Тэма: Questions & Answers

It's there in black and white in the news. The big giant increase wont always be like that.

Good Question!!!!

And the answer is ............. 2:1:1 will maximize stars and pucks. No question about that. I use 4:3:2 by the way as you know but the original question asker may not. There is no longterm proof as of yet as to whch is "better". Though most of the top clubs seem to build 2:1:1. To early to be conclusive. I've found there is an effective range for builds and there appears on my team to be more/less effective builds by position. Further combining different builds on a single line can produce better results for me atleast.

Just my 2 cents

Ok, did someone tried 2-0,8-0,8 ? 2-1-1 is the closest to minimum effort as far as we know (not as if we know so much about it ). If it shows that there is also 0,8 instead of 1, I'll go with it, as long as I don't have to waste my time on training.
Does somebody know how we can determine which is minimum ? And if it was determined, by what concrete action it was determined?

I like 5-1-0.5

It looks like 100/20/10 Great stars!

This is serious scientific conversation Bigal, you don't have to mock

Sorry.

I know!

This is from an experiment Canucks and I did going back to season 2. Here is what was done and keep in mind we both played low importance so energy was stable. We used goaltenders for this experiment as they have the easiest bundle to isolate and only 2 players create the star/puck recognition..

We were both building 4:3:2 so it was easy to isolate the 3rd atty as the lowest secondary atty. I built "tight" moving my bundle 4:3:2 and splitting it as 2:2:1 then 2:1:1 moving the third atty 1 first. Scott on the other hand built "wide". Which is to say he would move his 2 tenders on goal 5 or more points each collectively at a time in general.

My stars creaped up gradually in a predictable patern. Scott on the other hand Would raise the prime first and get no star improvement. Then he'd raise the third atty and the stars would grow. It never failed and when the third atty equaled 50% the stars stopped growing. I completed the experiment by over building the third atty first a bit further along in the season. After 50% of prime was achieved there was no further growth in stars until I raised prime up and star growth stopped when prime reached twice the lowest atty in the bundle which was the third atty in a 4:3:2 build. Lastly When raising the second atty because it was always well over 50% of prime stars did not improve.

The whole bases of this experiment was based on a statement in the guide regaurding team strength and players and which positions contribute to which star category.

So my interpretation of the game engine is that offense, defense and goal stars are based on the atty "recognition" of primary for each position. Recognition is tied into the relationship(ratio) between the primary and the 2 secondary attys. I have seen nothing that contradicts the 50% number as being exactly the benchmark used in the relationship between primary and secondary attys.

Thus the 2:1:1 build is the most effective way to move stars/pucks. So why do I build 4:3:2 knowing that 2:1:1 is a faster build? I'm still experimenting after BETA and almost 3 full seasons. I'm still of a mind that adding value to secondary attys may have an "in game" benifit when game calculations run. But I definately cannot prove that. In fact season 4 will be dedicated to trying to disprove that as I'm playing some 2:1:1 guys with higher primary than my best players I've trained exclusively through season 3.

I have found 2 effective builds so far I'm comfortable with rolling. Defensemen being the first. Here I have 1A and 1B. Both the same bundle ratio and the difference being shot at either 50% or 75%.

The other build I've found effectie isn't 4:3:2 but rather 4:3:3 for centers with 50% shot rather than my standard 75% shot. Very effective on the PP in particular. I'm a huge believer in line building not just individual players. Having a 3:3 secondary build on each line of the powerplay seems to be most effective. And the 3:3 guy with 50% shot still scores goals. I got away from this some the second 1/2 of the season and had poor results from my second line PP. Put a 3rd line center to second Friday scored 3 goals 2 on the PP.

These are not longterm trends by any stretch as I personally think you need to go through a full player cycle and we are no where close to that. All I'd suggest is we know 2:1:1 is the fastest build and gets the "fullest" star recognition. That's enough for many to build it. Absolutely nothing wrong with this approach and infact it has been extremely successful for many top managers. I'm just looking for different ways to experiment to see if something "positive" can be added by building higher on certain attys based on individual player position. And clearly I may have to adopt 2:1:1 down the road if the players perform as well or better than 4:3:2

So it seems that You were dropping your secondary attys while Canucks was raising his, you both to a 50% of primary atty (if I follow you on this since I don't have much time right now for a proper debate)? How long did this experiment last, and how many points were in use for each section-atty experiment (approx.) ?
You two did really good job.
As far PP are concerned, I've noticed that it seems like PP structure needs to be changed from time to time in order to be effective. At first it is silly thought, but how can you explain good PP behavior in first 3-4 games, then a downslope and even getting too much SH goals. I've tried all the theories for PP but in the end all comes to a single conclusion - too much random involved.

" too much random involved." Boy do I agree with this statement. And I find like you it runs good for a bit then goes to junk. And the SH goal issue is also something that happens to me. But it's a 3rd season phenomina. LOL

I found only a couple of OK things that seem to flatten the performance out from peaks and vallies and it's just a little bit at best. I play my 2 PP units intact for EV play as well. I noticed on PPM TV that if you mix guys from the top 3 lines on the PP the 4th line shows up more on PPM TV. Second thing I do is switch every couple of weeks which line is PP 1 and which is PP 2.

We did this for about 1/2 a season until we were both satisfied it was 50% of prime. Canucks still builds much wider than I do So from time to time we'll talk about the subject especially with tenders as he has 2 terrific guys on AQ and performance.

I should mention I got another confirmation this is correct over the last month. Not that I needed it. There are 2 elite tenders in my division so I scouted the guy that gives me the most trouble. His bundle at the time was exactly 10:5:3 read as goal:tech:pass. But the primary was 3 digits. His stars for goal hadn't moved in quite awhile which I had noted. He played every league game on low importance. His tender was 96% energy entering the playoffs. So he starts moving his passing up and sure enough he's gained 4 stars by the playoffs. It's not moving now as he's played his playoff games on high importance. He'll have a nice little bump after the new season updates to around 40 stars for goal from his present 34 IMO.

I don't specifically remember the atty points but Canucks 2 guys are around 40 stars now when Newts plays. He has gooooooooood tenders. My 2 guys included my present number 1 and my number 2 all season I sold before the playoffs.

thanx for the replies lads, basically discovered exactly what i wanted to know. I am aware of all the effort you put into the bundle work stan and thanx for sharing it with us all honestly!

a few little question's. i know this one is for the long run, but will players who (almost) don't train anymore en thus get worser in comparance with other players, will also see it's wage decrease? is this possible. or will they always be asking the same or more.

players ask more money when they get more popular, if i'm not mistaking. so is it possible after a very bad season and a big decrease of it's popularity that the wage will drop the next time.

When will the to do list be update(last update 5th of february)?

That's a very good question. I've never seen a wage decrease on my team, even for players who don't get ice time.

that`s cuz they dont

I might bring this up with Vlady on Skype and see if they could implement it at some point.

1 Question, Why i cant upgrade my arena capacity,

my arena section A have medium stand but cant upgrade to large and the rest of the section cant upgrade to medium..

it is because i'm not a PRO...