|
Post by ohdaesu on Dec 6, 2011 18:09:54 GMT 2
What about if I have a player reaching 51 in a skill before the training changings ? ;D (seriously) Do you have near to 50 really?
|
|
|
Post by LA-wezegaga on Dec 6, 2011 18:14:30 GMT 2
What about if I have a player reaching 51 in a skill before the training changings ? ;D (seriously) Do you have near to 50 really? Well I have a guy at 43 but I didn't train him in this skill from the beginning so I guess it's possible very soon My feeling about training (and I made some changings recently because of that) is that it's really faster for young players than for example a 25yo guy. So it's more interesting to train a lower 17yo than a 23 ou 24yo with a higher skill because the 17yo will take advantage very quickly on the older one (3 days vs 10 for a up for a 17 and a 25yo from what I saw in my team).
|
|
|
Post by vanquisher on Dec 6, 2011 18:54:43 GMT 2
What about if I have a player reaching 51 in a skill before the training changings ? ;D (seriously) Do you have near to 50 really? My fullback has 48 speed. His salary is 3900.
|
|
|
Post by pousspa on Dec 7, 2011 20:55:46 GMT 2
Few suggestions: Do not add too many updates in once in training as it would be difficult to get players feeling about specific changes. - Talent per skill: too complicated at the beginning perhaps later
- Talent per players: good
- 100% training for the one who played a full match in the week else decrease per minutes played until 25% for the one who did not play
- General training (or 2 main training like today) set up.
Allow specific training for each player is complicated for players and dev furthermore it would not encourage the players market
- perhaps create skill trainer (like for player)
--> allow a player to become a trainer when retire from competition
|
|
|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 7, 2011 21:23:52 GMT 2
I agree talent per skill is complicated, but now the game is too simple. For example, if you train a centre, you know you have to train him speed, then breakthroughs, then tackling. But if talent per skill will be introduced, the job of the manager will become more challenging. So this will certainly be introduced soon. Training only for players who played is the only rule I don't like in Hattrick. Is very unrealistic.
All players training vs 8 players training => I will think more about that
|
|
|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 7, 2011 21:37:25 GMT 2
I found in an old topic a suggestion from Getas:
This could be an alternative to every skill talent.
|
|
|
Post by LA-wezegaga on Dec 7, 2011 22:04:39 GMT 2
I agree talent per skill is complicated, but now the game is too simple. For example, if you train a centre, you know you have to train him speed, then breakthroughs, then tackling. But if talent per skill will be introduced, the job of the manager will become more challenging. So this will certainly be introduced soon. Training only for players who played is the only rule I don't like in Hattrick. Is very unrealistic. All players training vs 8 players training => I will think more about that Salaries should be exponential with the biggest main skill, then training won't be as simple as it is now because you could decide to rise a second main skill to imporve your player without paying more salary (right now I don't feel like salaries rise quickly, maybe I'm wrong) About new ideas, I think that more phrases and new ones in the match report would be good, because it's not instructive enough right now (maybe we're asking a lot too early ^^). What about making stamina training a collective one ? (all the team) We can consider it's telling players to run around the field, so why 4 and not all ? It's more realistic
|
|
|
Post by ohdaesu on Dec 7, 2011 22:29:34 GMT 2
When skills get higher and get close to its potential or highest value, it should be harder to improve. This idea seems rational. Like in a basketball game i played. But i support the talent against potential. 100 for a skill must be reachable but it also must be very harder,espicially harder after 80. The talent shows its effect in training speed. And the salary may also be a serious problem that a team with 3 superplayers or over should have budget problem because of salary. With this many effects, managing with good balance will be the key of success.
|
|
|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 7, 2011 23:04:44 GMT 2
When skills get higher and get close to its potential or highest value, it should be harder to improve. This idea seems rational. Like in a basketball game i played. But i support the talent against potential. 100 for a skill must be reachable but it also must be very harder,espicially harder after 80. The talent shows its effect in training speed. And the salary may also be a serious problem that a team with 3 superplayers or over should have budget problem because of salary. With this many effects, managing with good balance will be the key of success. If a player has speed 20 and potential 15 he will continue to train, but about 4 times slower, so it's posible to get 99.99 at speed, but it's harder. Also, in real life, not every player has Habana's speed or D. Carter's kicking skill. So potential seems more realistic. The salary now is based only on player best skill. If I make salary based on player 3 best skills, then the salaries will be higher for multi-skill players, so there will be a budget problem when haveing 2-3 superstars.
|
|
|
Post by ohdaesu on Dec 8, 2011 9:16:23 GMT 2
At the end, what is the decision of training system? Potential or talent?or both? What does effect on training speed? *Player's age? *distance to his potential high in training speed? *if there is also a talent factor may support an advantage but not very much? *if there is trainers their levels or skill points?
And what will be the effect factor of these? Some may effect more than others. Especially age must have more effect in my opinion. 17-21 age players should have a real advantage.
|
|
|
Post by LA-wezegaga on Dec 8, 2011 10:32:06 GMT 2
The salary now is based only on player best skill. If I make salary based on player 3 best skills, then the salaries will be higher for multi-skill players, so there will be a budget problem when haveing 2-3 superstars. Yeah, but if salaries get high quickly, it'll push managers to have a more multiskilled squad in order to reduce the salarial mass of the team.
|
|
|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 8, 2011 14:28:37 GMT 2
The salary now is based only on player best skill. If I make salary based on player 3 best skills, then the salaries will be higher for multi-skill players, so there will be a budget problem when haveing 2-3 superstars. Yeah, but if salaries get high quickly, it'll push managers to have a more multiskilled squad in order to reduce the salarial mass of the team. The salary will formula will encourage users to have oneskilled players.
|
|
|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 8, 2011 14:30:48 GMT 2
At the end, what is the decision of training system? Potential or talent?or both? What does effect on training speed? *Player's age? *distance to his potential high in training speed? *if there is also a talent factor may support an advantage but not very much? *if there is trainers their levels or skill points? And what will be the effect factor of these? Some may effect more than others. Especially age must have more effect in my opinion. 17-21 age players should have a real advantage. Final, final decision: potential and all players traninig. The training speed will be affected by: player age, coach and potential. Coaches will have level, like they have now. Players will train 100% if their skill is lower than potential and about 25% if their skill is higher than potential.
|
|
|
Post by LA-wezegaga on Dec 8, 2011 14:31:22 GMT 2
Yeah, but if salaries get high quickly, it'll push managers to have a more multiskilled squad in order to reduce the salarial mass of the team. The salary will formula will encourage users to have oneskilled players. Monoskilled players ? Well ... I don't think it goes to a higher level of management : you'll only have to train every player in the 1rst primary skill of his place in the squad (that is to say more or less strength for forwards and speed for backs, excepted flankers, n°8, scrumhalf and n°15)
|
|
|
Post by RS-icsulescu on Dec 8, 2011 20:49:27 GMT 2
The salary will formula will encourage users to have oneskilled players. Monoskilled players ? Well ... I don't think it goes to a higher level of management : you'll only have to train every player in the 1rst primary skill of his place in the squad (that is to say more or less strength for forwards and speed for backs, excepted flankers, n�8, scrumhalf and n�15) The salary will encourage having monskilled players, but the potential will encourage having multiskilled players => higher level of management .
|
|