|
Post by boucthesurvivor on Jul 30, 2007 12:03:10 GMT 1
Or 32 weeks.... ;D
--->[]
|
|
|
Post by orophin on Jul 30, 2007 12:56:06 GMT 1
Yes, also on a scout the highest skill will be halved after 2 seasons. Again, i maintain my comment, that a really dumb decision. In real life there is no coach that will drop 50% of his knlodege. If he's really good he will ask more money to continue training the team but his skills are intact. If we want this game to became more and more realistic, i think with this kind of measures, we are getting far and far from that goal.
|
|
|
Post by gelies on Jul 30, 2007 13:09:07 GMT 1
the decrease in the skill is not an actual decrease on the trainer knowledge, but an increase on boredom, which is going to affect the performance of the trainer. another solution would be create a new skill called boredom which increase every 32 weeks! but seems stupid to me....
the actual one is a nice solution, and make also training more tactical!
thumbs up!
|
|
|
Post by stefkeswoon on Jul 30, 2007 13:20:12 GMT 1
You're going a little heavy, I guess. This game doesn't become irrealistic because of this one particular measure. The intention of it is great. Remember that the adjustment to sprints and the change in training intensity (and a bunch of other features of this game) are done to make this game more credible. I think it's very harsh to say that IP and his crew aren't improving this game in a realistic way.
And about your own proposal regarding the rising wages of scouts/trainers: that would make scouting and training easier for well performing teams, because they can afford high wages. Teams that run break-even won't be able to keep their men and are thus forced to hire new ones. That's not good. Teams shouldn't get a training/scouting punish for their malperformance.
|
|
|
Post by Lennie_Briscoe on Jul 30, 2007 15:28:12 GMT 1
i think for the youth scout it's the right thing to do or else who reach first the 1,8million peak will have a great advantage....but for the trainer it's not so right,i agree that something has to be done in order to make a coach useless after some times but halving his highest skill means that everybody will train only one skill for two season....i wanted to train 4weeks a skiil,4weeks another but now with the same cost now it's better for me to have a trainer with 20 for two season and than change training...this will lead to an omologation of the market,we ar going to have only raiders pumped in one skill...
|
|
|
Post by orophin on Jul 30, 2007 16:04:34 GMT 1
You're going a little heavy, I guess. This game doesn't become irrealistic because of this one particular measure. The intention of it is great. Remember that the adjustment to sprints and the change in training intensity (and a bunch of other features of this game) are done to make this game more credible. I think it's very harsh to say that IP and his crew aren't improving this game in a realistic way. And about your own proposal regarding the rising wages of scouts/trainers: that would make scouting and training easier for well performing teams, because they can afford high wages. Teams that run break-even won't be able to keep their men and are thus forced to hire new ones. That's not good. Teams shouldn't get a training/scouting punish for their malperformance. And what about teams like mine that are starting now? It is worthy to spend so much money on a coach and see that in two seasons he will drop 50% of one skill. If I have a coach only with one skill (because i'm starting now and don't have money to buy a all round specialized coach or a pair of them) with bad luck on the end of the second season I will have a trainer that is 50% worst which means that i will need to buy a new coach. Is this going to help small teams? I don't think so, on the contrary. it wiil increase the difference between big and small teams. Bigger teams have money to buy coaches almost every year but small teams have to stick with it's decreased coach. I don't see any reasonable explanation to put in practice this rule. About the increase of wage, it would be also difficult for small teams but at least it would be more realistic than this "maniac" idea of droping skills
|
|
|
Post by CableGuy on Jul 30, 2007 16:42:50 GMT 1
