Bring Forward Player's Peak
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2025 3:01 pm
The major flaw of the 'everyone trains' model as opposed to the limited training resource of Battrick and a more potential based system like used in Stumped is that you create the 21-24 problem discussed in the other thread with the best players in the game all clustered within a tight age band. This is not unique to FTP, its similar in other games that have a similar 'everyone trains' model.
The first question would be - do people actually consider it a problem and would they want it changed ? For me, the main issues are:
1. Players peak age is very short. Looking at national squads, the majority of players are aged 29 and 30. Ideally you want a game where the best players create their legacies and star players are star players are star players instead of the current situation where they last a couple of seasons at the top before being shuffled down the conveyor belt.
2. The 21-24 black hole where players are not useful until their mid 20s. And yes there are obvious exceptions. But its not particularly satisfying as a gameplay mechanic for players coming out of youth teams to have to be put into storage for 5 years.
3. Players main attribute is their position in their own timeline. A 29 year will be better than a 26 year who will be better than a 23 year. Ideally you want how good a player is to be based on how good they are and not just how old they are.
I am a massive advocate of a potential based system which for me is a far better way of handling player development. But I suspect this is a non-starter as there will be push back from existing users who may not like it. And would probably too be too messy to build into the existing infrastructure. I will assume this isn't possible but I do think it should be possible to change player timelines a bit using a combination of:
1. Higher starting skills
2. Faster youth training
3. Slower senior training (much much slower at 25+)
The idea would be a player's peak would be 25-29. Within that range, players should be pretty much developed with maybe a very occasional pop. Players 21-24 will still need some development but will be much closer to the best players than they are now. The very best players may be good enough to play in the younger age band.
One possible downside is you may have too many good players in the 25-29 bracket. You would probably want a greater variation of youth prospects possibly more linked to academy level. Re higher starting skills, it wouldn't be a blanket rise across across the board it would be a bigger range. If the highest possible starting skill was reliable then you would want very few of them generated - when they are they would be special.
The first question would be - do people actually consider it a problem and would they want it changed ? For me, the main issues are:
1. Players peak age is very short. Looking at national squads, the majority of players are aged 29 and 30. Ideally you want a game where the best players create their legacies and star players are star players are star players instead of the current situation where they last a couple of seasons at the top before being shuffled down the conveyor belt.
2. The 21-24 black hole where players are not useful until their mid 20s. And yes there are obvious exceptions. But its not particularly satisfying as a gameplay mechanic for players coming out of youth teams to have to be put into storage for 5 years.
3. Players main attribute is their position in their own timeline. A 29 year will be better than a 26 year who will be better than a 23 year. Ideally you want how good a player is to be based on how good they are and not just how old they are.
I am a massive advocate of a potential based system which for me is a far better way of handling player development. But I suspect this is a non-starter as there will be push back from existing users who may not like it. And would probably too be too messy to build into the existing infrastructure. I will assume this isn't possible but I do think it should be possible to change player timelines a bit using a combination of:
1. Higher starting skills
2. Faster youth training
3. Slower senior training (much much slower at 25+)
The idea would be a player's peak would be 25-29. Within that range, players should be pretty much developed with maybe a very occasional pop. Players 21-24 will still need some development but will be much closer to the best players than they are now. The very best players may be good enough to play in the younger age band.
One possible downside is you may have too many good players in the 25-29 bracket. You would probably want a greater variation of youth prospects possibly more linked to academy level. Re higher starting skills, it wouldn't be a blanket rise across across the board it would be a bigger range. If the highest possible starting skill was reliable then you would want very few of them generated - when they are they would be special.