommended MC in that same season and the type of trainer was almost the same to that of the player he 'replaced'. So, according to you, 4 daily offered players bought in the same season had the same training progress capacity to that of the players they 'replaced' due to randomness? Although not impossible, it is very unlikely.

Given you have taken things to that level, to reply to what you said in your 'P.S', those tests were done by me to find out what type of trainer those players from the daily list were and the motif was for me and not to show everything about daily players to the the forum or to argue with someone on the forum saying that I am wrong. So, what are you asking for? What skills, what comparison values for first class trainer, what this and that? Did I even invented this term or was the first person to put this term on this forum - 'first class fast trainer'? Did you not see that I myself asked there what are the values for a first class fast trainer and a second class fast trainer so that I could have an idea what is the difference between the two for a player at a certain quality and what is the person (Nik) replying to me there refering to when using these terms? Why should I have showed all this there, what for? I did those tests for me at that time, with Nik helping me, and hence why I posted in his thread there, but you spoke in your P.S as if I had some sort of obligation to post all those things as if those posts were meant to prove something to the community. Who else bought those players, made tests and posted on the forum here? No one. I suggested you to go see my posts there and further because I knew that they were about some daily players that I bought and made tests in the past and also the value thing is discussed there too. It is clearly shown there that the value thing was my main concern too and I was worried about the players not being fast enough trainers to my liking because of what I expected due to their market values but tests in training showed that some players were fast trainers. If you think that that those posts there in that thread are not representative or whatever you said, then that is your problem. Other users can read what I posted here but also there on that other thread and can read what you posted here, and they can make their own tests, observations and conclusions if they have doubts on any side. It is you who said that someone is 'not correct' here and it for you to prove, not the reverse. Why did you not buy a few of those players, made proper tests and posted to show yourself that what I said was 'not correct'? But no, you came with a few pictures showing market values for 1 case and you kept arguing based on the value comparison thing saying that your DC is a fast trainer because the DC is a token youth academy player and all token youth academy are fast trainers, your MC is a fast trainer but the daily offered DC/DMC is a slow trainer because it has higher quality but lower value than the MC despite that the value comparisions are only indications but not a confirmation to show that the DC/DMC is not close to the same type of trainer as the DC, and also you bring others things into the discussions to complicate the matter further. Show that this DC is to the same type of trainer as the MC, and then show that the DC/DMC is far from the type of trainer that the DC is because my point was that the DC/DMC should be close to the same type of the trainer the DC. Show properly that the trainer type is based on randomness from what you posted? If ever you are right, then good for you. If ever I am properly proven to be wrong, I will accept that I was wrong. You cannot show that, can you, because you probably do not even have the information saved, and you did not even buy the DC/DMC, but you dared to say that my posts were not representative and you asked for further detailed information that was not even saved because there was no point to save them at that time or to included them in those posts that were done some months ago. Fact is that I bought some of those players and I tested them and said things based on what I observed and is what later I based my argument on but you based your argument only on what you could suspect or expect based on value comparisons only. My argument should be more valid than yours.

I say it again that I get your point, and I understand your concern because of that comparison in value with that MC (it is something that I was concerned in the past when comparing the values of those daily offered players with the players I had in my team and also in the auction market lists - that the daily player looked like a slow trainer or slower trainer and so on based on the comparison of values), but I maintain with all that I said in this thread. Next time, if you want, buy the player that was suggested to as an improvement for a player that is a fast to very fast trainer that is in your team on one of your so-called test accounts, and make tests and see yourself what I tried to tell you. The player should have near the same level of speed of progress of that player he was suggested to be an improvement for in the offer (comparisions to be done when both have same age and have the same quality in the specific attributes that were used for testing) unless something changed in the game recently. If you compare him to a faster trainer than him (another player), then of course the other will have higher training factor (higher value to wage ratio, and it will be likely that he will have a higher value because his wage might be same or slightly higher, but it is the ratio that is a better indication), but that does not mean that what I said was 'not correct'. What I said will only be no longer valid if something was recently changed in this area because my observations and tests were done some months ago. If you want to go by the market values only, then there is one thing that you can do. You can use test accounts that are on the lower level side including the one that you used to show the above (The L13 account) to compare the market values of daily players offered to with the values of the players that was used by the system to suggest improvements for. If I am correct about what I posted in the thread here, you should see that higher market value players (faster trainers) are being offered when the players used by the system to suggest the daily offers were fast trainers by origin, lower valued player offered when the players used were slower trainers (medium trainers) by origin, and even lower values when the players used were slow trainers.

I say it again that this will be my last reply in this thread. What I posted here in this thread are based on observations I made in the past, where in some cases I bought the daily offered player (4 players in one season some months ago) and thus I could see what type of trainer they were and I find out that they matched to what type of trainer the players they were based from (the specific players that were in the team and that were used to suggest improvements players for). In other words, there was a consistent relation between the offered player and the older player that was already in the team that was used by the system to suggest the offer. It is unlikely that it is due to randomness. I maintain to what I posted here - that the daily offered player will be near the same type of trainer that the player that was used as an improvement for in the offer; fast to very trainers will cause fast training players to be offered, medium trainers mediums ones and slow trainers slow ones, and thus, someone will need a fast to very fast trainer of 18-19 y.o to fish out an 18 y.o fast trainer from this feature and that the system must chose this player itself to suggest the offer for the fast training 18 y.o player to show. If ever I am mistaken or wrong, or if this is no longer applicable due to some recent changes made in the game, then my apologies in advance.