Basically, you want a 18 aged with acceptable % and positions? just set a low 18 aged player in the position you wanna receive a good offer, and thats it.
39T for a 18 aged 3 positions scout leveled, is a great offer.
Attachment 131400
Printable View
Basically, you want a 18 aged with acceptable % and positions? just set a low 18 aged player in the position you wanna receive a good offer, and thats it.
39T for a 18 aged 3 positions scout leveled, is a great offer.
Attachment 131400
I mean at my lower level most of my recommended players are not FT, even if they are 19-20 or whatever.
Probably as you advance more in levels FT aren t easily spotted, and paying 40T when the market prices are usually higher is worth it.
At low levels you can spot so easily fast trainers... just click under market Value to list players for value, and you have the FT there... then once u get the FT value frrom market u can compare in the recommendations.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDunk
Fast training is associated directly with the players value.
Agree but when to set him? Can't have him in squad during event for instance...
Sendt fra min SM-G965F med Tapatalk
There's a countdown that tells you when the new assistant recommendation is coming... set the player just 1 minute before... or maybe better 3, maybe works like the matches that you can't do any change from 3 minutes before cause the server is working already in the simulation. JUst try it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FINO ALLA FINE
Will do that... Thanks
Sendt fra min SM-G965F med Tapatalk
Thanks for this. Will try it as well. 39 tokens for triple position 6 star 18 year old is a good deal if he is an FT!
I do it a lot as well.
Another thing to be noticed - when your bad player has an SA, the recommendation also has SA. Not always useful, as you might get DC with penalty taker for example but still.
Also I agree, that these daily players are not always first class FTs, so be careful. :)
I feel the need to say something here. I bought some of those daily players in the past, and also I tried manipulation, and thus, I have some experience in this area. It is not like 'just set a low 18 aged player in the position you wanna receive a good offer, and thats it.' Sorry Khris, but really it is not.
The age and speed of progress in quality of the daily player is based on the player it has been suggested as a replacement for.
(1) For the suggested player to be 18 y.o, the player to be replaced must be 18 y.o or 19 y.o (19 y.o players also will cause 18 y.o player offers).
(2) For the offered player to be a fast trainer, the player suggested to be replaced (the one already in your team) must be a fast to very fast trainer.
So, the user must already have an 18 or 19 y.o fast to very fast training player having the desired position(s) assigned to have the chance to be offered an 18 y.o fast training player having a desired position. Then must come for the system to pick that particular player in your team to suggest an offer.
From past experience, it seemed that the position in first priority for the player that was picked for to make an offer is taken into consideration, followed by the second one, and also it seemed that original positions (positions that the player came with when was bought, not trained to play for) are taken into priority for consideration for what to suggest for as positions for the offered player to have.
So, the way of manipulation posted by the Khris in this thread will increase your chance of getting offered an 18 y.o player, but there is no guarantee at all that for example you will be offered a DL after you put a low quality 18 y.o DL at DL in your team before the daily recommendation list refresh. In fact, it is far from being a reliable method in terms of getting a player with the desired positions itself. Then comes the problem of getting the player with desired special ability (which most of the time is a failure). In other words, it is like using an 18 y.o player having certain positions set at a playing position in your starting line-up as bait to try fish an 18 y.o player having certain positions from the system, but still with a significant chance that the fish will not bite to this line but at another place; it is a very hit and miss method - not reliable.
@Tactician
So basically i must find a FT which takes hours or even days in the desired position only to have a slightly chance of getting something from AM? That doesn t seem to be worth doing.
my best ever assistant recommend. 2* 3token with wall special ability(x50).
then i just train him with highlighted skill & have his grey skill at 1% for months.
no need to upsell using many accounts like top100 did :cool:
Attachment 131419
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by jarharnamme
Yes, you need a fast trainer to lure another fast trainer from the daily list (take into consideration that there are two types of lists as said in a post after this one). For sure someone will not get a fast trainer as a daily player if the player that he was suggested to be replaced is not a fast trainer (it is not random). The base position is a must if it is for a daily player while the recommended daily player's position is based on the position opposing the opponent's chosen strong player's position.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDunk
The bad is that a user would likely want a 18-19 y.o old fast trainer when his current one for say a position is reaching near the end of his time for use as a main squad player, but then he will not get an 18-19 y.o offer based on him but something closer to his old age. So, someone who would want a fast training player for replacing an ageing player playing in a particular position will have first to find a relatively low quality 18-19 y.o fast trainer for that same position from elsewhere like auctions or youth player.
