Old -> New Conversion

Can I just say something

A lot of people seem unable to grasp the difference between an argument, an opinion and a disagreement.

If I state what I believe or what I know, it doesnt mean that Im having an argument.

When its claimed its an argument Ill pull out of the discussion, but if its an exchange of ideas or opinions Ill quite happily join in, so if I fail to reply to someone, then you know why.

FC Clock Face wrote:

Ajax wrote:

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

Never let it be said that I haven't helped the community!

... Now back to being a scroogey quack.

Sky Blue Pink Chicks wrote:

Can I just say something

A lot of people seem unable to grasp the difference between an argument, an opinion and a disagreement.

If I state what I believe or what I know, it doesnt mean that Im having an argument.

When its claimed its an argument Ill pull out of the discussion, but if its an exchange of ideas or opinions Ill quite happily join in, so if I fail to reply to someone, then you know why.

or maybye you will just give them a warning;;just like you did to finto

FC Stoke wrote:

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

And these are different how?

Under the old stats and old training a train of 3.00 meant his stats increase by 3 points? Correct
Under the new stats and new training an increase of 300% means his stats increase by 1? Correct?

Now, I personally dont give a flying piece of dog poo about ratings, but some of you lot like to hang on to them, so for the point of comfort I still use the term. If I sat 300 ability points, a lot of people start to walk around like Zombies saying "DOH! 300, is that a lot?", whereas if I say "Approx rating of 40" they all sit comfortable and are quite at ease. Thats the only reason I use ratings as a point of reference. But you know me, I ignore them and look at the abilities.

FC Stoke wrote:

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

Ok, so now we know that 100% means a rating increase of 1 ability. We can therefore work out that if we multiply that number by 30 we get the estimated predicted growth in a months time.

So, lets pretend we have a 15 year old, born today with zero stats.
He trains at 100% on day 1, and gains 1 point.
Day 2 he trains he trains at 100% and gains a point.
Day 3....you get the picture.

So, its safe to assume that at 16 he will be roughly 30 ability points, at 17 he will be roughtly 60 so on and so forth.

So, here comes the clever part.

I look on VMan info, or whatever the heck its called these days. I find a player who is 19 with 120 abilities, or 20 with 150 or whatever age (In the same position) I want to look at and I note the value.

Is it therefore safe to assume that that figure is the potential value of the 15 year old youth thats training at 100%

Thats what Ive been doing for years and years and years and its a system thats done me proud.

I dont need to know what the old stats conversion is like, I just need to find players that already matches my players predicted ability.

No old stats needed, no ratings needed, no old training conversions, nothing.

In all honesty thats my gripe with the game now. In the past there were a few of us that could do that because we knew the system involved to calculate that figure, and that gave us an edge in a certain area. Now the info is spoon fed and it now means all the lazy bar {attendants} have as much chance of figuring it out as I do. Not fair....IMO

FC Clock Face 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?

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,

I agree with this Daz...sit tight unless you know it is a bargain lol...

And yeh the chart seems pretty good in all honesty and I appreciate the folk who have gone to the time and effort to produce it and share it...

My scouts reports will be interesting tomorrow

Sky Blue Pink Chicks wrote:

FC Stoke wrote:

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

And these are different how?

Under the old stats and old training a train of 3.00 meant his stats increase by 3 points? Correct
Under the new stats and new training an increase of 300% means his stats increase by 1? Correct?

Now, I personally dont give a flying piece of dog poo about ratings, but some of you lot like to hang on to them, so for the point of comfort I still use the term. If I sat 300 ability points, a lot of people start to walk around like Zombies saying "DOH! 300, is that a lot?", whereas if I say "Approx rating of 40" they all sit comfortable and are quite at ease. Thats the only reason I use ratings as a point of reference. But you know me, I ignore them and look at the abilities.

FC Stoke wrote:

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

Ok, so now we know that 100% means a rating increase of 1 ability. We can therefore work out that if we multiply that number by 30 we get the estimated predicted growth in a months time.

So, lets pretend we have a 15 year old, born today with zero stats.
He trains at 100% on day 1, and gains 1 point.
Day 2 he trains he trains at 100% and gains a point.
Day 3....you get the picture.

So, its safe to assume that at 16 he will be roughly 30 ability points, at 17 he will be roughtly 60 so on and so forth.

So, here comes the clever part.

I look on VMan info, or whatever the heck its called these days. I find a player who is 19 with 120 abilities, or 20 with 150 or whatever age (In the same position) I want to look at and I note the value.

Is it therefore safe to assume that that figure is the potential value of the 15 year old youth thats training at 100%

Thats what Ive been doing for years and years and years and its a system thats done me proud.

I dont need to know what the old stats conversion is like, I just need to find players that already matches my players predicted ability.

No old stats needed, no ratings needed, no old training conversions, nothing.

In all honesty thats my gripe with the game now. In the past there were a few of us that could do that because we knew the system involved to calculate that figure, and that gave us an edge in a certain area. Now the info is spoon fed and it now means all the lazy bar {attendants} have as much chance of figuring it out as I do. Not fair....IMO

still trying to find out what 203% converts to ..bloody politcians

you're forgetting that under the new system introduced yesterday, player's abilities will increase more than they did beforehand.

the players you are comparing to have been trained on the old system where it was harder to increase abilities

you will get a false value

Frankies acre bhoys wrote:

still trying to find out what 203% converts to ..bloody politcians

203 / 31.25 = 6.49

You're welcome.

still trying to find out what 203% converts to ..bloody politcians


6.48

the answer above appeared just before me, but either using the calculation or the chart gave a reasonably close answer

Ajax wrote:

Frankies acre bhoys wrote:

still trying to find out what 203% converts to ..bloody politcians

203 / 31.25 = 6.49

You're welcome.

thank you