35Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYep, value shows if a player is fast trained.
Yep, value shows if a player is fast trained.
Originally Posted by Der_Ryan_M
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.
Last edited by Tactician; 12-29-2019 at 11:13 AM.
Nice hint but still before we used to get better player than this with 1T at the start of the season.
Today same player but we got a FT as offer. 95% almost 66M is very good!
@Tactician - I don't want to discuss with you, you can believe whatever you want. I just want to help the community, who is still playing the game by giving useful information. And therefor I said your "theory" is wrong, which it apparently is, no doubt about it. This was not to criticize you as a person, but more to be correct on a feature in Top Eleven.
As you edit your post above every minute, one more thing maybe - instead of feeling personally offended in every discussion here on forum, you should maybe accept, that other players have also made a lot of testing with certain features of the game and just maybe know as much or more than you about them. I also read many things not being correct here on forum by new players. Most of the times I refuse to discuss with them, because why should I care when they make mistakes? But I thought when I put something right (right being still the term in my opinion here, because even when I try to stay relatively objective on a topic, it doesn't necessarily mean it is right in everyones mind) I can help some players here and also convince people like you from my standpoint. At the end everyone can do their own testing, and figure out what fits for them, it is maybe the best choice. In that sense, again, nothing personal here against you, but I have bought many recommended player, set up many possible scenarios with dummy players in the past, did a lot of testing regarding their speed of training, which on my main account L69 I have to do, because market values are crap there. I just couldn't show you everything here and offered you and others a small example, which was enough in my opinion.
Last edited by Der_Ryan_M; 12-29-2019 at 09:41 AM.
I told you that I based my argument on those 4 players that I bought in a season some months ago and I just said based on what I observed. The thing is that I no longer play this game and thus I cannot verify further. I did not claim that I should be absolutely right and that I cannot be wrong. I expected that you have a better level of understanding compared to certain users on this forum that only post to argue or provok or post and throw likes here and there that only make matters worst and that you are not the kind of person to provok, to cause arguments or things like that on the forum, but your second reply to me brought things to another tone. My point was that you should have at least bought the player concerned (the DC/DMC) and made tests to show that the player is indeed not to the same type of trainer the older DC is but came based on randomness but you still argued based only on the market value. What if that DC/DMC had a lower wage, which means that the training factor (lower value but also lower wage) will be near the same as that of what a player having near the same progress capacity as that DC should have? Then it would be near the same type of trainer. What you showed in that first reply did not prove much to what you said. The 3rd post which you did later improve things. I did not intend to mislead users here, and you also unlikely intended to mislead users.
Today same player but we got a FT as offer. 95% almost 66M is very good!
@Tactician - I don't want to discuss with you, you can believe whatever you want. I just want to help the community, who is still playing the game by giving useful information. And therefor I said your "theory" is wrong, which it apparently is, no doubt about it. This was not to criticize you as a person, but more to be correct on a feature in Top Eleven.
As you edit your post above every minute, one more thing maybe - instead of feeling personally offended in every discussion here on forum, you should maybe accept, that other players have also made a lot of testing with certain features of the game and just maybe know as much or more than you about them. I also read many things not being correct here on forum by new players. Most of the times I refuse to discuss with them, because why should I care when they make mistakes? But I thought when I put something right (right being still the term in my opinion here, because even when I try to stay relatively objective on a topic, it doesn't necessarily mean it is right in everyones mind) I can help some players here and also convince people like you from my standpoint. At the end everyone can do their own testing, and figure out what fits for them, it is maybe the best choice. In that sense, again, nothing personal here against you, but I have bought many recommended player, set up many possible scenarios with dummy players in the past, did a lot of testing regarding their speed of training, which on my main account L69 I have to do, because market values are crap there. I just couldn't show you everything here and offered you and others a small example, which was enough in my opinion.
I did not see that you posted a third reply as I was still finishing with the reply which I was still editing based on your previous reply and why you saw the edits. One thing for sure is that I did not edit to mislead others or to give the impression that I said something else, to what I initially intended, unlike what some did on this forum including a moderator that edited one of my post in another thread to included something that I did not say at all and do not reflect to what I did in the game; basically he edited and put a false thing in my post so that the post say something that would suit him but that I have not said or did, and I even made a screenshot of this just in case, and I suppose forum admins can see detailed edits made by moderators on users posts. What this moderator did is wrong, should be unacceptable and should be against the rules, but I can understand why he did so, and thus I did not make a fuss about this case.
Do not worry about the matter as I am not the sort of person that will stick to one thing even if that thing is wrong. If I am wrong, or was wrong, I will accept it instead of hiding, finding excuses or still pretend otherwise unlike some users. Also, things change with time; they do not stay the same and thus someone can even turn out to be wrong at a later time because things are simply no longer the same. If in the case here I was wrong for whatever reasons - wrong irrespective to how things were in whatever period or wrong because things changed or wrong because I based myself on the 4 players that I bought and a few other things - my apologies, and if really you turn out to be right, then thanks because I appreciate the effort made and I like to know what is right or correct.
I also try to be as much right as possible but the behavior of certain users (definitely not you) pissed me off in the past. They start to bring all sorts of others things into the discussion and try attack the user personally instead of properly defending what is relevant to the discussion upto the point of insulting him indrectly or directly just because they did not like what the user posted.
