UltimateEuropeForums.net

I just wanted to open up the discussion of player rises after listening to the recent podcast. Also wanted to share my thoughts on it and would welcome opinions. I’ll try explaining it best I can but I’m better explaining in person than on paper, so i apologize in advance if im to as clear as this seems in my head. Please try look at the bigger picture than just think of whose posting this, because this is an area that is importantly to everyone in the game.

It appears to be that the consensus think big teams have slower rises than smaller teams in 123. This is logically and more than likely true, however only Ben can confirm this. We can only base this on what we see happen in the game. The only example i can give is my Bayern where I have had 1x 1st 11 rises in 9 turns which points to my opinion on that.
Then in 124 the consensus appear to think the rises are equal across the board given it’s an HFG, but again my rises as a big side have been poor as has so many other teams so I’m on the fence with that one. I haven’t moaned about it, just get on with it.

I believe historically in UE player rises were based on the players potential regardless of you were a big or small side. That was a HFG or EFG. So if I’m a big team for example I can still have big or lots of rises if players had decent ‘inner’ potential (which I named it back in the day!) and then the same if I’m a small team. It appeared to be all about the players ‘inner’ potential and his own ceiling. People would deal for players they deemed to have better inner potential than the one they have. Makes perfect sense. Obviously you would work out ways to find this out and we should all have our own thoughts on how to.

So, 2 questions.

1) In today’s UE games why should managers be punished by having their players prevented from flourishing just because ‘it needs to be fair for everyone?’ if a manager puts the work in to improve the players surely, he should reap the benefits and rewards?
2) Why should managers who like to do loads of deals bringing in better players with potential be punished by keeping a ‘ceiling’ in place? Just to make the game ‘fair’ for everyone?

Yes, there is a gulf between big and small teams to start, but if a manager of a big team or small team has managed to assemble a squad of players with say high inner potential, (I.E They al train well for example!) after a period of time then surely his squad should be allowed to flourish depending on his work on his players?

Otherwise, what’s the point in dealing for better potential players incoming or what’s the point putting the effort in to improve your existing players to better your side if there is a cap or a ceiling on your teams rises? It literally makes no sense to do it. Yes rises are set to be slow, but they are allowed to rise the more additional work you spend on them.

Part of the games skill which so many enjoy is developing players, how can you develop if there is a ceiling in place? It should be our job to seek out these high potential players, work with them to improve them or alternatively POT them. You are restricted if there is a 'prevention to make it fair on everyone' in place.

I'm not on about a start of the game between the big and small teams, because a season or so later most of the big sides players have moved on. However i have worked out that 90% of my players who started at my 2 big sides have low-medium inner potential on them. in fact just 3 in Bayern's first squad excel in training and 3 excel in Al Nassr's first squad.

What's your thoughts?

Are you happy with a cap on squads to 'make it even' or would you prefer for each player to allowed to flourish which would depend on the managers effort he does to help develop/encourage the player rise?

_________________
Active Teams

Game 123 (EFG) - Bayern Munich
Game 123 (EFG) - Notts County
Game 124 (HFG) - Al Nassr

The problem with asking for contributions to a discussion like this, Math, is that it is dominated be 'I think', or 'I believe'. There is no definite answer or evidence. It doesn't matter if it's me dispensing the words of wisdom, or a piece on the podcast, it's just opinion and speculation.

What is certain, is that teams with weaker squads, will get more rises. This is just because it is much easier to get from a 5 to a 6, than it is to get from an 8 to a 9. Therefore, it stands to reason that the better your starting squad, the fewer rises you will get.
We are in season four, turn 25 of 122 now. I have had Duncan Edwards for two seasons and five turns. He has added four points in all that time even with the immediate addition of POT. Much harder to make gains at higher levels.

I think most of us who played 122 will remember that the rises, early on, were too much. Managers were actually asking for things to slow down. So Ben responded and it was needed as there has to be room within the game for new Legends to fit in. No good bringing Pele to the game when he is not as good as John Fleck!

I think that the two recent games have been sold to us as slower-growers. That's a good thing surely?
I know that managers like to see gains being made but if everyone gets what they want then it's just a case of Ceteris Paribus: everything remains the same but just at a higher level.

