BuzzerBeater Forums

look at my prior post, i believe it explains it more detailed it is pretty equal when you train it when you only train skills who are affected through age decline ;)

For example,if two players trained in the two opposite ways arrive at the age of 23 nearly at the same level,the player that had to be completed in the slower skills

If you start with the fast skills first, you are finished earlier with them, and could train the slow one longer so that in the end you finished at the same time.

If their is an absolute, bonus time for each year on a skillup(sounds a bit in your theory), you are even much faster when you train the faster skills first because of the higher amount of affected skillups.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 9/28/2010 10:30:37 AM

Yes i agree on that. I was trying to figure out something else. When i'll have made up my mind on that thing i'll write something :P
Don't wanna go on a writing rage just to make you think i'm right (expecially if i'm wrong), this forum has seen too many quarrels XD

If you start with the fast skills first, you are finished earlier with them, and could train the slow one longer so that in the end you finished at the same time.

I'm not convinced

Let's say that our goal is that our player had to arrive to the same level in both a fast and slow skill(call them X and Y)
And let's say that I will train first slow skills and you will train first fast skill.
If our players always had the full training,there will be a point in an avdanced age where the sum of their X+Y skills will be equal,while they are still training,right?
If the point when X+Y is equal for both the player,arrive when they still not reach the goal,it means that the player that had to be completed in the X(fast) skill,will finish earlier than the player that has to be completed in the Y(slow) skill

If the point when X+Y is equal for both the player,arrive when they still not reach the goal,it means that the player that had to be completed in the X(fast) skill,will finish earlier than the player that has to be completed in the Y(slow) skill

if you make a point landing with both training it would be the same, but it is hard to create example who will end up exactly with zero sub ;) So in reality there will be difference in maybe one week, depending when you arive the skills more exactly(but when it takes longer the player had more subskills).

If the point when X+Y is equal for both the player,arrive when they still not reach the goal,it means that the player that had to be completed in the X(fast) skill,will finish earlier than the player that has to be completed in the Y(slow) skill

i believe you mean who completed the slow skills, will be ready earlier ;) But when X and Y is the same, the would be always the same amount of training open or none.

Try to work it out with my example, and think of that OD will ten weeks for a skill up, and JS and 1 vs 1 will pop in one each. It will change nothing on the calculation itself and i would wonder if you could find a scenario which will take longer then 24 weeks(and in this case you have tons of subs^^)

I was wondering about issues you mentioned and I think it works as follows. Elastic effect works even if you have 1 related skill above the one you train. Unfortunately for this I have no data, but it "feels" like that.

Also seems from training of my SF prospect that once you have related skill equal or above 1, it has a full effect no matter how high differences are. (so dont matter if is related skill bigger by 10 or by 1)

I trained whole season IS this player. 18y old, 193cm, lvl4 trainer

JS 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
JR 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
OD 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
HA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
DR 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
PA 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
IS 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9
ID 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

The point in rules about more skilled player, faster he will train is in my opinion about something else than elastic effect. I suppose that it just compensate the age. So if you train intensively from the beginning, you might have better "base" for the future training, so player will not be in 25 so dumb like the other would be.

If we start with wrong assumptions we will never arrive to a good observation

You can't use as argument assumptions without any sense

We should use as base the studies that was yet made on the normal training of the players

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 9/28/2010 3:21:22 PM