Well, in fact, this implementation is a means of making the game more realistic. Maybe not litteraly (coach or scout skills barely decrease), but the result is more realistic: there is no cycling team that hires a coach for life. Coaches retire, coaches are fired, coaches become old-fashioned, coaches have to study new tactics, coaches become uniterested or bored, a newly attracted top cyclist can introduce a new coach as part of his contract negotiation, and so on ... We can't translate all these kinds of actions in separate events, but the solution chosen will represent any of these actions (choose one if you wish). We want you to think about your future plans when looking for a new coach. You have to think about it more than you do now. Will I hire a more expensive multiskilled coach which allows me to switch training (and/or to fitness) for the first seasons, and becomes a less skilled (or single skilled) trainer after that, and at the end, when he looses his last useful skill, has to be replaced. And yes, you can 'steer' this a little bit by hiring a 19-0-19-0-0-0-20 for instance, making him drop in fitness after 32 weeks, but only in mountain or flat after 48 weeks. And after yet again 16 weeks of training in the remaining 19-skill, I probably need to replace him. And with the next one, I then probably will concentrate more on the skill that dropped the earliest to make my cyclists more balanced again ... and so on. Or add the sprint skill 20 to him instead of fitness to use in the first 2 seasons, but to sacrifice earlier than the other skills. Or I can choose cheaper monoskilled coaches, which can be brought to a higher mood more easily, and replace these every 32 weeks. Switching training type is then only a long term strategy which can bring me success in some races, but maybe is less profitable when training multiskilled cyclists will lead to higher transfer prices, which we hope. When after some time, also the skill increase speed will drop significantly for the higher skills, you might be better of with multiskilled coaches. Or maybe not? Time will tell ... but you will be the one that has to think about it. These new facts will make you think more about your training strategy, and that is also our intention. And at the same time it is needed to get some money out of the teams' economy, since the balance now is overly positive for almost all teams. About the scout: a similar explanation can be given. At the end, when a 20-20-20 scout drops in a random skill, it is your decision to continue with him or not. If selling younger cyclists is your main goal, then perception is maybe the most important (maybe you could switch to a 20-20-19 next time). If you want to train your youngsters yourself, you might be interested in a higher future ability, but don't mind if the cyclists are only scouted with a 10-skilled current ability. These new game elements introduce more choices, and a bit of luck ... but are mainly intended to challenge you as a manager.
|
|
|
Post by stefkeswoon on Jul 30, 2007 17:17:22 GMT 1
And what about teams like mine that are starting now? It is worthy to spend so much money on a coach and see that in two seasons he will drop 50% of one skill. If I have a coach only with one skill (because i'm starting now and don't have money to buy a all round specialized coach or a pair of them) with bad luck on the end of the second season I will have a trainer that is 50% worst which means that i will need to buy a new coach. Is this going to help small teams? I don't think so, on the contrary. it wiil increase the difference between big and small teams. Bigger teams have money to buy coaches almost every year but small teams have to stick with it's decreased coach. I don't see any reasonable explanation to put in practice this rule. About the increase of wage, it would be also difficult for small teams but at least it would be more realistic than this "maniac" idea of droping skills On top of Cableguy's arguments, I'd like to add that hiring two trainers with 1 skill on 20 costs the same as hiring one trainer with 2 skills on 20. There's no difference in prize, which means smaller teams AREN'T financially disadvantaged. I just don't see how your trainer would be 50% worse than someone elses. The only advantage of hiring a multiskilled trainer lies in the option of frequently switching your type of training, instead of switching it every two years. But again: that's NOT a financial advantage, only a tactical advantage which very likely won't cause much differences.
|
|
|
Post by newborn on Jul 30, 2007 17:32:01 GMT 1
i find the trainer changes not so good, just because i have saved and spend money on a 20-20-20-20-20-20-20 trainer, so in 32 weeks it will be a complete guess for me which skill will drop. If i have the chance of buying one now, i would buy a 19 - 20 - 18 - 20 - 19 - 18 - 17 trainer if you know what I mean...
|
|
|
Post by Lennie_Briscoe on Jul 30, 2007 17:47:02 GMT 1
The only advantage of hiring a multiskilled trainer lies in the option of frequently switching your type of training, instead of switching it every two years. But again: that's NOT a financial advantage, only a tactical advantage which very likely won't cause much differences. For how i see things Peloton was very good for the range of tactical options there were possible,now for the training there aren't no more...everybody will train the same skill for two years then switch ro continue will now i could even have trained one skill for week...
