In general, there is in a multi-skilled way a cap on how good a player can become. That limit does not depend upon position; if you really wanted to take a 7'3" player and make him into a guard, he'd still have the same potential and the same cap, just that it would take effect on his guard skills instead of his center skills.
Guards get their cap divided over 6 skills and Centers over 4 skills. Which means a center with the same potential as a guard can always train to a higher lever than the guard. This is obviously unfair to the guard trainers.
Have you thought that the potential organized in this way will give a big advantage to the centers and a big disatvantage to everyone that trains SFs? 3 skills need a centers, the double a SF (or a good guards).I don't believe this is the case, and that's why I said it was correct qualitatively, not quantitatively.
Have you thought that the potential organized in this way will give a big advantage to the centers and a big disatvantage to everyone that trains SFs? 3 skills need a centers, the double a SF (or a good guards).
Have you thought that the potential organized in this way will give a big advantage to the centers and a big disatvantage to everyone that trains SFs? 3 skills need a centers, the double a SF (or a good guards).I don't believe this is the case, and that's why I said it was correct qualitatively, not quantitatively.so would the potential be a sort of salary cap?for example:potential:bench warmer--- salary cap:10khall of famer--- salary cap: 200kin this case guards, whose salary increases more slowly, have more possibilities to grow in skills..