Titre: Questions & Answers

It is a known bug.

I think the new salary system is worse than old. In the long run will cause the expenses on player salaries to go down, but in close future some teams have to go to bankrupt. One of my player demanding 12.000 from 2.000, its 6X demands. Ok, I have lots of player, but if every player wants that raise, I can't continue my developments. Oh and that player has 0 played minutes, what about with so-called stars, will they ask 100x offer?
And what about with next year? Salaries grown slower, so if he asked 6x demands, next year will he ask only 5x demands, that will be 60.000???
Please considering a withdrawal, lots of people hates this idea, guys....

The salary situation has me frightened as well. Many of my players have asked for 6x their current salary. I just hope we get a huge increases in our contracts for next season, because otherwise it will be rather difficult to continue any improvements to our facilities or arena.

people who train 2-1-1 wil get higher salaries for sure

This whole change to salaries is also going to have a HUGE effect on the teams that act as player mills and churn out a lot. The cost of doing business for them is going to get too high at a much earlier point then before. I actually think, from this standpoint, this is a fantastic change.

why?

Yes, without a doubt.

I have no problem with the change. The big jump now is only a 1 time thing from the sounds of it and only for Dmen isn't it?

I had 2 players sign new contracts today and they both only doubled in salary.

k, but what about next year? Another double or "just" 1.5x? Cause Im sure they wont play for same money, need raise again....

I've got a question for you all, abuot how you train players in their attribute bundle. The two main methods of training are probably 2-1-1 and a 4-3-2 variation, but is there evidence to show that the second one is better? I myself have been using the second one but i am beginning to question if this is the right way to go. Rereading through the guide doesn't seem to indicate 4-3-2 is any better than 2-1-1 and indeed it doesn't say that one secondary attribute is any better than the other. So what are your guys thoughts? And if you don't mind saying what method do you use to train?

I'm of the belief a better general training scheme is closer to the 2-1-1, or to say 100:50:50. I think a bit higher in secondaries and favoring one is better as well. I think something like 100-60-55 or so and perhaps 1 tertiary stat around 50.

Maybe the question should be "what is minimal ratio in training that is giving a team maximum stars&pucks?". As far as I know and have seen, there is no good pattern or proof that teams who train 432 or 2-1,5-1,5, are better in competitions from those who train 211 or 2-0,7-0,5 (with similar team strength of course).

I originally was training 5-4-3.5, but have been switching to 5-4-3 over the last month or so. I like it and it seems to be working for me. I also feel the secondaries are interchangeable, but I have my preference. For example for most centers I train passing higher, but I have one that because he switched from wing I have kept the tech higher.

That being said, and I am in the minority on this so only take it as one person's opinion, I don't believe there is a perfect ratio. I think its finding what works for your style of play. I like having the secondary and tertiary higher, so that's what I do. I can't tell you if its better than 4-3-2 or 2-1-1, but so far it is working for me.

I forgot to mention, I also base my training on the players qualities. If I have a winger with poor shooting and high passing, I don;t bother training the shooting and instead make him a passing winger.

This is just a transition to the new calculation formula so the difference between old and new salaries doesn't tell us anything yet. We'll see after second contract renewals how those will behave. According the news these formulas was created to prevent salaries going sky high, so you should be happy.

Well, Im not convinced, but we'll see.