Asunto: Questions & Answers

ok
and in your opinion 4:3:2 > 4:4:4?
I don't think so ...

player with attys: 150-100-75 is better for you than player with attys: 150-150-150?

That's what I've found. See that's where my belief about penalties in the game engine comes from. If it was simple logic then the second guys better. More atty 2 and 3 should mean a better player. I have never found that to be true season over season when I tested a flat build.

The same with atty recognition of the primary. I see "1 atty junk" as I call it in the market. Note the attributes on paper. Set up a link to the player page and visit his new team. Find a league game he starts and look at the stars. This I do with goalies specificly. A 100 goal atty tender would be better than 40 stars at minimum even with 0 chem and little or no experience. What I've seen is with a guy say 100:20:20 starting he rarely has 20 stars for the 2 tenders combined. Thus my belief there is maximum primary atty recognition in the game engine.

Again this are just my opinions/observations based on my experience in the game.

i don't have the numbers to back it up, but i believe in basic theory you are correct. i have watched a strong goalie with lousy secondaries go from pure crap to relatively stellar as the secondaries come up to roughly a 100:60:60 or ratio. I have seen similar changes in both defensemen and forwards (though from my view, their numbers are closer to 100:80:60).

But, I think the principle point of discussion here is what determines the diminishing rate of return. Put another way, at what point does developing the secondaries produce less return than the training effort put into it? Personally, I doubt that a 1:1:1 ration is as good as some seem to think it might be.

150-150-150 = OR 450
150-100- 75 = OR 325

OF course the guy with 450 OR will be better....

But the real questions is would

150-100-75 = OR 325

be better than

109-108-108 = OR 325

The logic that everyone is using is not at all apples to apples.

Think of it in these terms. Both 150 primary players are recognized the same IMO in stars for that atty. There are no stars for secondary attys. My belief is that the stars reflect the value of that 1 atty as recognized within the game.

But I believe the game engine is much more complex whithin the game calculations. I've just never seen a flat build player work when I experimented with it going back to BETA. Logically the flat guy should be better. But I believe penalties are built into the game engine calculations and ratios are part of those calculations. Thus my belief the 150:100:75 guy is better. Though ideally I'd prefer 112 for the second atty.

The second example gets to where I started on player builds. Figuured more is better for secondary attys so built flat guys. NOOB team with no facilities of note. Then pulled some guys alot closer to 4:3:2 bundle and they played better than simillar primary guys I was building flat. Thus my experience has been the the flat bundle not as effective.

As to OR don't use that as a measure IMO again. It is the relationship of the attys in a ratio that I think creates effective players. It all comes down to whether you believe there are penalties in the game engine or not. To each thier own it just my opinion and perspective based on my experience with the game.

I've only used 4:3:2 and as long as I keep my players within that range they have done wlel - I've used 2:1:1 for goalies and it has payed off as well as the 4:3:2 so i don't really know there. I have a sample size of two so I don't really have much data to go on.

Where is the old Q&A topic, I can't find it...

What I find odd, and have always found odd, about the 4:3:2 idea is that the guide does not specify primary, secondary, and tertiary attributes for the bundle. It specifies a primary and 2 secondaries. It almost seems to go out of its way to not distinguish between the 2 secondaries, yet that is exactly what people are doing in placing Tech over Agg for a winger, or Passing over Tech for a center, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 4:3:2 is wrong. Not at all. I am simply wondering how people figured out which skills were the secondaries for each position, and which were the tertiaries.

There's no reason for anyone to get so excited over these opinions (that's what they are, opinions) to take to the level of name calling. You f*rs just F*n need to F*n lol nah j/k, just try to show some basic respect guys c'mon.

I suppose it is hard to conclusively say for sure it was training amount that I observed and not other factors such as a month of random bad luck, a month of others training better and then reversing that or whatever. I think all we can do is try to observe what we can and take a chance on what seems like the best route. There are still some HUGE areas hard to understand such as how a 20 shooting player can end up with higher SOG % than a 40 etc.

coach2, I think you hit the nail on the head for one whole side of the discussion in that "what determines the diminishing rate of return" Now we're all counting on you to come up with the answer to this, dont let us down!

Wow, its, like the child on the playground that hits you and hits you and when you finally respond, they run and cry to the teacher.

I never had an issue with you till you attacked me in another thread, not my ideas, mind you, which may be right or wrong, but you attacked my character as well as my nationality.

Then in this thread you attack me once again when I wasn't even talking to you. And I did no more than simply throw your words back into your face. And you can claim that you only insulted my "process," but everyone here knows that's not the truth. In addition you insulted not only me but another user by calling us "no smarter than 10 year olds."

The fact is that from the last time you insulted me until today I never even read any of your posts. Because frankly after the way you talked down to me I could care less what you have to say and have no desire to respond to it. I prefer healthy debate over the condescension and personal attacks you enjoy so much.

I spend a lot of time on these boards helping people. I spend a lot of time in e-mails helping people just like you claim you do. so if you really want to play the card of the helpless victim go ahead, it doesn't hold up.

And brotherke no one was "looking" for anyone (at least not on my side) I was trying to be an adult and keep the peace by ignoring him, but I won't sit back while he attacks my character than lies to make me look like the aggressor. Maybe I should have remained silent and let his own words reveal the truth, but its one of my many character flaws.

Maybe my question is a stupid question but I want to learn..
I'm training with the 4:3:2 ratio.
Example: Offense 80 - Passing 60 - technique 40

What about the shooting of a player, do I need to train them to a certain level? My ratings on shooting are really low, but is there also a ratio to what lvl I need to train this?

I try to keep the shooting up near the 3 of a 4 3 2 - but it depends on the individual skill of the player - if his shooting stat sucks I'll make him into a passer if that stat is available etc. If he sucks all around I just cope with it until i find a replacement.

As for the fighting, I didnt even notice it I just thought everyone was voicing their opinions. I hear a lot of things in bars and have played sports my entire life - just have to be a duck and let it all flow offf your back.

Two notes before i have a look at the examples in the guide.

Note1: The guide says nothing about how much better any of the examples are - thus there is a possibility that some are only slightly better while others are much better.
Note2: The guide says nothing about the two good players in the examples being anywhere near equal.

Ex1A from guide
120 - 30 - 50 > 180 - 25 - 25 (total 200>230)
This shows that having very high primary compared to secondaries is a bad use of extra skill points.

Ex1B from guide
120 - 30 - 50 > 70 - 90 - 90 (total 200>250)
This shows is that having secondaries higher than the primary is a bad use of extra skill points. Note that the guide didnt use 70:80:80 which would have totaled the same as ex1A. Thus there is the possibility that 70:80:80 may be better than 120:30:50 (i doubt it but possible just from guide). Though even if that is the case it uses 30 extra skill points and could therefore be worse to train to that ratio.

Ex2A from guide
100 - 80 - 50 > 130 - 80 - 30 (total 230>240)
This shows that having high primary compared to 2nd secondary with equal 1st secondary is a bad use of extra skill points.

Ex2B from guide
100 - 80 - 50 > 80 - 80 - 80 (total 230>240)
This shows that lowering your primary and increasing the 2nd secondary up to equal with the primary is a bad use of extra skill points. Note this does not mean that 100:80:50 > 100:100:100.

ill probably turn this into a ppm magazine article as the first part in an extended series on player builds. Should generate some good discussion.

Stan and anyone else - if you feel like writing your thoughts up into an article it would be great to post alternative views.

shooting is independent atty, so it's up to you how big you'll train it, but I think it's not necessary to train it higher than primary