Talk:Ten Principle Approach
Should we really advise people to buy a passable/poor coach? IMO the key to success early is promoting and surviving in V (or VI or so in a larger country) THEN buying a Solid coach. Seems to me like by advising people to buy passable/poor, we're making a breed of farm teams instead of competitors. To get people interested in the game, they need to see success is within grasp. Nothing teaches that better than winning and learning how to manage TS early on. Yes, training is important, but so are sponsor revenue, gate receipts, and prize money. It's very possible to run a successful training program without a passable trainer... I did it my first two seasons. Buying passable/poor seems like a waste of money to me. I'd much rather tell my friends to buy inadequate/passable and start winning and establish their training program with the revenue from gate receipts. --Catalyst 20:22:13, 2005-12-21 (UTC)
Change it. Or add a note. Or create a THIRD version of the 10 principle approach. ;) I agree it's bad advice but was too lazy to change it myself when I read it a couple of weeks ago.
Btw, I'm surprised newbie guides haven't proliferated more on HT wiki. When I started playing HT, that seemed like a big thing for people to do, write newbie guides. I must have read dozens of them. (And still started by training keepers!) --septimusjm 01:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Me too actually... I think keepers are most definitely a great option for starting managers that want the quick turnover to get on their feet. That and wingers. But I'm afraid we're in the minority on that one... --Catalyst 01:25:31, 2005-12-22 (UTC)
I still advise newbs to get a passable/poor coach initially. I still think it's good advice for some situations, although I don't know how widespread those situations are in the U.S. even (and especially other countries).
Here's my reasoning:
- In the average VI series, the competition isn't really on top of things. Even poor leadership still leaves opportunities for leveraging TS management, and even a little TS management is enough to get a leg up on the competition.
- Building a platform for long-term success is also important, so the team doesn't stagnate, and the best way to do that is to hit the ground running with your training program. A solid coach is not affordable for a new team, and a passable coach is only affordable with poor leadership.
Here are the caveats:
- Even in an average V series, very careful TS management may be enough to earn a qualifier instead of an autodemotion (hard for me to be sure of this, because being in IV I don't really follow where the average V series sits these days)
- In a more established or upwardly-mobile VI series, there may be stiff competition where careful TS management is necessary for early success
--Mr Wednesday 23:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I have my own newbie guide online in HTML format, but I don't really feel inspired to port it here. For one thing, it's probably out of date, I edit it infrequently. :)
--Mr Wednesday 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's take the "average VI" to be the middle-of-the-road VI out of those filled to capacity, since only a few managers get the "privilege" of competing in a league with 7 bots (228 out of ~3500 or 6.5% according to Maptrick). IMO the average VI is getting better than ever... just take a look at Hatstats, over 300 VIs put up average HSRs of 80 or better. Yeah, it's not hard to achieve 80, but that will put you at 4th in those leagues. With crowds for these clubs lower than ever (since they start with 100 supporters instead of 500), it seems to me that it's absolutely important to win games and place at least 2nd in the series to have long-term success in Hattrick. If we advise teams to buy a passable/poor coach blindly, they're bound to end up in a very tough position unable to promote or get better. I think it needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis, but we certainly shouldn't advise starting clubs to get a passable/poor no matter what.
As far as the competing in V part goes, let me tell you from experience that in about 1/4 the Vs out there you need at least inadequate LS to stay afloat, let alone land in the top half. I'm in a V in that top quarter, but I'd say from looking at Hatstats that you'd only be able to win maybe 2% of the Vs out there with poor LS. I'm not saying that means that a starting player should buy a coach with high LS right away... it depends on whether or not they'll promote their first season (back to that 6.5% again), what training program they're using, and how much cash they'll have when they make the jump to spend on a coach.
What I'm saying though is for the majority of managers out there, buying a passable/poor isn't going to be nearly as profitable as getting a coach with good LS would be. Starting managers can't afford to buy the trainees needed to make a training program profitable enough to justify sacrificing a few wins for a week less of training per pop. It's very important to upgrade to passable or solid down the line when you can afford one with decent LS, but with the way VIs have gotten much better in the last few seasons, poor LS doesn't guarantee a win for 80% of those competing in a VI, and it certainly doesn't give the manager bang for their buck. --Catalyst 00:12:08, 2006-01-04 (UTC)
One thing that I've observed during my time with a poor leadership coach (or less) at both the V level and the IV level is that it's still possible to manage TS if you have a decent team leader and can make it to at least the third round in the cup. I think TS management with low-leadership coaches is underrated. It tends to front-load your ability to play MOTS (since you absolutely have to have a couple of PIC games to recover), so that you really only get one shot at the end of the season, though.
I'm not saying I'd trade my current passable coach for lower leadership, of course -- it was wonderful to be able to accumulate TS the way I can now after I upgraded, and I'm no longer pushed into heavy PIC usage after being bounced from the cup.
Another thought that occurs to me is, if new teams will have more difficulty drawing crowds, it becomes more imperative that they get training off to a good start, because the money they can earn by trading in their excess capacity becomes even larger relative to crowd revenue.
--Mr Wednesday 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)