Hello,

With the reduced impact of training over the last few seasons, player training is becoming more complex and time-consuming. A new trend is emerging to train the future stars of tomorrow (NG90+ with minimum 30 endurance, 200 to 220 training points), at a lower cost and without significant competition. A simple search using the right criteria will identify at least 3 to 4 top players per month. Here are a few examples:
R. Hicks
K. Grewal
A. Boucherit
G. Dillon
R. Malicsek
A. Roditi
A. Laouar
M. Chi Keung
A. Muri
C. Loyd

• Origin of players
  When a new manager sets up a club, players are generated, sometimes 21-22 year-olds with around 200 training points but limited potential (40-55). These players often receive a slight progression boost, similar to that given to 21-22 year-old players from the CDF, in the year following their theoretical end-of-progression age.
  For example, this player (A. Veendorp) has 203 training points and still has 7% room for improvement (potential 50).
  The main drawback is that these players often have an unbalanced distribution of points, requiring reallocation via the VF Store to be fully exploitable.

• Problem
  New managers are quickly deprived of their high-potential players, who could bring in a good income at derisory prices. This is particularly true if these clubs are not voluntarily created multi-accounts. In the absence of a table regulating this new market (low potential, undefined style of play, low NG, etc.), these players are generally sold for between €1m and €5m, whereas they can reach an NG90+ with 35 stamina after a few adjustments to the VF Store. This phenomenon benefits certain managers who spot these players at low prices, often to the detriment of new managers who are unaware of their real value and the potential of their players after a reallocation.

• Proposal
  Would it not be possible to create a D table to estimate the value of these players, based not on their NG or their potential, but on their number of training points, their age and their remaining room for improvement?
  A poorly balanced player with 200 points spread evenly across all characteristics would be worth less than an optimised player, but current prices seem derisory. Such a table would protect new managers (especially as the value of these players calculated automatically by the game is very low), who are necessarily new to the market and game mechanics (except for multiplayer), by preventing them from selling their high-potential players at derisory prices, without knowing that they could make a better profit from them.

Shouldn't the current table take them into account? The 'NG' is calculated by adding up the characteristic points excluding stamina, which means that style players can be included and therefore, in theory, this type of player too.

Azby: Normalement le tableau actuel les prend en compte non ? Le calcul de la "NG" se fait en additionnant les points de caractéristiques hors endurance, ce qui permet d'inclure les joueurs styles et donc, en théorie, ce type de joueurs également.

Given the recent purchase price of these players (1 to 5 million), clearly not. Table A shows the case of a 'style' player, but these players don't have any really usable styles (they're bad everywhere as it is). What's more, they're also in Table C because they're still improving. So no table really regulates their price, and that's the problem. And some take advantage of this to get very cheap players who will soon be impossible to train, as there is no concrete table for these cases, and these new managers have no knowledge of the market/game because they are new.

Hi, for the record, following the creation of these players, we discussed them with Morten and then deleted transfers that were considered too low in relation to the potential rating of these players after reallocation.

Aymeric then ordered us to leave the price of these players free. It was at that point that I decided to step down as anti-cheating administrator.

You could have put Teddy's iud straight away 🤣

I totally agree with them, I buy them mainly so that people don't take advantage of them!

image](https://i.imgur.com/9POMjeg.jpeg)

Demi-cerveau: Bonjour, pour la petite histoire, suite à la création de ces joueurs, nous en avions parlé avec Morten puis nous avions supprimés des transferts estimés trop bas par rapport à la note potentielle de ces joueurs après réattribution.

Aymeric nous avait alors intimé l'ordre de laisser le prix de ces joueurs là libre. C'est à ce moment là que, pour ma part, j'ai décidé de quitter mes fonctions d'administrateur anti-triche.

that was some time ago now, probably 2/3 years since you stopped admin if I'm not mistaken.
it might be worth asking Aymeric again. Maybe at the time he thought that prices would rise naturally, that young clubs would benefit and that older clubs would spend crazy amounts of money while at the same time his VF store would be running strong.

Has Aymeric's objective been achieved? And is there now a need to regulate it?
or do we need to understand that to get the best players in the game, you have to pay in hard cash?

@morten, what do you think?

Pierabou: c'était il y a déjà quelques temps maintenant, probablement 2/3 ans que tu n'aies plus admin si je ne m'abuse.
peut être que ca vaudrait le coup de reposer la question à Aymeric. Peut être qu'a l'époque, il pensait que les prix augmenteraient naturellement, que les jeunes clubs pourraient en bénéficier et que les plus vieux clubs dépenseraient des sommes folles pendant qu'en meme temps son VF store tournerai fort.

Ce n'est, a priori, pas le cas ? l'objectif d'Aymeric est il rempli ? e

It's only been ten months since Demi stopped being an admin. It's true that time flies, but not that fast ^^

Magik'jojo: Il y a une dizaine de mois seulement que Demi n'est plus admin. Le temps passe vite c'est vrai mais pas aussi vite ^^

😅 my bad. I thought it had been much longer. 😅

We're talking about 2 or 3 players per season. Aymeric has already largely curbed the phenomenon, whereas at the beginning of his speech, we were talking about 30 to 40 players rated 90+.
Personally, I don't see much difference with the 90 POTs in the store. Some people are going to talk about the vf money, but a 90 POT starts at 5 euros... and for a redistribution of an equivalent player, we're talking about 10 euros.