One of the only good side of this system is that if you have a young, fast training player but who performed poorly (a flop), then the offered player as a suggestion of being an improvement over him is an option to consider (provided that you got an offer based on him). This is how I got my 7-star ST. I had a fast training but poorly performing 18 y.o 5-star ST in my team, and on a day in that same season I got offered an 18 y.o 7-star ST with PK special ability, and I bought him and the newly bought player turned out to be a good performer. But if your bought fast training 18 y.o player is performing well, then why buy another for a high price? Basically, this system offers the user to buy players that he might not need to buy at all except in certain special cases. This is just another system in this game that is nearly fully based on Nordeus' gain rather than in consideration of the needs of the user or what can help him.
Is the ML/AML is a fast trainer? If not, then the DL is probably not too. You may have celebrated too early. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jarharnamme
BTW, there are two different types of daily list - one is a daily recommendation list whereby an offer is suggested based on an opposing player from an opposing team to be faced on that same day and another is a daily player that is based on the weaker positions in your team. Take into consideration that those two do not function the same way. The first one is likely to be based a weak position in your team versus the strongest position in the opponents team and the offer will expire after the specific match starts while the other is based on players you have in your squad and usually targets the weak areas and will expire after about 1 day, that is about 1 hour before next offer will show.
not sure bout fast trainer or not. but I have him for 10 seasons, winning league all 10seasons and 1-2 treble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
my fast trainer which I bought for 1 token in market is usually ST, AML, AMR.
never care bout the defensive players because in my league my opponent also have mutant trio upfront no point having fast trainer/1% grey 300% white.
but this player hardly gets 6 rating. always 7 and above so I'm happy with him.
compared to my CB with header/wall specialist which have monstrous stats, fast trainer, pay with token from YA, they all are useless compared to this gem ;)
p/s: I also play him as CB with yellow warning but he outperform the CB. :rolleyes:
and another observation. all the assistant recommend/scout recommend/event rewards/event recommend usually are good in top11 even if they're slow trainer.
i don't buy them but my asso mate who's a wallet player (too lazy to train just buy recommend every season) is winning easily compare to me who use hard earn rest and green from ads.
probably because nordeus wants to reward manager who use tokens(and real money) to buy these player directly compared to train them using rests/greens.
usually in asso matches, when we fought against top100 global who have mutant player left right centre, all 5 of us lose while that wallet player won and he be like "meh, this top100 player is easy!" :rolleyes:
The fast trainer thing is not correct, it is absolutely randomness whether your recommended player is a fast trainer, no matter who you have set as your other player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
Attachment 131470
As an example today I got a DC recommendation for my 20 year old ex youth player, who has good value and is a fast trainer. The recommended player however is very bad value and should be a slow trainer. A good player of 99% should have over 60M value and I have a MC 19 yo and 17% worse with the same value.
