|
|
Post by angelogik on Aug 23, 2019 14:35:41 GMT 1
for my trainer coach, trained skills 10-16-20-15-15, sum skills 76 (x5 training skills), i pay a weekly salary of 346.930, other trainer (for example ALESANA), trained skills 13-13-17-13-15-16 (2 fitness not counted), sum skills 84 (x6 training skills) has a salary of 286.371, 60.000 less with 6 more skills points, why this difference? A-series coaches and B-series coaches?
|
|
|
|
Post by naspa on Aug 23, 2019 14:58:10 GMT 1
for my trainer coach, trained skills 10-16-20-15-15, sum skills 76 (x5 training skills), i pay a weekly salary of 346.930, other trainer (for example ALESANA), trained skills 13-13-17-13-15-16 (2 fitness not counted), sum skills 84 (x6 training skills) has a salary of 286.371, 60.000 less with 6 more skills points, why this difference? A-series coaches and B-series coaches? 20s are bloody exspensive. Many managers train at level 18 or 19. Try unlearn option on the 20 -will not have any effect until the weeken updat- and see the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by angelogik on Aug 23, 2019 17:30:46 GMT 1
for my trainer coach, trained skills 10-16-20-15-15, sum skills 76 (x5 training skills), i pay a weekly salary of 346.930, other trainer (for example ALESANA), trained skills 13-13-17-13-15-16 (2 fitness not counted), sum skills 84 (x6 training skills) has a salary of 286.371, 60.000 less with 6 more skills points, why this difference? A-series coaches and B-series coaches? 20s are bloody exspensive. Many managers train at level 18 or 19. Try unlearn option on the 20 -will not have any effect until the weeken updat- and see the difference. no way, it's too many difference, 1x20 ugual 1x17 + 1x13 and other 60.000 difference? i try decreased 20 at 19, wage decreased to 38000, i mean that count is not correct |
|
|
|
Post by dustin on Aug 23, 2019 18:15:58 GMT 1
>15
Alesana 3
16: 16
17: 16 17
you: 6
16: 16
20: 16 17 18 19 20
that is a big difference
Look at a trainer decrease howmany down it goes
|
|
|
|
Post by naspa on Aug 24, 2019 8:45:08 GMT 1
Yes, the increase of wage correlates in an exponential way to the increase of skills.
You can have the opinion that this is not correct, but it has always been in the Peloton as one of the important game choices one has to make. Is training at skill 20 affordable and worth the costs?
As a strategy you basically see people with multiple skill trainers train on a lower level. (I stick with 19 when I am training 3+ skills)
With one or two skill-trainers it is doable to play at 20. (I prefer that strategy, but you need the right riders selection for this.)
|
|
|
|
Post by angelogik on Aug 24, 2019 9:37:36 GMT 1
.. the increase of wage correlates in an exponential way to the increase of skills. You can have the opinion that this is not correct, but it has always been in the Peloton as one of the important game choices one has to make. Is training at skill 20 affordable and worth the costs? what you wrote, if it is true, is not strategy, it is just a programming error ... in two weeks the training 20 will become 15 and therefore I will surely know what's wrong, then i know  |
|
|
|
Post by Poekie on Aug 24, 2019 15:23:34 GMT 1
what you wrote, if it is true, is not strategy, it is just a programming error ...
Why do you think it's not working as intended by the programmer?
|
|
|
|
Post by evild on Aug 24, 2019 16:15:32 GMT 1
.. the increase of wage correlates in an exponential way to the increase of skills. You can have the opinion that this is not correct, but it has always been in the Peloton as one of the important game choices one has to make. Is training at skill 20 affordable and worth the costs? what you wrote, if it is true, is not strategy, it is just a programming error ... in two weeks the training 20 will become 15 and therefore I will surely know what's wrong, then i know I'm confused... what is wrong according to you? Seems logical to me that the higher your skill becomes the more you pay for it? |
|
|
|
Post by angelogik on Aug 24, 2019 18:50:07 GMT 1
first value my trainer, second value other trainer:
20 > 17 (difference +3 for my trainer)
16 = 16
15 = 15
15 > 13 (difference +2 for my trainer)
10 < 13 (difference -3 for other trainer)
0 < 13 (difference -13 for other trainer)
my trainer 60000 more weekly of other trainer
despite the 20 (expensive) and 17, to me it seems excessive difference
|
|
|
|
Post by dustin on Aug 25, 2019 8:22:26 GMT 1
I think we can make a list if we do it together:
(I do not know if it is the same in all circumstances, and by all teams, but that shall we see)
10-11
11-12
12-13 +6766
13-14 +8680
14-15 +11258
15-16
16-17
17-18 +25995
18-19 +28566
19-20
others I can not see at the moment if I test it
|
|
|
|
Post by Poekie on Aug 25, 2019 8:55:03 GMT 1
Do also note it works the same for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by chakra on Sept 11, 2019 10:03:17 GMT 1
for my trainer coach, trained skills 10-16-20-15-15, sum skills 76 (x5 training skills), i pay a weekly salary of 346.930, other trainer (for example ALESANA), trained skills 13-13-17-13-15-16 (2 fitness not counted), sum skills 84 (x6 training skills) has a salary of 286.371, 60.000 less with 6 more skills points, why this difference? A-series coaches and B-series coaches? From time to time I give my trainer a good beer or a bottle of scotch.  Meanwhile my trainer: 15 - 13 - 18 - 13 - 15 - 16 - Fitness: 2 (next week TT decrease) sumskill= 92! Now salary 327721 - next week salary 316463. The calculation of the trainerwage is not linear. If I would train up to mountain 19: + 28500 / to hill 14: + 8700. And you pay for the fitness trainer too! If you check it now (sep 11, 2019) you'll see I pay more for my trainer.  |
|
