Spaudos konferencija

Some statistics about scouts' searches for young players.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+3
Niekada nesakiau, kad kam nors scoutinti žaidėjus lengviau ar sunkiau. Jei jau nagrinėjam statistiką. Tai ją galima matyti įvairiai. Pvz kinams ištraukti vieną gerą jaunį kainuoja apie 60k. Tuo tarpu lietuviams 66k, kas yra 10 proc skirtumas. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Mirza: tai ir nesakom kad tu sakei, tačiau tokių nuomonių matyti tikrai teko. O ir patiems buvo įdomu kodėl Kinija tiek talentų ištraukia.

Kas liečia žaidėjui ištraukti reikalingą kainą tai statistiškai nagrinėti gana sudėtinga, nes žaidime nėra saugoma informacijos kurie traukimai buvo "garantuoti".
Kinijos vartotojai investuodami kur kas daugiau pinigų ir garantuotų traukimų turi daugiau, iš kur ir ateina dalis aukščiausio lygio talentų. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Looks logical, but I am more unhappy about the inside potentials of the players, which could differ dramatically. For example center with very bad defence and or athleticism potentials like -70 ruins its value. The main qualities of high potential player should not differ so much, because in a way this game is constructed such players became useless -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+4
I agree with Zorro. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
Zorro:
You can easily avoid this risk by chosing "universal" on "set Type of skills' potentials"
Also there will be small update next season:
http://www.bballzone.net/forum/training-seems-to-have-some-issues-t12529-10.html#p176299 -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
It would be nice also if the size of the school had a larger effect on the chance of getting talent. The difference currently is close to zero (which when you factor cost of having a 10 player school vs 5 player - doesn't make the 10 player school worth it at all. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
Faktas vienas kad, investuot i skautu randamus zaidejus neapsimoka del keliu priezasciu: 1. Jei esi zemam divizione negauni tiek pajamu kad galetum investuot + jei randi talenta neturi pakankamai lesu jam islaikyti ypac kai pakyla jo verte. 2. jei esi pakankamai aukstam divizione ir nusprendi investuoti i jauniu paieska, gaunasi jog nekazka ten randi, daug finansu nuleidi i bala krenti zemyn be progos grizti aukstyn. Bent jau mano tokia asmenine patirtis:) o jus galvokit ka norit nebegrisiu i sita zaidima vien del to kad nebudamas virsunej jauniu augint ir ieskot negali o ir budamas virsunej to tiappat negali daryti. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+2
kiekviena sezoną investuoju 200-400k ir viskas atsiperka su kaupu, išsitreniruoju taip kaip noriu, žaidžia už centus lyginant su rinkos žaidėjais, kaupiu milijonus banke. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+2
No way that the US has 67 managers, not even close. We have 11 active in US 1.1 and about 10 in US 2.x, and a handful in US 3.x. Total amount of players is below 30 -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
TheCoach:
I am not sure if it should depend more on school's size. But in the future we will definitely try to find some ways to increase basketball school's value in the game

