Forum: English 
This is the general discussion forum for English. When you post in this forum you have to use this language. Posts in other languages may be removed without notice. This forum uses subsections for posts with different topics or purposes. Please posts bugs in the bugs section and take some time to figure out where other posts should go.
English >> Suggestions
change to old players performance (13)
i noticed that some have old players , like a old 45 year old goalie for example , which has almost no endurance , speed much left at all , but still performs good and can play a whole game and still have over the half of form. this is not normal. such player should not be able to play a match with no endurance or give very bad performance or even get seriously injured. this should be changed in the game. it is also unfair because such goalie which still have alot blocking but nothing else can give better performance that a young player which cost alot more and has alot more value which is totally ridiculous. i tried my self since i got an old goalie and i dont understand that at all. game needs a change on this.
+1
As for the suggestion ... hopefully this is considered as an issue that needs fixing, because otherwise I don't believe it's going to be addressed. Any actual improvements to the game won't be happening, unfortunately.
Any changes to the effects of these things on keepers will also require adjustments to certain other elements of the game too, or there will be some unforseen consequences. So don't expect it to change any time soon as it's not as simple as it might seem.
It's not only about keepers. Academies have risen longevity of fieldplayers too. Some years ago forwards at 27-28 were "best before over" but now more and more teams just buy teamful 30+ players cheaply and are more efficient than teams with young squads.
I don't think it's a bad thing outfield players last longer, they shouldn't be declining at age 27/28. It will be evened out by the fact less players are produced by higher level Youth Academies.
I don't believe it's correct that the outfield players last longer because of the academies.
In fact the opposite will be true. Players that are promoted at a younger age will have more xp and more training to lose and so will decline slightly more rapidly when they reach 28-30.
I'm not saying that the observation that some of the current players are lasting longer is incorrect, but it's for a different reason.
The only players that will seem to last longer are those who were mostly trained with (say) a TC 10 when they were younger and then start getting trained in a much higher level Academy when they are older. This alters the curve and will cause their peak to flatten out - so they seem to last longer because they are earning more xp in their later years.
Players trained in a high level FA from the start will experience more or less the same curve as before.
How? Decline start at same age but they have more xp collected both from YA younger start and better FA. So they have more reserve against falling and still earn more xp in higher FA at higher age than earlier generations to compensate aging. Earlier teams with average age 30+ declined significally every season but now those teams remain competitive.
How? .... they don't have 'more reserve against falling'. That's not how ageing works.
A player reaches his peak when the rate of loss matches what he can train by earning more xp. When the rate of loss is greater than the training rate then he starts declining and vice versa.
More xp earned and more previous training means they will lose faster. This can be balanced by training more in a high level FA.
Maybe an example will help
Let's say Striker A (trained mostly in a YC 10) with a base Scoring value of 150 is 29 years old (84%), so has an effective Scoring value of 126 (150 * 0.84), equivalent to 6.30 Scoring. When he drops by 2% to 82% then his effective Scoring is now 123.
This is a fall in his effective Scoring value of 3 trainings.
In order to stop the decline then he needs 3 more effective Scoring to stay at 126, which is 3/0.82 on his base Scoring value. Or the equivalent of 3.66 more Scoring trainings at a cost of 11,000 xp each. Which is roughly 40,000 xp to stay at the same level.
If the player can earn more than this 40,000 xp in the time it takes to drop 2% (which is roughly 43 weeks at age 29) then he will improve. If he earns less then he will decline.
So being in a high level FA means this player will last longer. It's the same player. He just seems to last longer because he is now getting faster training.
Striker B (more talented and trained mostly in high level Academy) with a base Scoring value of 200 is also 29 years old (84%), so has an effective Scoring value of 168 (200 * 0.84), equivalent to 8.40 Scoring. When he drops by 2% to 82% then his effective Scoring is now 164.
This is a fall in his effective Scoring value of 4 trainings.
In order to stop the decline then he needs 4 more effective Scoring to stay at 168, which is 4/0.82 on his base Scoring value. Or the equivalent of 4.88 more Scoring trainings at a cost of 11,000 xp each. Which is roughly 54,000 xp to stay at the same level.
So he now needs to stay in a high level facility to balance out his losses. As he nears retirement he will decline even faster if he gets sold to a club with worse facilities.
So comparing the 2 strikers, you can see that having more trainings doesn't protect their decline rate. It just makes it worse.
I think we need someone else's calculations on this to be certain
I have no problem with that at all.
I have an esteemed friend who has helped me out before with my calculations. Maybe he would give us the benefit of his expertise.
Then you probably didn't count some other factor that matter too. Positional experience maybe? On earlier times players were pulled at age 15-17 but now mostly 13-14 so they get couple of seasons more experience. Something must be there.
Do similar calculations with keepers too: about 20 seasons ago 35+ keepers were not common- only supertalents lasted longer. Now 35 is not yet their best age.
As you say there are other factors. I just looked at the main contributors to the star value to avoid having a page full of calculations. I can comment on each one briefly.
A player with higher fixed stats would potentially decline slightly faster for the same reason as the trainable attributes. However this can be balanced against needing fewer fixed trainings, which costs less, to keep them above 5.
Positional experience is not affected by age so makes very little difference.
Players who start at age 13-14 will have more trainings than one aged 15-17 so will peak a little earlier because they have more to lose.
Players trained with more xp may possibly have a different ratio of their trainable attributes, by perhaps spending more xp on their main skill. So for instance a defender may have the extra xp spent on his Duelling. This could have a small effect on longevity, but in most cases would make them lose more quickly.
People are obviously seeing some longevity effect, I'm just not clear what it is without looking at specific players. I would, however, suggest the following:
1. Players trained initially in a TC 10 will peak later if they are subsequently trained in a high level academy. As time passes we will see fewer of these.
2. There will be a lot more "better" players around in their mid 30s. Some are still over 15 or more at age 34-35. This may make it seem that players are lasting longer, but it's simply because they were trained much higher to start with. The standard has just got better. A rating of 15 is perhaps equivalent to the old 10 or 12.