Hello, I’d like to highlight a new feature that’s been introduced, which I think is a bit of a shame.
To illustrate my point, here are the last three 19-year-old players with a potential rating of 81 who have come through the academy in the last few hours. You’ll see the same thing with players aged between 18 and 22.

D. Parfjonovs
R. Lemoult
S. Jackson

Varying the rating based on the players’ progression status at the time of release seems like a good idea to me; it adds variety to the line-up.

However, varying stamina seems more problematic to me. If I take the example of the three players substituted above, one has an endurance rating of 3 and the other 8. This amounts to a difference of 2.5 points in the final rating, given the same formation and the same endurance. What do you think?

If someone with an endurance rating of 3 has more room for improvement than someone with an endurance rating of 8, that doesn’t seem daft to me; we can increase endurance according to the managers’ wishes

I would agree with you if this margin could be used to help the player progress further than the progression coefficient allows, but with the current settings, that is not the case. In practical terms, a player with 3 in stamina will, at the end of their training (assuming the same training programme), have 5 fewer attribute points than one with 8. On top of that, they’ll perform poorly on the pitch for much longer.

In itself, that hasn’t changed, has it? 10 per cent of the sum of the other characteristics

Yes, except that until very recently, players of the same age and ability who were playing at the same stage of the season were awarded more or less the same number of points. So their stamina didn’t vary.

Demi-cerveau: Oui, sauf que jusqu'à très récemment, les joueurs d'un même âge et d'un même potentiel et qui sortaient au même moment de la saison avaient plus ou moins le même nombre de points attribués. Donc l'endurance ne variait pas.

Yes, that’s true, but I’m not quite sure how we could do much better if we want a variety of curves. Unless we change the way we build up our endurance.

Please send us the old graphs :D

T-800: Remmettez nous les anciennes courbes :D

Using the old accounts?

Tchub: Avec les anciens comptes ?

Player performance curves (Loga, exponential, linear)

T-800: Les courbes des joueurs (Loga, expo, linéaire)

I’ve been there! I only put on exhibitions because I was poor! The artworks were selling for a fortune...

The good old days :D

I came across this situation with one of my young players who was released at the end of last season – he was 17.
I couldn’t explain this discrepancy compared to the others who were released just before and just after him.
I’m fine with the random element, but it really does sting to such an extent.

It’s not random, mate, it’s an Ax+B

Ax is 20 per cent of the NG

B depends on the stage of the season

It works the same for the store. Without the +B

If you’re seeing deltas that you didn’t see before today, this can be explained by:

• Players’ exit NG has always been close to their progression status.

But the progression status was almost always the same. In fact, for a long time it remained the same based on potential and the progression range.

However, with the introduction of the index, Aymeric has removed the restrictions; there can now be coefficients of 30, which means that by the end of the season there are players like Socrates’s.

I hear all your arguments, and I fully agree with them. The problem we’re facing at the moment is that Aymeric doesn’t take into account the calculation of that 20 per cent of NG required for stamina when working out the points awarded to players through training and match experience.

Aymeric, if you’re reading this, in very practical terms, a player who has just completed a CDF – regardless of their remaining margin for improvement – if they play every other day and train every day (which seems to be what you want): he will gain a number of skill points equal to twice his remaining margin. In the case of the players I’ve highlighted, even though their current progress levels are very different, I maintain that by the end of their training (assuming the same training regime and in line with what I’ve described), there will be exactly the same 5-point difference in skill points that they currently have.

If we want to stick with this system, and if we want it to be fair, we’d need to increase the points gained from group training sessions or experience (or both) slightly, so that players can make up the endurance gap between two matches at different stages of progression.

Alternatively, I think we could cap the endurance gain during promotions at a fixed value based on age and potential, regardless of the player’s current level of progress, whilst maintaining the current training gains.

It’s complicated – I reckon that, in the end, it wouldn’t solve the problem. There’d still be the same gap between the two players in the end.

Perhaps a separate system for stamina

Improvements in endurance are already factored into the assessment of training effectiveness; this is why a player’s endurance level is proportional to their fitness level upon leaving the academy.

The next version of the training centre will allow you to influence the initial distribution of a player’s training.

aymeric45: La progression en endurance est déjà prise en compte dans l'étalonage de l'efficacité des entraînements, c'est pourquoi le niveau d'endurance est proportionnel à l'état de formation lors de la sortie du centre de formation.

La prochaine version du centre de formation permettra d'avoir un impact sur la répartition initiale de l'entraînement du joueur.

I can assure you that, unless you’ve changed anything recently, there’s no way the player I showed you, who has 3 stamina, could catch up to the player with 8 stamina in terms of points by the time they reach an equivalent stage of progress, by training every day and playing every other day. It’s been like this for 4 or 5 seasons.