主题: Questions & Answers

Absolutely equal?

Could you tell us who said that, or where we could find it clearly written like that? This has been an ongoing debate for 5 seasons and there is always someone who claims to have been told by the devs that it's one way or the other.

They're both called 'secondary attributes' in the manual. Not 'secondary' and 'tertiary'.

Doesn't the new PPM Magazine pretty much tell you to train 2:1:1. At least that's the way I understood it. And it was probably released because of this discussion.

That's your logic?

PPM have a number of times had things in the manual that have been "debatable".

Until someone from PPM outright tells us they're exactly equal, they will remain a matter of opinion only.

The biggest argument to them being equal is this... teams that train the first of the secondary attributes higher tend to have more stable, and better results.

Well, it suggests the attributes are primary-secondary-secondary.

But that could mean to train them 4-3-3, 4-2-2, 4-1-1, 5-2-2

etc etc etc You get the point.

They don't state WHAT the ratio is between the primary and secondary.

Personally I train 2-1.2-1

"Personally I train 2-1.2-1"
Math skills....making brain hurt.... rargh!!!! *head blows up*

Well it used to be called:
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary

That's what I'm saying. The way the guide USED to be suggests one is more important than the others.

I've scouted defencemen from some of the games very best teams. All six of these players have been members of their respective teams for quite some time. In all but one case their defencemen have been trained to a 2:1:1:1 ratio.

Player 1 [20-127-19-43-65-66-65]
Player 2 [10-131-21-38-80-65-71]
Player 3 [13-142-12-15-74-75-73]
Player 4 [23-160-12-61-86-92-86]
Player 5 [12-176-22-30-94-52-88]
Player 6 [10-113-22-40-60-60-60]

If you need guidance on player training, I encourage everyone to use their scouting department to look at what the top teams are doing with their players. You can gather a lot more information from looking at the successful teams than you can from the guide.

I won't deny that 2:1:1 builds faster and moves the stars (and what was pucks) quicker, but I still stand firm on the 4:3:2>2:1:1. The fact the guide was changed to be more ambiguous to me means that before was a little too revealing.

do you mean that 4:3:2 is better than 2:1:1 at the same number of stars? Or that 4:3:2 is better with the same number of skill points for each player?

hahah spreadsheets take away the brain hurting.

I believe what he's saying is if you had centers, both with equal OR and equal Offensive skill, the center with 4-3-2 would be better than 2-1-1.

"All things equal" is the key there i believe.

So 100:75:50 would be better than 100:50:50.

I thought that would be pretty obvious.

Yes indeed, it is.

I'm on the fence re: the attributes, which is why I go 2-1.2-1, so the first of the secondaries is slightly higher than the 2nd one.

What canucks357 actually said is that if you have two players with the same amount of total points and the one is build to 2:1:1 ratio and the other player is built to 4:3:2 ratio then one would play better than the other.

Let's make an example for two defensemen. Both equally talented and trained overall 200 points for the main three atttributes: defense, pass, aggression.

The first is build to 2:1:1 ratio and will look like this: DEF 100, PASS 50 AGG 50.
The second player is built to 4:3:2 ratio and his attys would be: DEF 88, PASS 66, AGG 44.

The second player got the lower main 1st and 3rd skill (defense, aggression) but a much better secondary skill (passing). Which one will perform better?
The game engine suggests the first is the better player, as this one would be rated with 10 stars in the game recap, the second player would be rated with 8.8 stars only.

I remember Stan777 trained his players to 4:3:2. But his results last season were rather disappointing compared to his players overall skill level. And most of the other teams use 2:1:1, I guess (but I don't scout other teams, it's only a guess since most people on ppm prefer the 2:1:1 ratio).


But what if the game determines a line strengh first, then calculates the amount of shots on goal, and then distributes those shots to the five players on that line according to their skills. What if, when you have a line of players built to 2:1:1, then replace one winger with a 4:3:2 - built winger the latter will get "distributed" more shots just because of the higher trechnique skill? The other four players would get less shots then and on the surface the 4:3:2 guy would seem to play better, but he might be taking away quality shots from his teammates?