Asunto: General Talk

You are right about the 210 days. I went back and read the thread, it was just an estimated time frame. The guide says length of growth is individual (aka random). Thanks for catching that Bulls.

Yeah, I remember seeing it stated that players can stop growing anywhere between their 18th and 20th birthdays. I'm not sure where exactly I saw that, probably the International Q&A thread.

Hi

I just wanted to say, before two months PPM team wrote to our Captain that players from SA or Draft grow till 20 years. They growth is beetween 10-20 days. But every year they growth will be slower.

If that infomration is true, then growth is not linear. Very interesting. Harder to predict how tall they get, then, as well. Thank you for sharing.

On Romanian forum we track this topic (about growth), and in this moment we have only 1 player who stoped growing after 210 days. We assume (till now) they growth is beetween 210-280 days.
When we'll have a final conclusion, i'll share with you.

PS: right now my formula is something like this
=ROUND(C37+1+(280-H37-(B37-VLOOKUP(ROUNDUP((B37-$B$2)/70;0);sezoane;2;FALSE)))/I37;0)

Don't see any reason to replace Gambit on national team. You can't argue with success: NT is winning, his team wins conference B without any trouble

"Don't see any reason to replace Gambit on national team. You can't argue with success: NT is winning, his team wins conference B without any trouble "

LOL. You might wish to revise your initial assessment.

deleted.

Sorry if anyone got offended, I was just trying to be sarcastic. The situation in basketball saddens me. On one side, it shows that the tactics don't play too much role, the only meaningful thing at this stage(and probably for few more seasons) is the energy, and money advantage(which comes from getting better starters at season 1). Too many dead teams win the championships. Goldfish almost lost his promotion last year to a team that went dead on game 3 of the final series. Gambit's team still has a shot at the title, and will waste a place in the Champions League next year, as Coconut did this year.

There is long discussion how to motivate people to login on a daily basis. But the reality shows, that there is no real reason. Just set the team on low importance, and login once in 30 days to upgrade the arena. With all the experience of managers in I.1 and time they waste in scouting draft talent, nobody can beat a team that hasn't seen its manager for a month. Coconut also was almost undefeated before his team folded.

I really can't tell how much picking certain tactics as NT will change anything about the outcome of the game. Subing the injured players - yes, but not more than that. Sorry again if I offended anyone.

Sry. I didnt pick up on the fact you were being sarcastic. My bad. I was thinking, dang, does he not know?

No offense. Point well taken.

But, actually, I think there is a "tactics wheel" for this game, just like there is in hockey. In other words, one tactic is more successful against others. The recent PPM article that reviewed the statistical info demonstrating this in hockey. Soccer is different because of the spread of players. I have yet to find a specific setting that works against another because there are so many players layouts to factor in. As time goes on, we will see this wheel become apparent in B-ball. B-ball and hockey are nearly identical games, played on different sized surfaces.

That said, I think you are right. There is still not enough definition in team strength between the B-ball leagues, let alone teams in the same league. There will be another season or two before that really becomes a factor. In the meantime, managers can loaf through a lot of time just building and training. But, as one who restarted from the ground up in hockey and soccer, I can tell you that once the strength definition begins to develop, new managers who want to succeed will have no choice but to be more active.

It would be nice to see energy of other teams' players. Late in season tend to lose more games against teams that I am slightly better than, as far as OR. I assume this is due to energy, but unless I went through those teams calendars, viewed reports from all their games, calculated energy based on all that.....uhhh ya I am a working father, so all that will not happen. Would be nice to be able to see at LEAST an average energy of the teams, when you upcoming game analytics.

I got it, and I laughed .

Better players will outweigh any amount of tactical finagling. And unfortunately (for me, anyway), the two best ways to get better players are to get lucky with the Sports Academy or to have a lot of free time (particularly during the European evening) to bid on the market.

The day-to-day adjustments mean much less in the long run than simply acquiring the best players and training them appropriately, and I'm not surprised a lot of people looking for a manager game might find that a turnoff.

I like the idea. Us working stiffs need all the help we can get.

That said, I have learned to pay more attention to Team Strength than I do to team OR. I can beat teams with higher OR and lower strength, but lose to teams with lower OR and higher strength.

Also, if I am reading the Team Strength right, it factors in energy, yes? I have watched my TS drop through the season, even though my players have trained more. It seems more noticeable in B-ball than other sports, too.

Yeah I believe Team Strength is the overall quality of the team on the last game they played, which takes into account fatigue.