The good thing about lower stats is that tactics play a bigger role. Managers might ask for 10 speed, 10 agg, 10 vision players, 'to fit their tactics', but that is pure bollocks. The more a player improves, the less important a tactical choice becomes. A theoretical 120oa player would be able to play all tactics equally well - he'd have no weakness. So when a side gets to have a very high average OA, tactical error is virtually eliminated. The desire for high untrainables is purely because those players stand the best chance of getting closest to the magic 120 mark.

The pattern for player improvement is that 99% of players with regular first team football gain an EoS point or two. That is regardless of whether they have POT or not. POT gets added to high stat players to try to squeeze an extra point or two. POT is probably better used on low stat players to give them an early boost and propel them to the top tier.

I have no definite knowledge about 'inner potential'. I suspect that before POT became a thing, players simply responded to getting game time much as they do now. Some players will undoubtedly have been earmarked for improvement (and still are) and these players will be spread equally between all starting sides. That is right and fair. We all pay the same so should be handed equal starting possibilities.

Random player improvement is a two-edged sword. If you get handed a load of rises then your opponent will scream 'Foul'. Why are you getting 'preferential' treatment? You may claim that you know the secret of inner potential but as it cannot be demonstrated empirically, then the other managers will mumble about Ben 'looking after his favourites'. Like it or not, the only way to keep the masses happy is to make rises similar across the board - no victims and no winners.

Managers love rises. I have stated before that the problem is that we are all human. When managers call for rises to be slowed, they mean slowed for everyone else. When they ask for rises to be boosted, they mean just for themselves. It's the nature of competition. Imagine a scenario where a manager works out a player's max value. The jealous manager will fire off two emails - one to Ben demanding that this manager is stopped and a second e-mail to the same winning manager asking for a price for a player they have found (m8!). It's human nature: all for me, me, me!

No game in UE is perfect. There will always be imbalance. Turn one, you get a squad where the SAs are on no-hopers whilst another team gets it's SA stuck on a 10 speed WB. It's luck. Bad for one but good for another. In 124, the gap to the top sides will take a lot to close when you have so little cash and points to do anything. Just roll with it. Enjoying a game of UE is not necessarily about winning the lot.

_________________
Dinamo Tbilisi 122

Per Mark's comments, the simple fact is players with higher OAs will - mostly - develop more slowly than those with lower OAs. That's just how it is and it's how it should be.

Player development is an enjoyable aspect of this game. I enjoy it and my good wife enjoys it even more than I do. However, it is meant to be a grind. I haven't yet listened to the latest podcasts but from what titbits I've picked up in the WhatsApp groups there has been the beginnings of grumblings about a lack of rises. Given we're yet to see the tenth turn of the first season of G123 I find that to be a little tragic. I manage a teeny team and rises have not been spectacular, nor should they be at this stage. It's meant to be a grind.

What I've gleaned from previous games is there are various player attributes behind the scenes that we do not see. It may be we see more of them now than we once did, with the addition of SAs to the game, then dual-SAs, but those attributes are there. Some of these are tied to training. My guess is, since it's a stat/code-based game with rules which must govern what does or does not happen, when players are generated then they have some kind of stat 'cap' inherent to them. This would make sense given not everyone can or should be able to be developed. Player A may never be able to be trained in their Movement beyond a 6 because they just don't have it in them. Player B may be able to go all the way to a 10* because it's there for them. And various players will be somewhere between across the myriad stats we have in the game. I believe the addition of potential simply removes these caps and players with potential can be developed - over time - to the maximum OA their untrainables would permit, given enough training, game time and luck.

Players also have, I believe, built into them a rate at which they can and will train. Some players will develop faster than others, some much slower. This makes sense and mirrors real life. If this training rate is the same for Player A across all of their trainable stats, or each stat has its own training rate, I couldn't say. Nor could I say if the training rate exists at all, but it's how I see the game in the dusty spaces of my mind. It also explains to me why a player may train well in one stat but less so in another, but I also have other theories on that which can wait for another day. However this rate would be the easiest thing Ben could use to slow or speed up player development as games require.

My notions aside, as I've said, player development should be a grind. You need to work at it. Ten turns of a new game is not working at it.

_________________
WhatsApp: 07962860321
Telegram: https://t.me/Darkwarren
Email: smason@mailbox.org