Subject: New drop skills age (25 years)

Many managers complain of many reasons:

* very weak jrs for youth schools...
* many monsters players with 4 and many times 5 divine skills...
* unrealistic player's peak and decline...

Well, to solve these problems I think in a simple solution. To change the age of player's decline to 25(in pace - the today's age is 28) and 27(in another skills - the today's age is 30). But this new decline coefficient will be smaller than today's value.

With this I think these problems will disappear because the players will not be so monsters anymore and more useful players will be in market for more time.

(edited)

many monsters players with 4 and many times 5 divine skills...

If you find any, please give them Argentinian citizenship :P Really, if there's something we don't have in excess is decent players...


and more useful players will be in market for more time.

This is just the opposite: top players lose value because of thy age and become worse. If they age earlier, they'll just lose value earlier. On top of that we'll see even more ugly matches...

If they age earlier, they'll just lose value earlier. On top of that we'll see even more ugly matches...

Earlier but slowly.

And ugly matches are that ones where no have a sufficient star to shine on fields because every player on the teams has 17 skills.

---

Hell No!

Current stats:
Yes 19%
No 81%

So it's obviously a bad idea.

Many people think that's a good idea burn Galileo in the inquisition...

So "obviously" is that you don't have humility enough to accept new ideas. Just that!

Look at the real world.Players are mainly on peak in their late 20's,so your idea is not valid.There is a thing called form which influences player's performances,just like in RL...There is one Ronaldinho who has everything except form,and so he doesn't make much of a difference on the field.

That's why 18th skill was introduced in sokker some years ago.

Yes, votes don't mean an idea is bad (they also don't mean it is good).

Then again, humility also implies acknowledging that your idea may not be that great, and perhaps it is worth to think it over again...

ok, my idea can be bad, but I think that players peak are close to 26 and 27's and not 20's.

The today way throw this peak to 30's, and that is absurd on my point of view.

I don't know what you mean by absurd - the current situation certainly makes more sense than your proposal:

- Players peak at ~28 in this game. 30 is the start of the decline (I had drops in pace at 29, though), but there isn't any real progress from 28 onwards, although you may still squeeze a pop in a very talented player at 29. Nothing relevant, though.

- In real life, the peak may happen earlier, although that is player-specific, there is a lot of variation. Diego Milito was no one before 28/29, then he went on to win Champions League and play in the world cup, then disappeared again. Keepers mostly peak closer to 30 and play forever. However, there is no decline immediately after peak. Players may stop improving, but they certainly don't become worse before at least 30 due to physical deterioration. Only those who never fully recover from injuries suffer permanent declines in performance before that.

- Real life players perform much better than Sokker players - taking into account that it's not just top vs top but the average vs the average as well.

- Realism is a secondary concern. The main point of any change to the game is to make it better game-wise. Until a better training system is implemented (so being realistic, never), with current training speeds, the current peak age is the only way to see some decent players every now and then. No, matches where everyone is divine in everything (rarely ever) are not worse than matches where everyone is outstanding-incredible (much more common sokker experience for most users). You've spent too much time playing in your top division. Go coach a U-21 NT for a while and then tell me those matches are nicer to watch and funnier than your club or senior NT matches.

- Not only the decrease in player quality you propose would be a nightmare, it would also bring economic problems. Players' life will be shorter, potentially lowering the reward to training. We could have even worse players if a number of managers stop taking training as seriously.

- While those are the disadvantages (less realism, severe decline in the already borderline quality of matches, big economic impact), I still cannot see the alleged advantage of this change. Really, I read your messages and I see a criticism to statu quo, but not an explanation of how this change would improve anything.

- I'm not sure if it can ever make sense for gameplay. But at least for realism, your idea could work if decline is left as it is or later, but improvement stops earlier. Still, I disagree that players are too good - even 3xdivine suck, and "rounded" atts and defenders are very rare. So I would rather suggest compensating the earlier peak age with faster training. For example: players could improve as much as they do today from 16-29, but all concentrated between 16-25 or 26. They they stay flat: very little or no progress, but no decline either. The exact age may even be a bit random. Then only after 30 or 31 they start declining, and it can be as fast or slow as you deem reasonable, so that Maldinis or Zanettis are scarce, but also no one becomes useless at 30 or 31. 99.999% of players should be nowhere near top divisions at 34 or 35 (but there's always a Puyol or a Xavi :P).
That would bring realism without changing the quality of players. In fact, we could see real stars for longer in that case. And there could be a lot of trading and team building after 25, completely unrelated to both training and retirement. Just players to play.

I'm still not sure that last point would be beneficial for the game. But with those changes, I can start considering your idea ;)

You are get confused with skill's peak and form. The real players have different peaks because they have different moments in their professional careers and this is the form on sokker...

But his skills can evaluate until 25/26 years old when the biological peak of human been starts to do a slow decline in his skills.

Unanimities like Pelé, Maradona, Messi, Cruyff, Ronaldo (anyone of they) have his peak at 24-28 and despite playing well with more age, all they decline after this normal human peak.

If sokker implements my idea for example, the 28 players will be worse than today's, but the 30-31-32-33 years will be better than today's and this is more real than current situation.

No, I am not mixing the two: it is fine if form determines when exactly the peak performance is reached. Still, there is no biological decline in the intermediate years of a player career. They could stop developing, sure, but decline should start much later.
And in all cases, an earlier stopping date for players' improvement should be paired with faster growth in the earlier years, or players will be horrible throughout their life...

And in all cases, an earlier stopping date for players' improvement should be paired with faster growth in the earlier years, or players will be horrible throughout their life...

I dont think that way because the players are too "skilled" today, and with my idea they will come a normal players.

Most managers in Sokker don't have these 3x or 4x unearthly skilled players, only managers in the highest divisions.