Yes, you are right. About 40% users are not very active (login once in few months), but as they are no deleted we still count them -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
worbot:
Iš tiesų tai yra daug sėkmingų žaidėjų auginimo pavyzdžių įvairiose lygose. Manau čia daugiau sugebėjimų ir požiūrio klausimas. Ir šioje vietoje nelabai matau galimybių kažką patobulinti. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
worbot:
Bėje tu gal prie naujos potencialų sistemos ir nebandei auginti žaidėjų? Senos sistemos pagrindinė problema jog potencialai nukrisdavo. Šiuo metu tos problemos nebėra -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Na ką, įkišiu savo "trigrašį" ir aš prie šios temos.
Investuoju gana pastoviai ir gana daug (100-150k per sezoną). Investuoju pirmiausiai dėl to, kad esu iš šalies, kurioje be manęs tik dar vienas vartotojas. Tad jei nesusirasčiau sau talentų, neturėčiau optimalios sudėties (bent jau 5 vietiniai žaidėjai) ir negalėčiau optimaliai taktikuot ir tobulint žaidėjų.
Antra, pliusų yra daugiau nei minusų. Minusų nemažai. Bet daugumą minusų atperka faktas, kad skautinį daug lengviau išlaikyti su išankstiniu pratęsimu, nereikia išleisti į rinką, kur dažnai nenormaliai užkeliamos kainos.
Investuoti dideles sumas į jaunimą aišku gali tik aukščiausiose lygose žaidžiantys klubai, arba perkantys žaidimo pinigus. Bet nesutinku, kad žemesnėse lygose žaidžiantiems neįmanoma ir išlaikyt sudėties ir investuot. Investuoti 40-50k per sezoną nėra kosmosas net žemesnių lygų klubams, nes už tokią sezono algą galite nupirkti geriausiu atveju vidutinioką žaidėją. Tokią sumą investuojant, kas 2-3 sezonus bus neblogas jaunis :)
Galit sutikt, galit nesutikt, bet tai mano ilgametė investavimo į jaunimą patirtis. Aišku yra tikrai dalykų, kurie ir man nepatinka, bet turim ką turim. Svarbiausia nereikia sakyt, kad nieko neįmanoma ištraukt jei neinvestuojat visai, arba 5k per sezoną :) -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
na investuoti gal ir galima, bet išlaikyti, kai tokios kainos, ypač jai sėdi kokiose 5-6 lygose nelabai įmanoma. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Na negali 4 lygos komanda turėti geriausių šalies žaidėjų. Bet ir čia protingas vadovas matydamas kad žaidėjo nepavyks išlaikyti dar sugebės jį pelningai išmainyti.

Be to jeigu komanda ilgą laiką žaidžia žemose lygose tai nebūtina auginti aukščiausio lygio žaidėjų. Galima auginti netokius talentingus ir netokius brangius žaidėjus. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Ronai, kam traukt tuos jaunius jei nekyli per lygas? Žaidime ir taip pilna žemoms lygoms tinkamų žaidėjų. Kam 5-6 lygoms reikalingi 9-10 potencialo žaidėjai kurie ateityje bus 250vk ir daugiau? RKL klubai gi neieško Valančiūnų su 10 metų perspektyva.. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
This data is incredibly incomplete. It is good to see that there is a rough average of 60k invested per good pull, but it would be nice to know a couple of additional things.

1. Where the good pulled players even from scouts that had money invested in them? If the good players were from "free" scouts, then this data is meaningless.

2. How many pulls were there total in each of the countries discussed? I can't remember off the top of my head, but I thought it said there was a 1 in 158 chance of pulling a good player by just default settings. If every Lithuania player pulled every day that would be (63*1063)= 66,969 players pulled. If it is a 1 in 158 chance, then there should be approximately (66969*1/158)= 423 good players. But we don't know how many pulls even happened.

If possible, could this data be included to give a more complete picture than just the number of users in each country. -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Gambit:
The goal of this statistics was to show how much money each country invests and why Chinese teams have "luck" in scouting.

About total searches, just checked two biggest countries:
Lithuania: 595 (380 without investing)
China: 271 (130 without investing) -- 51 sez. 44 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Damn, I'm pretty sure most if not all of that 80k from the US donations was from me.....no wonder the US never has any good prospects. -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
I counted, all but 58k of that number was from me -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
40k is from me, which 58+40= 98k...far more than is indicated. And one of the 9 potential players is mine, but he sucks big time and we got screwed. So now I have to question the results as well. -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
I put 6k this season. -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
hm, man visai neblogai sekasi. Po mazu kylu per lygas, ir jaunimas netuscias. Algos kolkas galbut ir didokos, turint omenyje kad galeciau senukus geresnius pasiimti uz tokius pinigus, taciau esme kad didziaja dali padengia jaunimo komandoje, todel visa tai nesijaucia nei kiek man ;D -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
美国是SB，立陶宛是niangmen -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
bloomis, TheWizardKs: Hm, maybe you invested also in coaches? -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Actually you are right. That statistics does not cover everything. This was only for signed players.

