It's all in the title...
I don't see any advantage for anyone in this new move....
Whoever trains this type of player is going to train for 6 7 seasons in order to benefit from it for 6 7 seasons?
There's frankly no point.

That's true ^^

Small up.....

Clearly, you're running a youngster in the cdf, you're waiting well and you've got a 24-30 m. curve...
It's scary.
A little backtracking would be appreciated.

For me personally, it's one of the worst improvements ever made....
I'm the first to come out with a 30-year regression, and unfortunately I sell it straight away...

Yeah, I've just taken my youngster out of the cdf.
Jackpot, I won a nice 24-30, which doesn't even make you want to train that.

Rull43: Yeah, je viens de sortir mon jeune du cdf.
Jackpot j'ai gagné un beau 24-30 cela donne même pas envie de former ça.

You can train it bg, you've still got 6 seasons to enjoy it ^^

Zeus: Tu peux le former bg, tu as quand même 6 saisons pour en profiter ^^

After 7 seasons of training, how profitable...

It's like when I prepare a dish for 3 hours and then I cook it in 10 minutes... I'm not joking, I don't cook!

Deck: Après 7 saisons de formation, quelle rentabilité...

C'est comme quand je prépare un plat pendant 3h et que je l'éclate en 10min...non je rigole je cuisine pas

If you release him at 23, you won't have 7 seasons to train him!
You need to think mac fly 🤣🤣

Zeus: Tu peux le former bg, tu as quand même 6 saisons pour en profiter ^^

How do you know I'm a bg? 🤔

Not there 24 years! I took it out when I was 19. It's up for auction, knock yourself out

Deck: Après 7 saisons de formation, quelle rentabilité...

C'est comme quand je prépare un plat pendant 3h et que je l'éclate en 10min...non je rigole je cuisine pas

🤣 punaise j'adore la fin

Every cdf release from a young regre 30ans I feel like I have a +1 here 🤣🤣

hazard14: A chaque sortie cdf d'un jeune regre 30ans j'ai l'impression d'avoir un +1 ici 🤣🤣

🤣🤣

It seems that the 30-year curves have been removed

Zeus: Il semble que les courbes 30 ans soit supprimées

Cool, it's 29 now 🤣

Excellent decision if confirmed 😀

In any case, the regressions don't really mean anything any more because the players who are supposedly falling are hardly falling at all.
Most players aged 34, 35 or 36 who are at 99 will remain so until they die, as they lose a point here or there, but that's hardly more than 2 or 3 pts a season, and given their lead over players 10 years younger, their owners have nothing to worry about! Unless certain parameters change again, the age of regression has now become a false problem.

Thank you for giving us the idea of modifying and hardening the regressions 🫠

I'm not giving anyone any ideas ;) ;) ;) it's just an observation of something that distorts the game even more with monstrous players who have benefited from poor training settings (not to mention the use of loopholes by some clubs like short term loans which has increased their monstrosity even more).

What's the point of having NG99 players if everyone has more or less the same ones? The aim isn't to have the best team in absolute terms, but the best compared to the competition!
And these players, who shouldn't (and shouldn't) exist any more, are still in the game for several seasons with their lack of regression, instead of getting out of the way.

A lot of clubs are still taking advantage of these 'veterans' (myself included) but that's not what makes the game more attractive, far from it, and it creates very serious imbalances with clubs that are trying to play for the long term.

But to come back to the subject, yes, I can confirm that regression to 30, 31 or 32 years of age is completely irrelevant as the game is set up. The only thing that matters is the final retirement age and that doesn't necessarily correlate with the pseudo-regression age, which has become fictitious.

