|
|
Post by essesselles1 on Mar 27, 2009 12:16:04 GMT 1
After 36 (or 16) weeks the trainer will lose 10 points in a random skill. In my opinion is that to much, it's better to have a decrease with only 5 points. Most of the teams just buy another trainer when their favorite skill drops 10 points. Because of that they don't (have to) train the trainer. As a result of that a lot of the teams have a trainer with only one skill at level 20.
|
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Mar 27, 2009 13:09:48 GMT 1
You're correct. This was also the reason why the skill decrease was implemented: so that players have to spend some of their money.
|
|
|
|
Post by geengebruikersnaam on Mar 27, 2009 15:02:59 GMT 1
I understand that there has to be some kind of a skill decrease, but I would change some things:
- The first time my trainer had a decrease, he had 20 flat, 20 hill and 20 fitness. Up to then, I always trained flat, and I just changed to hill when my trainer had a decrease in hill. So, very unlucky for me, but I knew this could happen. So I trained flat for another 10 weeks untill my trainer was 20 hill again, but I saw that there would be a skill decrease within 16 weeks. I would make this period longer, for instance 36 weeks again.
- When my trainer had 20 hill again, I trained hill for 6 weeks, till the other decrease. I opened Peloton and I saw that the decrease was again on hill. I didn't want to wait 10 weeks again, so I bought a new trainer with 20 hill. Perhaps it should be better that a trainer can't decrease twice for the same skill after you just re-educated your trainer to that skill.
Because this way - like it happened now - I lost €500.000 (100.000 for re-educating my trainer to 20 hill again + 400.000 for the new trainer), just by being unlucky, and it's sad that it is possible to lose such an amount of money in a manager game, just by being unlucky.
Imagine that my trainer decreased in fitness the first time, and in flat the second time, I could have saved this €500.000 AND I would have been able to train hill after the first decrease, which was the intention.
You can say that this is just part of the game, but it feels not right that certain teams have an advantage of €500.000 just by being lucky. That's no longer a manager game but a lotery.
Finally, if you don't like the two suggestions I made above, think about this one:
- For monoskill trainers, I agree with a decrease of 10.
- For multiskill trainers, let there be a decrease of 10, but divided into the several skills. For instance, a trainer with 20 flat - 20 hill - 20 fitness could be 16 flat - 17 hill - 17 fitness after the decrease. This way, everybody is equal, and the game wouldn't be based on luck anymore (as it should be).
|
|
|
|
Post by chakra on Mar 27, 2009 18:33:59 GMT 1
I think it is quiet difficult to not let the trainer decrease after re-education, but that is up to the designers and the IT-people.
If I would have to choose one of the first idea's I would prefer to increase the period of decreasing the trainer up to at least 26 weeks. (decreasing a skill with 10 points: needs 10 weeks to re-educate the trainer + 16 weeks which is the period of 1 season = 26 weeks with a possible bonus of 10 weeks = 36 weeks)
Nice idea to spread the decrease of 10 into the several skills.
Still it needs some finetuning. Suppose you have a trainer with all skills=20. How man skills will be decreased, which skills are going to be decreased and by how much?
The idea nevertheless seems very fair and no lotery will be involved.
|
|
gillias
Amateur Team
1ste Divisie 3:9! 8ste divisie 2:2!
Posts: 151
|
Post by gillias on Mar 27, 2009 18:38:47 GMT 1
Making the difference 36 weeks again is a good idea i mean... why would a trainer decrease skills in 16 weeks some trainers only have an age of 34 so why should they forget ....
Maybe it is an idea to not make it random and let us pick which skill will be decreased...
|
|
|
|
Post by geengebruikersnaam on Mar 27, 2009 19:51:58 GMT 1
Maybe it is an idea to not make it random and let us pick which skill will be decreased... Hmm... seems a bit difficult, f.i. if I have a trainer with 20 flat and 15 mountain, it wouldn't be fair to let me decrease the mountain-skill, because I wasn't training that anyway. I don't want to 'control' the decrease, but it's just frustrating that a considerable amount of money just depends on luck. 26 weeks like chakra said sounds ok for me, that makes 10 weeks of re-education + 16 weeks of training (1 season). About not twice a decrease for the same skill you are training your trainer you're right, that sounds pretty hard to implement. After thinking a while, my idea of a small decrease for every skill isn't that good as I thought in the beginning. A trainer would then have f.i. 16 flat - 17 hill - 17 mountain after the decrease, so I would have to train 3 weeks with a trainer that is not 20 on a skill. There has to be a better solution... |
|
|
|
Post by essesselles1 on Mar 30, 2009 0:37:05 GMT 1
I agree with geengebruikersnaam and chakra to make the period for the decrease of a training skill longer and at least 26 weeks. To compesate that financially (and let the players spend more money) the price for learning a skill could be € 15.000 p/w instead of € 10.000 p/w. This together makes it more attractive to have a multiskill trainer (and more multiskill cyclists).
|
|
|
|
Post by chakra on Mar 30, 2009 15:42:59 GMT 1
I think if the education-price of the trainer is increased, players won't train the trainer in another skill. I myself would be more interested than in buying a new trainer with a 20 skill and upgrade his mood.
Speed against costs and gains in progression of the racers.
|
|
