Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: [idea] Helping small countries to grow
If we talk about arguments, you don't have them when you want to "help" the small nations, you simply want to have foreign players in your youth school (that's what the transfer market is for).
Clearly you have never seen me before on the forum and therefore have no idea how hard I fought for Sokker, and all things that I have done to try to make this a better game! The only thing I want is a better game, nothing so selfish as you falsely suggested.
EDIT: and want to know my arguments? see topic page 1, 2, 3, 4 etc
First you make things up as if no manager asked for help and post other non-arguments, then you post I have no arguments while this topic (and many others) are full of arguments how and why to help small countries, and next you falsely accuse me of being selfish. Well done.
And about that becomming a scout, that has absolutely nothing to do with helping small countries to get more players, but ofcourse you knew that already.
(edited)
Clearly you have never seen me before on the forum and therefore have no idea how hard I fought for Sokker, and all things that I have done to try to make this a better game! The only thing I want is a better game, nothing so selfish as you falsely suggested.
EDIT: and want to know my arguments? see topic page 1, 2, 3, 4 etc
First you make things up as if no manager asked for help and post other non-arguments, then you post I have no arguments while this topic (and many others) are full of arguments how and why to help small countries, and next you falsely accuse me of being selfish. Well done.
And about that becomming a scout, that has absolutely nothing to do with helping small countries to get more players, but ofcourse you knew that already.
(edited)
The base and only argument you need to know is that 1 player for been Brazilian for example... Most be from Brazil...
We are clear?
I truely have no idea what you mean by this.
We are clear?
I truely have no idea what you mean by this.
He means each youngster should be pulled out of it's native country...
What about this?
International youth school:
- Scout for region/country: There are a lot of users who can have two nationalities or like other countries, and it could be a new incentive for them. Further, maybe it could help small countries to have a national team over time.
- Maximum number of international youth in the school: 5
- What going to another country had a cost.
For example, if I would want to search a mexican junior (because I like mexico or I have origins there), I would need to pay "25.000€" and it wouldn't assure me anything.
All this wouldn't change anything (it's only an option and you would need to pay a scout without advantages). It wouldn't create inequalities. Indeed, it would take the users who have more money to pay simply for having that illusion.
Furthermore, you wouldn't remove the exclusivity of their nationals that the small countries claim since you need to pay some cost without advantages.
(edited)
International youth school:
- Scout for region/country: There are a lot of users who can have two nationalities or like other countries, and it could be a new incentive for them. Further, maybe it could help small countries to have a national team over time.
- Maximum number of international youth in the school: 5
- What going to another country had a cost.
For example, if I would want to search a mexican junior (because I like mexico or I have origins there), I would need to pay "25.000€" and it wouldn't assure me anything.
All this wouldn't change anything (it's only an option and you would need to pay a scout without advantages). It wouldn't create inequalities. Indeed, it would take the users who have more money to pay simply for having that illusion.
Furthermore, you wouldn't remove the exclusivity of their nationals that the small countries claim since you need to pay some cost without advantages.
(edited)
I like the idea of International youth school. It's as simple as let any team to decide how many slots wants to let for that purpose. Nacionality can be random with more probability for smaller cauntries and/or by investments in that country.
About to have a second team, not sure of the collateral impact.
I think it was better to let nacionalise foreing players that never played a NT match. You mark a checkbox when you buy a potential player to nationalisize, but it can't be done before you train him for 2 seasons if he is U21 and four seasons if he is older. During this time he can't be applied to any national team.
If you sell the player before this time he don't get the new nacionality.
About to have a second team, not sure of the collateral impact.
I think it was better to let nacionalise foreing players that never played a NT match. You mark a checkbox when you buy a potential player to nationalisize, but it can't be done before you train him for 2 seasons if he is U21 and four seasons if he is older. During this time he can't be applied to any national team.
If you sell the player before this time he don't get the new nacionality.
Nationalising is a very bad idea in sokker. It takes away from small countries wanting to grow their own youths, and basically means people will be able to buy in players just to nationalise players.
I hope it is never introduced or it will kill the NT scene. My country would benefit from it, and I still see it as a massive issue to bring in.
I hope it is never introduced or it will kill the NT scene. My country would benefit from it, and I still see it as a massive issue to bring in.
It's effect will not be massive as any NT player can be naionalised. And the limit of time is enough to avoid users taking this option for them.
Currently I have to wait for 2 o 3 seasons to have a decent junior player in my school (even with a unearthly coach hired) For me is impossible to train 10 good players unless I buy them from another country.
Currently I have to wait for 2 o 3 seasons to have a decent junior player in my school (even with a unearthly coach hired) For me is impossible to train 10 good players unless I buy them from another country.
i think that is where having a small, random % chance of pulling someone if different nationality will really help countries like yours and mine.
If players can be nationalised, every NT will look very similar, and there will be no real pride in your own countries pulls.
It is definitely very hard for you being in such a small country. I'm sure you could train many players up to play for NT, but it doesn't mean they are any good.
For me, training Australian players is still weaker than just buying foreigners, but the gap is a lot less.
If there was a small % of all youths in the game that became another nation, it would really help out a lot of small countries, without changing the benefits the big nations have. It would also give you an opportunity buy some of your own countries players.