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Jul 30, 2007 18:00:53 GMT 1
For how i see things Peloton was very good for the range of tactical options there were possible,now for the training there aren't no more...everybody will train the same skill for two years then switch ro continue will now i could even have trained one skill for week... Well, time will tell if it's really going to be like that. The trainingspeeds will be adjusted as well, so that it will take (much) longer for your cyclists to increase in their skill if this pretty high. So when the trainer is ready renewal, you could decide to train the cyclists' other skills for a while, because these could be trained faster. This way you could create all round decent cyclists. I can tell you that in order for a cyclist to reach the maximum of 20, you will have to be *very* patient and only the really talented cyclists (meaning, with a vey high future ability) will be able to make it until 20.
|
|
|
Post by orophin on Jul 30, 2007 21:36:39 GMT 1
(..)a more expensive multiskilled coach which allows me to switch training (and/or to fitness) for the first seasons, and becomes a less skilled (or single skilled) trainer after that, and at the end, when he looses his last useful skill, has to be replaced. And yes, you can 'steer' this a little bit by hiring a 19-0-19-0-0-0-20 for instance, making him drop in fitness after 32 weeks, but only in mountain or flat after 48 weeks. And after yet again 16 weeks of training in the remaining 19-skill, I probably need to replace him. And with the next one, I then probably will concentrate more on the skill that dropped the earliest to make my cyclists more balanced again ... and so on. Or add the sprint skill 20 to him instead of fitness to use in the first 2 seasons, but to sacrifice earlier than the other skills.(...) I didn't understand this part. How can I force a coach to drop 50% on a certain skill?
|
|
|
Post by CableGuy on Jul 30, 2007 23:30:01 GMT 1
You don't have to force him, we'll do that for you. No, honnestly, the fact that one of his skill drops with 50% is just a presentational form of letting you know that he lost interest in the job or is running behind with the newest techniques.
|
|
|
Post by Lennie_Briscoe on Jul 31, 2007 0:11:50 GMT 1
For how i see things Peloton was very good for the range of tactical options there were possible,now for the training there aren't no more...everybody will train the same skill for two years then switch ro continue will now i could even have trained one skill for week... Well, time will tell if it's really going to be like that. The trainingspeeds will be adjusted as well, so that it will take (much) longer for your cyclists to increase in their skill if this pretty high. So when the trainer is ready renewal, you could decide to train the cyclists' other skills for a while, because these could be trained faster. This way you could create all round decent cyclists. I can tell you that in order for a cyclist to reach the maximum of 20, you will have to be *very* patient and only the really talented cyclists (meaning, with a vey high future ability) will be able to make it until 20. yes the change in the training speed was a very good thing,my doubt are only regarding the training options... now i can hire a biskilled trainer and train 4weeks one skil,4weeks another and so on(or 8 and 8)...or i can have a monoskill and train only one thing or i can change every season the monoskill.... with the changes with the same money it's better to have a monoskill for 32weeks and than another monoskill so i fear everybody will face training in the same way.... but of course only time will give us the answer... edit:btw i agree that something must be done for force the teams to change trainer or else who have more money form the start will have a big advantage
|
|
|
Post by CableGuy on Jul 31, 2007 7:26:07 GMT 1
now i can hire a biskilled trainer and train 4weeks one skil,4weeks another and so on(or 8 and 8)...or i can have a monoskill and train only one thing or i can change every season the monoskill.... with the changes with the same money it's better to have a monoskill for 32weeks and than another monoskill so i fear everybody will face training in the same way.... We think you still have both (or even more) options, and though the cost involved is different, they all can still be worthwhile. Monoskilled coach: - Lower hiring cost - Cheaper to excite, rather low wage - 2 seasons lifetime Biskilled coach: - Double hiring cost - Double cost in wage - 3 seasons lifetime - Flexibility: training switch possible during 2 seasons to generate more balanced cyclists. When opting for a 20-19 skilled coach, you could train your cyclists for instance 8 weeks on skill 20, 4 weeks on skill 19, 8 weeks on skill 20, 4 weeks on skill 19, 8 weeks on skill 20, 16 weeks on skill 19 (20 is halved by then). - Finetuning: before selling cyclists you can finetune them if you suspect them to be high in a skill that your trainer has, and after he pops, continue with the other training Multiskilled coach: - Even higher cost - Probably less suitable to get to delighted mood - More suited for skilltrading purposes where flexibility is extensively wanted - Possibility to put accents; which training skill will stand the longest (also possible with biskilled off course) can be steered by using different values - Managers that like to be surprised every 16 weeks, could off course take a 20-20-20-20-20-20-20 and have 8 seasons of fun, except if fitness turns out to be selected as the last skill to drop
|
|