HTs on Global/Training
| From: | HT-Johan | (7831771.16) as reply to (7831771.15) | |
| To: Everyone | 10.01.2007 at 12:30 | ||
| In response to (7831762.17)
Now and then (like this week), someone starts complaining about his/her players not receiving training. When that happens suddenly it's like the whole HT-community has the same problem, and massive threads on Global and such start where people try to convince the HT's and each other that something must be wrong with the training of his/her players. Do you HT's consider some feature to cover this in the future, like the last date each player got his training or anything alike that enables these managers to check themselves within HT whether or not his/her players got their training or not? One of the reasons for the TSI value, historically, was for users to be able to see that there were some change in the underlying value in the player even when a player didn't level in his traing. This is a blunt instrument though, as sometimes the TSI moves even when there hasn't been a skill change, and vice versa. Users has always worried about their training, and this is - really - one of the worries that are most often completely unnecessary. The training can be delayed, but it is extremely rare that it fails. You will just have to assume that the system is working. So what about your suggestion to have a way to double-check this? It's not unconceivable, of course, but then we would need to worry about THAT feature working correctly or not, and it's in fact probable that such a function would be less reliable than the training updates, which we keep very good control of. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.29) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 15.01.2007 at 16:01 | ||
| Reply to (7831762.787)
One possibility of forcing managers to think multiple skills would be to have a skill roof. F.example if you think that each skill has 10 steps (I'm not talking about training steps). When you have trained divine 100%, you would have to train other skills to improve the player. I understand that this would be a major overhaul, and perhaps if not impossible, difficult and controversial to do. Is this something you might consider? Point is that we don't want to force anyone to train their players in a certain way. We don't want to force users to train multiskilled players, but we have taken actions to promote that kind of training because we want a huge variety of players. Forcing ppl to train multiskilled players will not favor a huge variety of players as noone would train singleskilled players in that case. It's not like we think there's anything wrong with singleskilled players, they have their place in this game too. So no, we will not implement a skill roof. How players are trained are up to the managers to decide, and if you choose to train multiskilled players you will get a better performing player for almost the same wage. That's the benefit. You don't have to do it, but you'll get more out of the same wage if you do it. My reason for this is the high salary on players that are trained god-knows-how-much levels above divine. This would bring a tactical aspect to the game Well, I would say a skill roof would bring a tactical aspect less (or several in fact) to the game as you will not need to think about how to train your player. You don't need to think about when to stop train your player in a certain skill, the roof will take care of that. And if you don't need to think how to train your players in the best way, then I would say we lost a bit of manager skill and tactic/strategic decisions. We've left this decision (how to train your players) to the managers, where the wage works like a soft cap (or a soft roof). A soft cap means managers need to make tactical and strategic decisions when training their players. You need to decide when to stop train a certain skill in order to be able to pay their salaries, or when you think you'll get the maximum amount of money for them on the transfer. Or if you should begin to train another one of his skill and get a multiskilled player, which will give you a better performance on the pitch without increasing the salary that much. Just because it's possible to train a player to divine doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.48) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 25.01.2007 at 16:47 | ||
| Reply to (7831762.744)
Would you change the absurd training system in the way we can train any player in a way not dependent of the formation. For example: Could we in a future train 6 forwards without having to field any X-X-3 formations with 6 different players.?. That's something we've discussed from time to time, to let at least some part of the training not be ruled by where a player played in his last match. I don't think the whole system will change, but we have discussed that you maybe could have one "free traning slot" (meaning= if you train forwards and want full training (six fw) you only need to play one match with 3 fw and one match with at least 2 fw) or something similar. Training more or less decides which formation you use, so a change could open up for a little bit more 'freedom' in the formation choice which could be good for the game. There are also some other ideas to consider if/when we want to spice up the old training system, like for example having "bonus points" to spend in a sort of extra training. To be honest I guess we can say that right now no idea to spice up the training has been finally dismissed (well, except for the really bad ones :)) and none has been decided upon either. But personally I find the above idea quite interesting. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.52) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 29.01.2007 at 15:52 | ||
| Reply to (7926938.183)
We had a misunderstanding in our "questions (german) forum". (7957283.1) It deals with the question, if it is possible to get training with a 3-3-4 formation! The translation of the official rules say that it can be and not that it is impossible. LA-EasternEagle told us, that there is no posibility for any training. But one user tells us the opposite. So, as far as I know, there won't be any training when playing such a formation. Who is right? Actually, both are in a way right. If you use an extreme formation you risk to lose training. This is what the rules (chapter 12) says about this: "Absence of training effect - If you use an extreme formation (for example 7 defenders), the confusion caused might be so total that the training for the whole week and any possible experience gains from the match are lost. Note that this risk only occurs when you have at least 2 players more than the default in one part of the team, like 6 defenders or 4 forwards" So, it is indeed possible to get training with a 3-3-4 formation. However, it's not very likely and I wouldn't recommend it. The system is after all designed not to benefit the use of extreme formations. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.58) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 05.02.2007 at 17:31 | ||