Total money spent on scounting this season (players together with coaches):
-5 293k China
-4 314k Lithuania
-1 017k France
-980k Italy
-621k Croatia
-518k Argentina
-369k Latvia
-293k United States -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
That makes more sense, thanks for the correction Ant bajerio -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
This actually brings a different story. This means that in order to pull a good player, China had to invest 240k per player. Lithuania is similar with 253k per player.

What's interesting to me about this, is that after investing 150k you are guaranteed a good player, yet the average investment for each of these countries is well over that. -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
150k is first time i think. each next time prices grow -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Why invest 150k to get one good player when you could easily save the money and use it on three good players from the market. -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
You get youth league rights so you can grow him to your liking, he will be cheaper when he is older / important, and You also get one with the right nationality. If no one invests and finds people the marketplace will become void of talent and your back to econ 101 of supply and demand with prices. -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Gambit:
because not all users invest enough money to reach that limit for "guaranteed" player. Also sometimes users draw players with 6-8 potential -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+2
i agree with storm you invest 50k and still can't be sure that you wil get player. And or that amount you can buy a player. -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
@Šabas, what kind a player you can get for 50k per season (5,5k per week)? :) -- 51 sez. 45 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
Noo my friend your calcualtions is wrong. You invest 50k only to find a player. than you pay let just say good player in a youth team 2-3k per week ,4 years and nex 2years 7k per week . and only after 6 years you get player that is worth something. he will play in your team for 3-4 years and get about 30k but dont forget those money that you invested 4 years that means 36 weeks *3k and 18 weeks * 7k and 50k to get player . You invest almost 300k ,you pay him now 32k and he play 4 years that means 36 weeks 300/36 = 8k. 32k+8k(the money you invested) and you get player for 40k per week . so that means you can but it for a 40k per week in the market without a risk... -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+2
China the best of best! -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
I've been calling for a redo of the scout system from the first week I joined. It is terrible. I'm fine with rare high potential player finds, but to find potential 1 or 2 regularly is wrong. -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+3
I don't see anything wrong with it, The people who spend the most money in it get rewarded. Every once and a while the guy who doesn't put money in gets a prospect. You shouldn't be guaranteed a high profile guy every week. -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
I think that there should be a little bit more potential 4-6 players. They seem almost as rare as potential 7 and 8. I over the last two season have now put in 25k (9k) this season and haven't sniffed a decent prospect. -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
I'm saying what TheCoach states, bloomis...the 8 to 10 rarity is fine. But the 1-3 chances should be about the same. 5 seems ok also for some reason, but a 6 or 7 does not. High WL teams would scoff at a 6 player but lower ones would be delighted. -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
Sabas, yes it s expensive but there are also positive points:
- you have a national player
- you improve whole country level, very important even for France which is third in ranking
-you get the priority to ressign him
-you create him as you want!!!
-you control his experience growing...

Still not convinced???;) -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Small nations have less and less players with 8-10 potential. We dont have chance do improve and compete with big nations - also in WL besouce in our team we need to have some national palyers who are weaker. -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Wizards - bell curve approach? Interesting idea. I wasn't really thinking that, just a slight uptick in 4-6 potential players. -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Artemix: You are not right. Well motivated managers even from very small countries can achieve good results:
http://www.bballzone.net/lt/Klubas-aprasymas-2429_Bergen%27s_Soldater.htm -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
TheCoach:
Actually we can`t just increase chances to draw even middle level players. Increasing average level players' amount in the game will lead to decreasing these players' value. And such changes would not give anything good for the game. -- 51 sez. 46 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0
Darius... those middle level players don't have value. You can pick them up for minimum salaries all day long but who wants them? Some players that ended up with -80 speed/2c potentials have their values axed, yet we get no compensation for the tens of thousands of EU's we invested. Am I reading you as stating the scout system is fine as is? -- 51 sez. 47 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+1
theWizardKs:
I can just repeat my previous post in this discussion:

You can easily avoid this risk by chosing "universal" on "set Type of skills' potentials"
Also there will be small update next season:
http://www.bballzone.net/forum/training-seems-to-have-some-issues-t12529-10.html#p176299 -- 51 sez. 47 d.
-- (Versti) (Versti EN)
+0