In short, if you want to come up with a 10-page rulebook to block these 2 or 3 players per season, that's fine with me. I'll just go to the store.

What a lot of trouble to go to for nothing 😄.
And after that, we get a diatribe about how we're ripping off new players... It's pretty funny when you know that I buy these players for between 5 and 10 million and I'm the highest bidder... and you're really going to put in 10 euros per player? No .... so why cry wolf... ah surely there's another topic underneath!
Surely PayToWin... well I'm in no way responsible for that, so I invite you to make a proposal to aymeric to remove his store and we'll see how long the game stays up.

Teddy: On parle ici de 2 ou 3 joueurs par saison. Aymeric a déjà largement freiné le phénomène, alors qu’au début de son intervention, on évoquait plutôt 30 à 40 joueurs notés 90+.
Personnellement, je ne vois pas de grande différence avec les 90 POT du store. Certains vont me parler de l’apport en argent vf, mais un 90 POT commence à 5 euros… et pour une redistribution d’un joueur équivalent, on parle de 10 euros.

Bref, si vous voulez sortir un règlement de 10 pages pour bloquer

You mean we could end up with a game with recurring bugs that aren't fixed, a game with no improvements/fine tuning for several months and admins whose messages go unheeded?

I don't know what brewen's reasoning is, but I don't get the impression that he's attacked you personally. Moreover, in his list, perhaps by chance, he did not fail to include a magpie player.

Basically, personally, I don't like the fact that you can have stronger players when you go through the VF store than in the standard game. But as you say, that's the way it is and it's the DM's choice.

Pierabou: Tu veux dire qu'on risque de se retrouver avec un jeu avec des bugs récurrents, qui ne sont pas corriges, un jeu sans amélioration/fine tunning pendant plusieurs mois et des admins a qui les messages restent lettres mortes ?

Je ne connais pas le fondement de brewen, mais je n'ai pas l'impression qu'il t'emai attaqué personnellement. D'ailleurs dans sa liste, peut être par hasard, il n'a pas manqué de mettre un joueur de magpie.

Après, fondamentalement perso ça me gène qu'on puisse avoi

Given that 7 out of the 10 players mentioned are mine, is it really surprising that I feel targeted?

Teddy: Étant donné que 7 joueurs sur 10 évoqués sont à moi, est-il vraiment surprenant que je me sente visé ?

When it comes to wringing out VF store and optimising everything that's optimisable on the game, you're the best on VF. So what's not surprising is that a good majority of the players mentioned belong to you.
I don't care if you do all that as long as you stay within the rules. Everyone does what they want with their money and their time. I myself spend far too much time on the game. I just think it's a shame that you can build a team that's stronger than that of ordinary players.
I don't mind that you can reach the same level more quickly because I understand the approach. But to create such a gap seems to me to be destructive for the game itself.

Now I also understand Aymeric's position, because his game is slowly dying, so he's cash cowing it.

Brewen was right to raise the subject. Demi replied. It's very clear to me.

Teddy: Étant donné que 7 joueurs sur 10 évoqués sont à moi, est-il vraiment surprenant que je me sente visé ?

I can confirm what Pierabou said, you weren't specifically targeted. In all honesty, I took mainly your players, because they were easy to identify and I knew very well that you had managed this aspect of the new recruitment well. So it was easy to show the multitude of player profiles without going through too many (mainly CP, Fym or ex-Fym and you). But I feel the same way about Magpie (we had a nice fight about it, by the way, we have different points of view), and a lot of other CPs are starting to use this trick recently.

Perhaps my message wasn't clear afterwards:
I'm not particularly bothered by P2W (I play another EA game where for £25 you get a mouthful, often £100-300 packs, so frankly the prices on the store are derisory compared to that), it's a choice that the game's creator wanted and respected. What's more annoying is the random nature of the prices on these players. Some are bought for 1M (and not by you), others for just 5-10M (like you). There's clearly a lack of regulation on these prices, and it's to the detriment of new players who could start with a little extra money, which wouldn't be a bad thing for them.

As I was also saying, this isn't really Table A (players often still improving), so it's closer to Table C (after discussions with some CPs), with prices at 25-40M if you base it on the number of points awarded (which is a criterion apart from the NG) and the NG remaining to be acquired for the best players. The problem is that you have to pay an extra €10, so the price will inevitably fall compared with table C, hence the initial aim of my message here with a table D, to better regulate these transfers and, above all, provide better information on the price ranges and avoid seeing future transfers being derisory.

But Demi's reply is very informative and pretty much closes the debate, so if this is voluntary and legitimate, then no worries.

It was an event announced in a live by Aymeric, it remains in place but very rare 2, 3 releases max per season interesting. Everyone had given up on it with Aymeric's reduction, but I kept an eye on it.
Now I imagine that Aymeric will once again nerf the generation of this type of player and we'll move on to something else.