| Reply to (7831762.103)
1. Have you been thinking about eliminating the random factor from stamina training? It's quite annoying to see my wingers having less stamina after 4 seasons, just because they refuse to take part in stamina training. As stamina drops constantly, it should increase constantly as well. I think it's important to make one thing clear here: If you train stamina all players recieve stamina training, even if it's not always a whole skill step (sometimes it's a little bit more than a whole step, and sometimes it's a little bit less). Secondly, stamina drops aren't constant either as they to some extent also depend on the random factor. So, in that sense both stamina training and stamina drops are quite similar. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.68) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 12.02.2007 at 16:22 | ||
| Reply to (7926938.461)
Is it true that a player can get two trainings in one week if he is transfered between two teams with different training time? In a way, yes. He will recieve two trainings, but as he hasn't played any match for the second team the amount of training will be very small the second time. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.75) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 02.03.2007 at 16:04 | ||
| Reply to (7926938.686)
Do the players age during the season , training wise? That is: do they train more slowly at the end of the season? No, players train at the same speed all season long. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.126) as reply to (7831771.106) | |
| To: Everyone | 02.11.2007 at 16:25 | ||
| Reply to (10070922.6)
Set Pieces takers and Goalkeepers will also get a 25 % boost to their Set Pieces training Does this means that goalkeepers shouldn't be set pieces takers if one wants a maximum benefit from his training? Exactly. If the goalkeeper is also the set pieces taker he'll still only recieve 25% bonus. | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.127) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 15.11.2007 at 17:53 | ||
| Reply to (10070922.6)
Set Pieces takers and Goalkeepers will also get a 25 % boost to their Set Pieces training Does this means that goalkeepers shouldn't be set pieces takers if one wants a maximum benefit from his training? If you want to maximise your training, yes. A goalkeeper who is also the set pieces taker will not recieve both bonuses, only one (25%). | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.140) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 06.12.2007 at 17:57 | ||
| Reply to (10070922.245)
Hello i have new stamina training rule question. It is said that subs get half traing. But what if my player play league math normal and in cup as sub and dont get play? Will He get 100% or 50% stamina training? 100%. The game engine doesn't "notice" that he's on the bench, and as he has played during the week he will get 100% stamina training. (Even if he would have get to play in the cup (substitute someone because of an injury) he would have get 100% stamina training.) | |||
| From: | HT-Tjecken | (7831771.141) as reply to (7831771.1) | |
| To: Everyone | 07.12.2007 at 11:10 | ||
| Reply to (10070922.391)
we are now forced to give some stamina training (at least 5%) as part of the regular training, which causes a certain average drop in form. Are you considering to give the general (form) training similar status (% of training) so it would be possible to raise stamina training without hurting the form? No. | |||
| From: | flameron | (11866140.51) as reply to (11866140.43) | |
| To: Catalyst2950 | 18.9.2008 at 13:42 | ||
| If you ask me, training is much, much too slow, and we have too many training spots available.
Such a situation makes training all players for your own team impossible, as you've noticed yourself, and makes it absolutely necessary to buy players. However, if you don't have anything to sell because you are training multiskilled players for your own team, you don't have money to buy/replace as player prices are much too high. In the end, it comes down to this: train multiskilled and eventually lose, or train monoskilled, sell, hoard money, buy multiskilled from people who have had enough, and eventually win. I'm interested in this so please elaborate. Why training is too slow today (economy wise or game experience wise)? Why do you think teams should be able to train for their own use their entire squad (..same as above...)? What is your defintion to multiskill and why is it X and not Y. Why is it X skills per player or Y? Why in all the above certain things are better than the current situation? | |||
| From: | flameron | (11866140.151) as reply to (11866140.142) | |
| To: Ratsia | 19.9.2008 at 14:09 | ||
| In principle, yes. However, in practice you can compete well in practically all HT divisions with teams that consist essentially only of single-skilled players
Which are? Which skills make a player multi skill? Why? According to which formula? Why this formula is is the right one? Depending on your answers I would ask if you are sure the teams with single skill have the edge? I feel the discussion is not on the things you mean to discuss. Isn't it a discussion about game design? Which strategies each user prefer to be better then today? If it is why not just saying I want a game in which the best players are the ones with 4 titanic levels just because it more fun for me? Am I missing something here or is it just a question of how each user think the game will be better and more fun? If the above is the issue please stop those "objective" comments and use subjective ones that we can understand. The way it goes now I have no option to learn what the problem is in the eyes of specific users. For me, I prefer a game with a lot of choices, many strategies which are all balanced and dependent on planning, dedication and execution. I would love a game in which training your squad for your own is optional to a degree, maybe even only out of your youth pulls. There is no doubt that high price level (as it is now) is forcing training as a must. The higher the prices the higher the force to train. I think the pick of deflation made training to weak in power and had other negative side affects. | |||
