I mean in the sub of the skill. As far as I know is impossible to predict the sub of the potential until is too late...If I apply Josef Ka´s potential formulas including sublevels (i.e: 9.5 instead of 9 ) , I would be closer to the real cap number of that player (whatever it is) than if I just put the entire number (no decimals). Is that right?but you should consider that the formula is made with average values, so when you have low respectable is should be more like 6,5 then 7.
I mean in the sub of the skill. As far as I know is impossible to predict the sub of the potential until is too late...If I apply Josef Ka´s potential formulas including sublevels (i.e: 9.5 instead of 9 ) , I would be closer to the real cap number of that player (whatever it is) than if I just put the entire number (no decimals). Is that right?
I mean in the sub of the skill. As far as I know is impossible to predict the sub of the potential until is too late...If I apply Josef Ka´s potential formulas including sublevels (i.e: 9.5 instead of 9 ) , I would be closer to the real cap number of that player (whatever it is) than if I just put the entire number (no decimals). Is that right?but you should consider that the formula is made with average values, so when you have low respectable is should be more like 6,5 then 7.No,because respectable is among 7 and 7.9 The formula is made with average value,but when a player reach respectable level,his skill is always superior to 7,at max you could consider a value more like 7.5 than 7
I mean in the sub of the skill. As far as I know is impossible to predict the sub of the potential until is too late...If I apply Josef Ka´s potential formulas including sublevels (i.e: 9.5 instead of 9 ) , I would be closer to the real cap number of that player (whatever it is) than if I just put the entire number (no decimals). Is that right?but you should consider that the formula is made with average values, so when you have low respectable is should be more like 6,5 then 7.No,because respectable is among 7 and 7.9 The formula is made with average value,but when a player reach respectable level,his skill is always superior to 7,at max you could consider a value more like 7.5 than 7so if you examine 100 players with skill 7, the average skill ingame should be around 7,5. In the formula it appears at 7.So when you have a seven ingame, shouldn't it 0,5 points below 7,5(which is 7 here)?
I mean in the sub of the skill. As far as I know is impossible to predict the sub of the potential until is too late...If I apply Josef Ka´s potential formulas including sublevels (i.e: 9.5 instead of 9 ) , I would be closer to the real cap number of that player (whatever it is) than if I just put the entire number (no decimals). Is that right?but you should consider that the formula is made with average values, so when you have low respectable is should be more like 6,5 then 7.No,because respectable is among 7 and 7.9 The formula is made with average value,but when a player reach respectable level,his skill is always superior to 7,at max you could consider a value more like 7.5 than 7so if you examine 100 players with skill 7, the average skill ingame should be around 7,5. In the formula it appears at 7.So when you have a seven ingame, shouldn't it 0,5 points below 7,5(which is 7 here)?that's non sensewhen Josef received/observed the skill of the player to analize,he sees respectable as a value among 7 and 7.9,received for some/many player information about trainings and then come out with the formulaIn game,if you know that a player has respectable,his value go among 7 and 7.9 because you don't know the decimals of that player,plain and simple