Example. If sokker has 10,000 users, and say 50% are active with youth schools, and of the 3.5youths each brings in, they keep 2 per week. This means 10,000 youths per week enter youth schools and are kept.
If sokker made it just 1% were international (with equal % of all countries), this means 100 youths per week would be from a different country, which is about 1 per nation.
So with just a 1% chance (which means each of us will keep one every 3 season), a team like andorra would get a new youth every week, or 16 per season. This would be like having another user in your country (not huge, but that % is a lot lower than I would like to see). And between the 4 of you, you would have lost only 1 junior to being international.
If it was a more appropriate 3-6% (ie pull 1-2 international per season out of 30 pulled), then this would would double/triple andorras youth numbers in the world, which makes a huge difference, when you want to train your own countries players. And it makes very little difference to other countries.
So at a 5% international rate, andorra would gain 10,000x50%x2x16x5%x1% = 80 youths (current is 4x50%x2x16 = 64) and lose 4x50%x2x16x5% = 3, meaning they will have a total of 141 youths compared to the current 64 = 220% increase in number of youths.
Compare this with the affect on poland (the other extreme).
Instead of them pulling 3000 (users) x 50% (with youth schools) x 2 (youths kept per week) x 16 (weeks) = 48,000 youths per season.
They would lose (at a 5% rate) 2,400 youths, and gain (7000x50%x2x16x5%x1% = 56) 56 youths.
So poland would lose 4.8% of their youths and Andorra would gain 220% of their youths. This would make a huge difference for those from the smaller country who wants to train their own players, but when you look at the raw stats, Poland will still be getting 45,600 youths per season, and andorra 121 youths per season, meaning Poland keep their deserved advantage, but there is just a slight change in gap between the nations.
The good thing with this because it is all done on percentages, it closes gaps, but it never re-orders countries, so those countries that have worked on either increasing their user numbers, or increasing the number of youth schools, will still have that advantage they worked so hard for
If players can be nationalised, every NT will look very similar, and there will be no real pride in your own countries pulls.
It is definitely very hard for you being in such a small country. I'm sure you could train many players up to play for NT, but it doesn't mean they are any good.
For me, training Australian players is still weaker than just buying foreigners, but the gap is a lot less.
If there was a small % of all youths in the game that became another nation, it would really help out a lot of small countries, without changing the benefits the big nations have. It would also give you an opportunity buy some of your own countries players.
Example. If sokker has 10,000 users, and say 50% are active with youth schools, and of the 3.5youths each brings in, they keep 2 per week. This means 10,000 youths per week enter youth schools and are kept.
If sokker made it just 1% were international (with equal % of all countries), this means 100 youths per week would be from a different country, which is about 1 per nation.
So with just a 1% chance (which means each of us will keep one every 3 season), a team like andorra would get a new youth every week, or 16 per season. This would be like having another user in your country (not huge, but that % is a lot lower than I would like to see). And between the 4 of you, you would have lost only 1 junior to being international.
If it was a more appropriate 3-6% (ie pull 1-2 international per season out of 30 pulled), then this would would double/triple andorras youth numbers in the world, which makes a huge difference, when you want to train your own countries players. And it makes very little difference to other countries.
So at a 5% international rate, andorra would gain 10,000x50%x2x16x5%x1% = 80 youths (current is 4x50%x2x16 = 64) and lose 4x50%x2x16x5% = 3, meaning they will have a total of 141 youths compared to the current 64 = 220% increase in number of youths.
Compare this with the affect on poland (the other extreme).
Instead of them pulling 3000 (users) x 50% (with youth schools) x 2 (youths kept per week) x 16 (weeks) = 48,000 youths per season.
They would lose (at a 5% rate) 2,400 youths, and gain (7000x50%x2x16x5%x1% = 56) 56 youths.
So poland would lose 4.8% of their youths and Andorra would gain 220% of their youths. This would make a huge difference for those from the smaller country who wants to train their own players, but when you look at the raw stats, Poland will still be getting 45,600 youths per season, and andorra 121 youths per season, meaning Poland keep their deserved advantage, but there is just a slight change in gap between the nations.
The good thing with this because it is all done on percentages, it closes gaps, but it never re-orders countries, so those countries that have worked on either increasing their user numbers, or increasing the number of youth schools, will still have that advantage they worked so hard for
For example, if I would want to search a mexican junior (because I like mexico or I have origins there), I would need to pay "25.000€" and it wouldn't assure me anything.
Could be a nice option to increase the changes of getting international youth from a certain country/region once in a while.
To keep the numbers of achmid as an example, the changes could increase by 50% a junior comes from mexico (in your case). So 50% of that 3% will go to scout Mexico, the other 50% of 3% to scout the rest of the world.
Or once in a while 100% of 3% could go to scout one specific country.
Could be a nice option to increase the changes of getting international youth from a certain country/region once in a while.
To keep the numbers of achmid as an example, the changes could increase by 50% a junior comes from mexico (in your case). So 50% of that 3% will go to scout Mexico, the other 50% of 3% to scout the rest of the world.
Or once in a while 100% of 3% could go to scout one specific country.
The topic stands... To help small "countries", not their managers ;-)
