Наслов: Questions & Answers

Thanks, I will check mine and change the top shooters from 90-100% offense to the 75%-80% offense. I find that with a higher offense attribute it seems that the player also gets more shots, so there is a fine line I guess between quality and quantity...

agreed,
more shots --> more opportunities to score.
higher sho --> better chance of capitalizing on the opportunity

I think the magic number is at about 70% shooting for it so be good. my top shooting percentage forward is at 90% shooting, but only 1.5% higher then the guys at 70% shooting. Offense is slightly higher on the 70% guys, but not a whole lot higher. my highest offense guy is at 30% and has the most shots on the team by quite a bit, but his shooting percentage is 17.5% compared to the other guys at just over 25%. I have another guy at 60% and higher offense, and his shooting percentage isn't much higher then the 30% guy... after all the writing, I think 70% is ideal, maybe 80-85% if you have a high quality guy and his offense can keep up with everyone else even training a little more on shooting. thanks for the input and help as well.

That's where I'm also. I train my forwards with good shot Q at 150% of their secondaries (or 75% of the primary, that's another way to say the same thing).

I prefer to give my players a little higher shooting.
For me if a center has a higher shooting Q. that his effective Q than his shot gets trained at a 1:1 with off. Otherwise ignored.
And if a winger has a higher shooting Q than his effective Q I give him 1:1 with Sho:Off, otherwise I train his shooting to 1:1 Sho:Agg.
And if a winger has better Passing than shooting I give him 1:1:1 Shoas:Agg

I've been in the U.S. for too long. I spelled centre wrong.

OK, I have a relegation round coming up and need to know which goalie I should start.

Goa Pas Tec Exp Ene Che
376 154 154 100 71 27

Goa Pas Tec Exp Ene Che
290 123 133 72 89 47

Goalie 1 is better, but goalie 2 has a lot more energy. Not sure who to use.

Also, I used goalie 1 in my last playoff round and he didn't play that great.

this is a close call, but i'd use the second one considering the energy and chemistry. i'm sure someone can explain why, more in depth

I'd also go with the second one because of energy and chem, although that will be somewhat negated due to the exp difference.

Very close call.

First goalie have a 20% boost for the EXP, but his energy cost him a lot (I'm not sure his 1 energy = 1%, but that could be the case). Chemistry give him about 7% bonus (I'm think this is the same ratio than EXP, 100=25% bonus).

The bonus of the second one seems comparable to what the first one get. But his energy is a lot higher.

Sorry. Pressed answer too soon.

If we resume very simply but a very simple equation (assuming that 1 ENERGY = -1%):
1: (100+27)/5-(100-71) = -3.6%, his G attribute becomes around 362.
2: (72+47)/5-(100-89) = +12.8%, his G attribute becomes around around 327.

So if I'm right and the energy drop is radical as 1=1% (that would be the worst case scenario, I think), first one would still have better numbers than the second one.

You should probably balance their attributes, also. Primary is too high, the effective G attribute of tour first goalie is around 310.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

I train my players at the 2:1:1 ratio. Both goalies were purchased on the market with their G attributes that high. I'm in the process of increasing the other attributes.

1 energy does not = 1%
I'm pretty sure the decline in skill due to energy loss is exponential rather than linear.

What I would do is start each one and have the other be the back up in friendly games on the weekend, whichever goalie has the high in game score as a starter, I would start for the promo games...

Yup, that's what I'd do. Two friendly games to test means no need to theory-craft the math when the game will tell you straight up which is currently better.