主题: Questions & Answers

IMO his 2nd secondary atty is WAY too low. Will be interesting to see how it goes though.

I'm trying to build him like Luongo. Goal and Tech: off the charts, but can't play the puck worth a crap.

roflol!!!!!

Ok, I guess we will never know then if it's pure speculation. I just thought somebody said something as a fact that I've managed to miss, so I had to ask.

I with you in that I believe much of the speculation is based on a limited test sample. For example those that proclaim the Academy broken because they got their best players on level 4 and now they are on level 8. Their just isn't a big enough sample to make that assertion.

Similarly the idea that a player will get worse based on the ratio just doesn't make any sense. I have always believed that it is completely ridiculous to say that a 100-80-70 player is better than a 100-100-100 player. However the idea of a law of diminishing returns coupled with opponents who continue to improve at a better ratio does. For example while I'm making my player 90-80-80 they are at 100-80-70 (this of course assumes the latter is the better which based on the guide would make sense) Or while I'm at 50-50-50, they are at 70-40-40. as a result they may begin outplaying my players so it appears the ratio is at fault when really its that the other team has gotten better.

Oil your a piece of work. That guy will be a sive!!! ROFL

Quote "I have always believed that it is completely ridiculous to say that a 100-80-70 player is better than a 100-100-100 player. "

Now this comment is ridiculous. READ the guide blues. A player 100:80:50 is BETTER than 80:80:80 it's in the guide!!! If you don't want to learn that's up to you. There is no question there is primary limit recognition that many of us have seen going back to BETA. Further moving secondary attys to get them to 50% of primary increases stars many of us have noted that fact.

Sample size? You have Thousands of managers playing games daily how much more sample size would you like. Eagles has very conclusively shown the WHEEL in his blogs. But the sample size likely not enough for you and your incomplete thinking. Afterall he doesn't have 10 million games in his pool for a statitical evaluation. Back in BETA folks tried just about everything. The flat builds just weren't as effective. We read the guide and saw the 100:80:50 player was better according to the devs than the 80:80:80 player. You can either accept what they have writen or not. If it's a choice between you or the devs as to who knows the game better I'm going with the devs and the guide.

The last few sentences make no sense. 50:50:50 versus 70:40:40 and your position is that the ratio is not what makes player B better than player A but "the team has gotten better". How in the world do you think the "team" got better? They got better through training!! Training players to an effective ratio. Effective being the key word. The team gets better through player development. It's so simple a concept a 10 year old can understand it!!

100:80:50 > 80:80:80 is completely different to saying
100:80:80 > 100:100:100

one has the primary the same the other doesnt.

You are quite funny, you say the comment of nsblues is rudiculous and in all that you say about his post, you prove you don't understand what he is telling. It's like cavaelen says: 100:80:50 > 80:80:80 is completely different to saying
100:80:80 > 100:100:100.

READ my comment before you respond as cavaelen rightly pointed out. Your INCOMPLETE thinking and INCOMPLETE reading has only made you look like a fool.

I am responding directly to the people that say a player gets worse by getting to close to 1:1:1. I am arguing that the player has not gotten worse but that other teams have gotten better. I also agreed with popaji's assessment, thus where the comment about small sample size came from, that people were merely "remembering" that a player was better or worse without taking into account the many other factors that can influence why a player plays better or worse on any given day.

In addition Stan777 I am sick and tired of your condescending attitude and the way you talk down to me. I think its best in the future if you do what I have chosen to do and not respond to my posts. In fact I wouldn't have responded to this one if I didn't feel the need to point out that you were completely ignorant of my entire point, and that taking the time to actually read basic numbers might do you some good. you know numbers A SIMPLE CONCEPT A 10 YEAR OLD CAN UNDERSTAND.

yo guys, take it easy here, stop looking for eachother like this!

Stan, by writing "100" do you mean a number value or a percentage value of 1st att?

No it isn't. You might be having a little trouble with grade 2 math. The 100:80:50 player is 230 total atty value. The 80:80:80 player is 240 total atty value. The player with lower total atty value is the BETTER player. I play several develop oriented SIM games. It's what I do well. blues example is just an extension of what the guide has made very CLEAR. Flat builds are not as good as 4:3:2 builds. It's been tested going back to BETA. If you don't want to except the results that's on you. Think you know more than the devbs who wrote the code live in your fantasy world. They wrote the guide!! By the way the 100:80:80 player is absolutely better than the 100:100:100 player. You folks might not except there are penalties for excess builds in the game engine. Myself and others have found this to be true. I'm trying to help so folks have better players and also am trying to give a reasonable answer as to why the guides 2 examples of the "best" player is in fact accurate. Except it or not.

You've miised my key point at the initial post. I'm trying to answer the question everyone has asked which is how the 2 examples in the guide arrive at "best" players. No one else has come up with a theory that works that I have read atleast. I was sharing my observations to help folks.

The numbers may be different but the theory behind it is not. My belief is there is a penalty applied for excessive secondary atty build versus prime. Accept it or not that's your choice. The theory I applied is directly related to my initial post and the guide. You can accept it or not your choice. Come up with a different interpretation that works I'm certainly willing to consider it. My post was meant to help folks understand the guide through developing a theory on it and letting each person evaluate it for themselves, nothing more.

I know this question has been asked before but can someone remind me which tactics counter others?
For example I believe Defensive works well against Offensive tactic.
Thanks