Assunto: Questions & Answers

You are lucky. I say again, Brasil is probably the best place in the world for many reasons.

Actually it´s becoming a decent place to live. We still have too many social issues and lack of infrastructure. Weak social security and health system too. Much more investment in education is required. But the country is really improving since the middle 90´s. Maybe next decade (2020) will be a great place to live. Maybe.

I use that ratio religiously. I find it works the best, both for on-ice performance but also for the strength that shows up in terms of line strength and team strength. I am just now starting to train my shot. One thing I have really noticed is the impact of tech on shot. Here is a post I did on another website about shooting:

"So I'm very convinced that there is more to scoring goals than just the shooting attribute. I know I've mentioned this before but check this out:
Off Sho Pas Tec
53 73 44 79 38 59 27 33

This player has the third highest Shot on my team (weak I know) and has peppered 32 shots on net, and scored 1 goal! That is the worst scoring percentage on my team.

The next closest player to 44 shot attribute is:
Off Sho Pas Tec
45 58 41 65 21 40 36 53

But he has 5 goals on 17 shots or 5x better shooting percentage!

My leading scorer has the following:
Off Sho Pas Tec
56 59 33 50 19 23 40 54

With 7 goals on 28 shots.

To make a long story short, it appears that there is a strong correlation to tech and shot in terms of scoring percentage. The first guy I mentioned was built to be a scoring centreman, but after seeing his stats after 15 games (40% of the season) I am convinced that there is no point building players with shot in excess of their tech. That means for centres that their shot will be lower, as pass carries more weight than their tech. Thus I am using wingers more for scoring and centres more for play making."

But to answer your question, I have used that ratio of attributes since almost day one.

And sorry to double post, but in regards to my age and if I were on the market... I would likely not even sell. A 22 Y.O. goalie would have 2/6 C/L, not to mention the fact my coach thinks I play the puck too much... I'd be lucky to fetch the transfer fee. The fact you all even mentioned 2mil, I'm flattered

Canucks, is the second player you posted a center?

I'm pretty sure that the game has the centers coded as a pass first player.

No second guy is a winger. I know that centers tend to pass first, but you still would expect more than 1 goal on 30-some shots would you not? I'd expect wingers to have more shots than a centreman, but the conversion of those shots should be related to their shooting (and potentially tech) attribute.

You catch my drift?

yessir.

Another thing to consider is the fact the winger plays on the top line where 44shot Cman is third line. Hard to judge. I have a 22 shot 40+tech winger on my most offensive line and he's popping many more goals than C3 so I dunno.

Powerplay?

I haven't really examined my lines or stats or anything. I should do that soon.

"I use that ratio religiously. I find it works the best, both for on-ice performance but also for the strength that shows up in terms of line strength and team strength".

Agree about on-ice performance; disagree on the other two matters.

I agree with you on your points regaurding stars in particuler. I believe I have the PPM formula down cold frankly. And a 100:50:50 build will give you more stars than 100:75:50 will because you train the 2nd atty lower but the players seem less effective with that 50% second atty. The pucks is a puzzle on formula I have to admit. I have a 6 puck defensive pair that has an atty 46 primary guy though he does have my "perfect" build. That's Defensemen with 50% for shot and tech as well as the 100:75:50 bundle. So go figure that out. I definately cannot.

Sent you a msg.

I have three players that are due for a new contract, but the difference in salary seems odd to me.

Player 1: 148 OR, 43 Def, 18 y.o., known, 5/6 CL
Player 2: 158 OR, 44 Def, 17 y.o., known, 5/6 CL
Player 3: 145 OR, 41 Off, 20 y.o., known, 5/6 CL

Player 1 will go from 375 to 582.
Player 2 will go from 502 to 665.
Player 3 will go from 598 to 1251.

Quoting the guide: 'The player salary depends mainly on the overall rating, value of the highest attribute, age and popularity of the player.'

The difference between players 1 and 2 isn't unexpected. What I didn't expect is the big raise for player 3.

Popularity is equal for all players, player 3's OR and highest attribute are lower than the other 2. Are those 2 years of age that much of an influence on salary? What have others noticed comparing their players?

I should note that player 3 is a foreigner, where 1 and 2 are locals. The guide mentions a 25% Foreigner tax. Still, that means if he was a local it'd be a 1000, which is still way higher than the other 2.

the numbers sent in e-mails are estimates. In addition player 3 has a higher starting point. I also don;t know where you figured the 25% from, but without knowing exactly how much player 3 would get without the foreign bonus it'd be impossible to calculate that he would get "1000"