V. Tepes
Personally, I feel the regression is well and truly over....
It was a basic 99ng...
All my ng99 players went to 97 or 96 in one season...
But it's true that I've already seen some ng99s almost not drop during the 1st year of regression

Even now, he's not losing much
0 points lost and a point gained in 3 weeks!
#joueur?jid=485299&progression

There was a time when all regressing players systematically lost one or two points a week. That's no longer the case and there are NG 99 players who have huge mattresses above 99 that they'll keep until the day they die.

myforsans: Même actuellement il ne perd pas beaucoup
0 point de perdu et un point de gagné en 3 semaines !
#joueur?jid=485299&progression

Il fut un temps tous les joueurs en régression perdaient systématiquement un ou deux points par semaine. C'est plus le cas et il y a des joueurs NG 99 qui ont des matelas énormes au-dessus de 99 qu'ils garderont jusqu'à leur mort.

He's still lost 17ng in 3 and a half seasons, which isn't bad lol.

myforsans: De toute façon les régressions ne veulent plus dire grand chose puisque les joueurs soi disant en baisse ne baissent quasiment plus.
La plupart des joueurs de 34 35, 36 ans qui sont à 99 vont le rester jusqu'à leur mort puisqu'ils perdent un point par ci par là mais ça fait guère plus que 2 ou 3 pts par saison et vu leur avance sur les joueurs qui ont 10 ans de moins leurs propriétaires n'ont pas de quoi s'inquiéter ! A moins que certains paramètres changent encore sournoisement, l'âge de ...

I'm curious to see concrete examples of regressing players who only lose 2 or 3 skill points in a season. In my opinion, it's a bit more ...

We're actually talking more about 3-4 NGs per season lost than 3-4 points.

Based on a high range (depending on the player, because it's + or -) of 1pt / week of training, that gives us around -8.
With training and matches (28 +or-), he could take 2pts / season. That gives us -6pts, so -3 NG.

I agree with my VDD and CQFD (in theory of course), a big thought for those who have players who take -2pts / week!

Brutus: En sa basant sur une fourchette haute (suivant le joueur, car c'est + ou -) de 1pt / semaine de rég., ça nous donne - 8 environ / saison.
Avec les entrainements et matchs (28 +ou-), il peut prendre 2pts / saison. Ca nous donne - 6pts donc -3 NG

Je plussoie mon VDD et CQFD (dans la théorie bien sûr), grosse pensée à ceux qui ont des joueurs qui se prennent de -2pts / semaine !

The regression is the same even if the player in question is able to play every day compared to someone else who plays every other day?

Regression is random (amha)... I've seen players lose 2pts/week, others 1 or even 1/2 weeks (then you have to look at the points gained in training because that 'cancels out' the lost pt).

After that, with the daily training sessions and the Xp of the matches, yes, you can take 2 pts / season... you just need to be lucky that you win the pts in those you lose randomly each week!

Anyway, I agree with Socrate, theoretically you lose 3 pts of NG each season (on average).

Demi-cerveau: Alors là, je suis curieux d'avoir des exemples concrets de joueur en régression qui ne perdent que 2 ou 3 points de compétences en une saison. À mon avis c'est un peu plus ...

For example, at the beginning of the season my goalkeeper was at 99 - 33 - 33 - 33
now he's at 98 - 33 - 33 - 33
after 44 days
A. Andreev
Since the start of the season he's lost one goalkeeping point and gained 2 stamina points, one with the physical preparation course and one with training and XP.
image](https://i.imgur.com/pH0RZiA.jpeg)
So frankly, I'm not complaining.

And it's the vast majority of regressing players who suffer these derisory losses.
What's perhaps unfair or strange is that these regressions seem to me to be very, very random (except for one constant: it generally affects the highest characteristic).
What's more, a lot of monstrous players have a lot of margin (not my keeper). For example, if a CSA starts regressing at 86-43-43-43, you can be sure that he'll remain NG 99 until he dies.
For example, you currently have 65 players aged 33 to 99 and over, some of them with a lot of margin.
#search?joueur=1&nom&nation&age_min=33&age_max=33&rating_min&rating_max&prog_potential_min&prog_potential_max&poste&cote&transfert_liste&transfert_enchere&uidin=0&niv_gardien_min&niv_gardien_max&niv_defense_min&niv_defense_max&niv_tacle_min&niv_tacle_max&niv_placement_min&niv_placement_max&niv_marquage_min&niv_marquage_max&niv_puissance_min&niv_puissance_max&niv_passe_min&niv_passe_max&niv_technique_min&niv_technique_max&niv_vitesse_min&niv_vitesse_max&niv_attaque_min&niv_attaque_max&niv_endurance_min&niv_endurance_max&order=5
and you have 128 who are 98 and over

What's more, when you lose a regression point, it sometimes affects your stamina, so your rating stays intact.

