Old -> New Conversion

FC Stoke wrote:

This is my point Ben...without comparing there is nothing to go off...

Am I being stupid or am I missing something when it comes to the training side of it?

Q - Before new stats were invented and we had a system where there was a number with no cap what did we compare it too?

A - We compared a player to what is reasonable/average growth

Now we are lucky, because we have had new stats for such a while now that we can understand what is reasonable growth using the new stats.

We have learnt (or some have learnt and shared) that reasonable growth is about 30 ability points a birthday. Since a player has 30 days per birthday that equates to about 1 point per day. In order to gain 1 point you need to train at about 100%


EDIT - Now, if a player grows at 100% a day, he should have 300 stats by his 25th bithday, which if distributed correctly should give a rating of about 40. By 35 he will have 600 stats which should give a rating of approx 70-80. Now have a look in the top divisions and look at the ratings of the MAJORITY of players. All around 70-80?
So, on that basis is 100% a reasonable comparison enough for you?

What is that Tom and a few others say? Why not have a look at the top teams players and work it out from there?

Now, before you start accusing me of condescending or looking down on you, please remember that lots of people are reading this forum as a place to learn and some (Not all) have less intelligence than you!

Eddlethorpe Town FC wrote:

Am i right in seeing that keepers cannot train with the outfields players now, they need to be trained on their own with another trainer?

Cheers,
Daz

Correct... mostly.

If you train keepers using an outfielder training routine then the keeper will train using Training Match instead, and the same for outfielders training with keeper training routines.

Ajax wrote:

Eddlethorpe Town FC wrote:

Am i right in seeing that keepers cannot train with the outfields players now, they need to be trained on their own with another trainer?

Cheers,
Daz

Correct... mostly.

If you train keepers using an outfielder training routine then the keeper will train using Training Match instead, and the same for outfielders training with keeper training routines.

Cheers,
Daz

FC Stoke wrote:

This is my point Ben...without comparing there is nothing to go off...

Am I being stupid or am I missing something when it comes to the training side of it?

No you're not missing anything mate. You are right that without knowing what a % means in relation to old stats we can't appraise a player after 5 trains anymore. This will need a good few weeks before we can be sure.
The chart knocking about is a reasonable stab at it as far as I can tell but it isn't 100% accurate and I certainly wouldn't spend over a mil on a player based on what it tells me but that's just me.

Basically I think all we can do is sit tight, don't buy or sell any significant quality players, and just wait a couple of weeks,

Arsenäl FC wrote:

FC Stoke wrote:

Sky Blue Pink Chicks wrote:

FC Stoke wrote:

So first 5 trains say for instance how do I know if the player is averaging 7+ or 8+ (Old stats) on WCTF with no comparisons?

There are no old stats anymore, they have gone as far as I can tell

But based on my last post Im sure you can work it out

100 old stats per birthday used to be considered good
30 ability points new per birthday is considered good

This is based on my "average growth in players" chart that I published months and months ago

What has any of this got to do with a players training average?

I buy players mainly on training averages not on rating...rating can be worked on training averages can't...

Has nothing to do with it mate. There is no exact way of knowing without comparison from old to new what a player is worth after 5 trains until we at least get used to the new percentages.

as the new charts have already been produced based on percentages (with a lot of time and effort), i'm willing to accept the charts are correct until they are proved to be inaccurate, surely, to know if a new youth or any youth is any good, the new chart works exactly the same way as the old one, for example on ETF the benchmark was 3.57 average to make talent status, now the equivalent % will create the talent so in the case of ETF 112% average on WCTF it was 3.99 now it is 131% etc. or am i missing something?

FC Stoke wrote:

Ajax wrote:

Sky Blue Pink Chicks wrote:

100 old stats per birthday used to be considered good
30 ability points new per birthday is considered good

This is based on my "average growth in players" chart that I published months and months ago

Is "good" really the way to put it? 100 stats per birthday before was an average of 3.33, no? That's not particularly show-stopping. Wouldn't 140-150 stats per month have been a better definition of good?

Similarly, 140%-150% average doesn't seem like it's going to be that hard to achieve, so wouldn't 40-45 stats per month now be more reasonable?

This is my point Ben...without comparing there is nothing to go off...

Am I being stupid or am I missing something when it comes to the training side of it?

I get were your coming from mate but as far as I can see on here in the last cuppla days ppl have turned these forums in2 politics;you ask a simple question..cant get a simple answer plz ppl answer a question without converting to percentages;;algarythms;;what this says what that says who says this who said that and in some cases down right cheekno names...so when some one posts can you tell me what 203% converts to NOW not yesterday or last year plz tell them;;me personally rich I don't think any1 has a clue but wont admit it...rant over

I don't get what the argument is here

You can compare a player's training scores without looking at rating/ability gain

And I don't quite get the significance of this but the chart shows that training at 100 old stats increase a month (3.33) is roughly equal to training at 31 new abilities increase a month

FC Clock Face wrote:

Basically I think all we can do is sit tight, don't buy or sell any significant quality players, and just wait a couple of weeks,

This.

Unless he's averaging about 250%, in which case you should probably buy him.

Sky Blue Pink Chicks wrote:

FC Stoke wrote:

This is my point Ben...without comparing there is nothing to go off...

Am I being stupid or am I missing something when it comes to the training side of it?

Q - Before new stats were invented and we had a system where there was a number with no cap what did we compare it too?

A - We compared a player to what is reasonable/average growth

Now we are lucky, because we have had new stats for such a while now that we can understand what is reasonable growth using the new stats.

We have learnt (or some have learnt and shared) that reasonable growth is about 30 ability points a birthday. Since a player has 30 days per birthday that equates to about 1 point per day. In order to gain 1 point you need to train at about 100%


EDIT - Now, if a player grows at 100% a day, he should have 300 stats by his 25th bithday, which if distributed correctly should give a rating of about 40. By 35 he will have 600 stats which should give a rating of approx 70-80. Now have a look in the top divisions and look at the ratings of the MAJORITY of players. All around 70-80?
So, on that basis is 100% a reasonable comparison enough for you?

What is that Tom and a few others say? Why not have a look at the top teams players and work it out from there?

Now, before you start accusing me of condescending or looking down on you, please remember that lots of people are reading this forum as a place to learn and some (Not all) have less intelligence than you!

Penny I am not trying to have an argument...I am trying to figure out where we are coming from on this...
It seems like we are on two different wavelengths...

I am talking about a training average and you are talking about ratings/abilities...

I buy quite a lot of players after say 5-10 trains when they don't really have ratings/abilities at that point...so using the percentages I am unsure of a players worth after those few trains...
It might just be a case of playing it by ere and learning the new market for a while...
If there was some kind of comparison chart say a decimal train of 6.0 on WCTF which was 2.4 on Lawn, which is now say 180% on WCTF and 80% on Lawn...
Would make life a lot easier

Ajax wrote:

FC Clock Face wrote:

Basically I think all we can do is sit tight, don't buy or sell any significant quality players, and just wait a couple of weeks,

This.

Unless he's averaging about 250%, in which case you should probably buy him.

Sshhhh, this is my only chance to buy 'significant' players. Everything I type is an elaborate April fool designed to fool people in to discarding super youths