Well, that is what I said - that anyone concerned can make their own research, tests and so on when they have doubts on something, and they can make their own conclusions. After all, they are the managers and they are the ones still playing the game.
Last edited by Tactician; 12-29-2019 at 04:51 PM.
I think at the end we are pretty similar - we both are not accepting opinions from other persons, when they can't proof something and we think we have other experiences. We question things, that's good. How often do I read statements from new players here, claiming to know something which they don't and they don't listen to advice from other people... I'm a very pragmatic person, I base my style of playing the game around facts and numbers. And I think you also do - that's why we spend so much time and effort to test things like the recommended players.
My intention was not to denounce you or anything. I just wanted to share my experiences, which were, in this case, not the same as yours and maybe convince you also from my standpoint. For me, it was always clear that market value is the best indicator to tell if someone is a fast trainer. And I was kind of shocked that you didn't know, maybe I put my first sentence in my second post a bit wrong, sorry for that. But so I don't need to buy the player and test, because for years I select my players from the market value and many people do as well. It looked a bit like you couldn't accept it, that my observation could be right and you brought things up like "buy and test the player", which isn't necessary because I know how the game works and how you can tell fast trainers.
Again, a lot was written here for basically nothing. People can read this thread and form an opinion themselves or even better, test and get their own experiences.
I knew that market value is the indicator and I never denied that, but I also used the ratio of market value to wage value when required, for example to destinguish who among two non-bought players is the fastest trainer when those two players had near same market value. This is how I narrowed down the list for selection when finding fast trainers from auctions. The problem is for the daily player thing. I had a different experience from yours. Like I said, I bought 4 players from there in the past and those players turn out to be matching in terms of the type of trainer to the players that they were recommended as improvements for. Briefly, for those 4 players, it was like the following.
Player In Squad | Daily Offered Player
GK, 19 y.o, medium trainer, no S.A | GK, 18 y.o, medium trainer, no S.A
MC, 19 y.o, medium-fast trainer no S.A | MC, 18 y.o, medium-fast trainer, with S.A
MC 19 y.o medium-fast trainer, with S.A | MC, 18 y.o, medium-fast trainer, with S.A
ST, 18 y.o, fast trainer, no S.A | ST, 18 y.o, fast trainer, with S.A
As you can see from above, two relations can be deduced - one with the age and the second is with the trainer type. Based on other players that I got as daily offers but that I did not buy, their market values seemed to matched for what was expected going by this relation. I did not notice abnormal values like for example the two you posted where two offered players as improvement for the same player in the squad had a big difference in market values - such a big difference that it can be said that the relation that was suspected due to previous observations might be wrong. What you showed in your third reply in addition to what you already showed in your first reply made the difference. Had you showed all those before in that first reply, I would not even have gone so far with this discussion.
This is why I argued to defend my case. Look at the above yourself. I am sure you would have made the same sort of deductions too if you got those observations. How did I even get offered those 4 players (not 1, not 2... but 4) that matched closely in terms type of trainer with what the specific players they were suggested as improvement for if there was no such relation but more like based on randomness? Assuming that there were no changes made in this area of the game recently, there can only be one explanation left: a coincidence (which mislead me).
I hope that after reading this you will understand what happened.
As for the edits, you can see that I did not change anything as such to all my posts here so that the posts are opposite to what I posted with the first clicks. Keep into consideration that I have been replying using a phone tablet and some were done at odd times, for example, in some cases, like 2-6 AM for me and also in periods that I was not well enough or in certain bad state of mind, where my replies contained errors, were not finished or not as desired, and thus I came back to edit where required. If ever later a moderator here edit my post for whatever reasons and worst even put something that I never said or intended to say, then you and other users will see his forum user name as the the last user that editted the post, and the user can send me a private message to ask me to check the post if ever all in there is what I posted before replying further; this applies to any other post I made elsewhere in the forum too.
And lastly, my apologies for any disturbance I caused to you.
Last edited by Tactician; 12-29-2019 at 06:19 PM.
Post removed because was a double post.
Last edited by Tactician; 12-30-2019 at 10:43 AM.
I have to make a correction to what I said as Ryan experienced something different to me as discussed in this thread. Based on his posts, even a fast trainer might not fish out another fast trainer from the daily player offer. I cannot say for sure on what it is based, but Ryan said that it is random. If it is random, then even a non-fast trainer should be able to fish out a fast trainer. Better you make your own tests if ever you are interested in getting fast trainers from the daily player offer. The age relation (need 18 or 19 y.o to fish out 18 y.o players) is still valid.
Another thing is that someone else said that those players have always been good peformers. I can say that this is wrong because out of the 4 players that I bought from the daily player offer, only 1 player was a good performer and the remaining 3 of them were poor to average despite having good enough visual % quality compared to the % quality of opponents or opposing players faced.
Last edited by Tactician; 12-29-2019 at 08:21 PM.
Age I can confirm and also the performer thing, I also had some below average performers from these recommendations. My current recommended GK is such a noob. The one before was quite good... I couldn't find out yet how to tell if someone is a good performer before you play him for a while.
Maybe the value thing was different before, when you tested it back then. I can't remember when I started playing around with this feature... Also from your screens in the other thread, I could see that your level, where you tested it, is also quite high and its a bit harder to tell fast trainers from market values as everything is closer.
Reply With Quote