So yes, I maintain that the age at which regression starts has only a slight impact, but that's only on the basis of the current settings, which are not at all what they were a few seasons ago, when regression was plummeting.

myforsans:
Par exemple mon gardien en début de saison il était à 99 - 33 - 33 - 33
maintenant il est à 98 - 33 - 33 - 33
au bout de 44 jours
A. Andreev
Depuis le début de saison il a perdu un point de gardien et gagné 2 pts d'endurance un avec le stage de préparation physique et un avec les entrainements et XP

Donc franchement, je ne me plains pas.

Et, c'est la très grande majorité des joueurs en régression qui subit ces per...

Another example: C. Chhiring
Almost the end of the season and still no points lost...

And so you're going to complain that players don't regress faster is that it? 🤣

The fact that these are 2 players who have a maturity span that ends at 33, and who are therefore only starting to regress this season (and I don't think from the start of the season in this case) somewhat truncates the two examples given, doesn't it?

Kevin-7130: Et donc vous allez vous plaindre que les joueurs ne régressent pas plus vite c'est ça ? 🤣

Honestly, it's high time that players with NG 99 and 50 stamina cleared the floor, as their monstrosity is the result of poor game settings over several seasons, along with the use of loopholes such as short-term loans with training storage, which several clubs had made a speciality of... There's no need to name them, they'll know who they are.
And the current set-up of the regressions will only perpetuate these players. At this rate, it will only be in 3 or 4 seasons that the game will return to normality.

myforsans: Honnêtement Il est grand temps que les joueurs à NG 99 et 50 d'endurance débarrassent le plancher dans la mesure où leur monstruosité résulte d'un mauvais paramétrage du jeu pendant plusieurs saisons, avec en plus l'utilisation de failles comme les prêts courte durée avec stockage d'entraînements dont plusieurs clubs s'étaient faits une spécialité... Pas la peine de les citer ils se reconnaîtront.
Et le paramétrage actuel des régressions ne fait que faire perdurer ces joueurs. A ce rythme c...

Shouldn't it be the new type of training that should be revised upwards, rather than the other way round? :)

Not at all. What's the point of having 11 players at NG 99 if your opponent has more or less the same?
The aim isn't to have a huge team in absolute terms, but to have a better team than your opponent.

Well, in 3-4 seasons, all the managers will have a squad of 90 players, so it's exactly the same at the end of the season, whether it's 99 players, 90 players or 80 players, the squads will be more or less identical.

spoupou: Bah dans 3-4 saisons tout les managers auront un effectif de 90ng c'est exactement pareil à l'arrivée que se soit 99ng -90ng-80ng les effectifs seront à peu de choses près identiques

Thanks a lot! I don't understand this 99NG problem (especially as those who point it out are often well off) as long as it's the same for everyone...

If when everyone manages to do 99ng 50endu, some have done 85ng 7endu. So when the maximum is 90ng 10endu, these same people will make 70ng 2endu. And the problem will then be the 90ng..etc....

The only problem is the overlap between the boosted generations and the new, less efficient ones, but that's the way it's always been on VF, you can have 4 or 5 seasons of training with the best of the best and when you finish your training, the cursor is moved and your generation becomes obsolete.

spoupou: Bah dans 3-4 saisons tout les managers auront un effectif de 90ng c'est exactement pareil à l'arrivée que se soit 99ng -90ng-80ng les effectifs seront à peu de choses près identiques

Yes, but it's hard to understand. In short, endless exchanges about something that can't be solved. As Demi says, we'll be at the same point on the 90 of NG in 10 seasons.