Attachment 131471
Attachment 131472
How can you say it is 'not correct' and based on randomness from what you showed above? You based your conclusion only on one case where you compared the value of the 6-star player to the value of a 5-star 19 y.o player and a vaguely estimated expected value (60M); you did not even buy the player to test to see if he is near the same level of speed of progress as the player he was recommended to replace. What values (with respect to what level) you are making reference to when saying this player is a slow trainer? Wage value also must be considered. The ratio of the market value to the wage value is a better indication of the speed of progress a player has before he is bought. The DC/DMC and MC has no relation as such. Is or was the 20. y.o DC like the MC? You need to buy the DC/DMC and compare his speed of progress to the 20 y.o DC when that same DC was 19 y.o and had around the same % quality in the attributes that were trained (the average should be in the same star-level), then repeat this procedure for atleast another (different) case, and post all the results if your aim it to prove that what I posted was 'not correct'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Der_Ryan_M
The only thing that can be said from the above pictures you showed is that the MC might be a faster trainer than the DC (provided that ratio of value/wage is higher too, which cannot be verified from the pictures above). Keep into consideration that there are very fast trainers and those usually have the highest training factor (market value to wage ratio). Your 20 y.o DC might not be one (not all token-bought youth academy players are very fast trainers), but still is a fast trainer (if what you said about him about his speed of progress is correct) and the same is expected for the 19 y.o DC/DMC that was recommended as an improvement over him unless something has been changed recently.
I can understand your point with the value comparison thing but go read from that post (https://forum.topeleven.com/tutorial...tml) and further on from that post in that same thread (https://forum.topeleven.com/tutorial...ainers-92.html). I bought some of those players, made tests and posted about them there.
Wow you know less about the game than I was thinking. Sorry, then I will explain a bit further to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
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.
Yep, value shows if a player is fast trained.
Quote:
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.
Nice hint but still before we used to get better player than this with 1T at the start of the season.
Attachment 131489
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Der_Ryan_M
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Der_Ryan_M
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.
Post removed because was a double post.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDunk
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactician
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.
" I couldn't find out yet how to tell if someone is a good performer before you play him for a while" you can not, because this depend on your own team configuration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Der_Ryan_M
I when I say -you can't buy 11 players that scored 40 goals each one with their previous club and expect the same performance once they r in your club, because the game assign contributive roles in order to create realistic teams. So 1-2 Key players highly contributive inside the team is the most common option, the 2nd is when between 3-4 earn the goals/assists you need, but all is a simplification that the simulator does assigning a limited number of contributive positive/negative roles in order to create realism.
Yes I know your theory Khris and partly agree with it also. I think that the game gives certain players certain roles for a game and at the end I don't care who scores the goals or who has a good rating. Also we know some positions like AML/AMR the game prefers to give key performances. I more care about the teams performance as a whole and I think every player contributes to that, no matter which rating he got ingame. And also I think that an individual player doesn't make a lot of a difference. Few games ago my 156% AMC top scorer was injured, I brought on 74% striker and he scored 3 goals. So my team wasn't suffering a lot from this injury as the game decided other players would step up this game and my team was still intended to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by khris
Nice , but can you more specific please [emoji1303]Quote:
Originally Posted by jarharnamme
Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk
Bump.
Point of interest, especially for all those complaining that the free youth academy players are worthless because they are 4 star slow trainers.
I took 3 free players from the academy this season - I have spent nothing on them, no tokens, no greens, nada.
When placed in my starting eleven overnight they are consistently generating 18 year old 5 star players costing me less than 20 tokens from my assistant managers daily player. These type of players are now rarer than rocking horse **** in auctions.
So...........thanks Nordeus, for now. (I'm sure you'll soon put a stop to this.)
Attachment 131710
Didn't get a screenshot of yesterday's striker for 20T.
I've been doing the same thing, using the youth academy players to get decent recommendations from the assistant. Although mine hasn't worked as well as yours, partly because my opposition have been good, which affects the quality (and price) of the players from the assistant. Getting players from the assistant seems to increasingly be the best way of getting decent young players without spending days on the auctions... so I'm sure Nordeus will 'improve' it soon!Quote:
Originally Posted by Altiplano
Quote:
Originally Posted by khris
Let me try this today. I need a good ST, so will try with low 18 yrs ST who already has one-on-one scorer SA. Let's see what I will get.
Yeah !! I got the striker that I wanted, with SA and age 18. Hope he will play well !!
Well done :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dikesh Prajapati
I like khris' point about diversity and specialists. Cant win with 4 zlatans, or can you?
