darkline wrote:I really think the range for HP/LP should be handled different... right now and for practical purposes, the only options for LP are 1 or 2 stars, for HP is 2 to 4
It'll be a lot more intriguing and better if LP & HP where calculated different and we would get the whole one to four star range for both.
For example, it would be a lot more intriguing if we could get a 2 HP & 4 LP player, that could be a guy that might not get very high on the HP skills but his 4 stars LP might mean that you might have an all around good player with no obvious weakness... but as it is, the system for youth potential is a bit boring
darkline wrote:For a lot of people it was like rolling the dice as the information wasn't clear, it was harder to interpret the data but I could gather information very early on the player's career and swap players that will most likely maxout on a critical skill without wasting time training, just to prove what I say right now I have 7 players product of my youth academy on the National Team and a few more should make it next season.
I know how to read & interpret the info you get from this scout, it's fairly easy really, but to achieve the same results it takes me longer than before & I end up wasting more time, therefore investing more resources & producing less good players. Also, the way this tool works is not compatible with my way of training youths for U18 competitions.
Anyway, the point is, why put up to 4 stars at LP if a player can only be 2 LP? Why put 1 star HP as an option if no 1 HP player exist? Is just pointless and I'd like players to show the full range of potential.
mihairo wrote:TA is much better than YTC, no doubt about it.
But when there is a big chance that 1LP is similar to 2LP and there is no 3LP, the information becomes irrelevant.
mihairo wrote:This is what I wrote 4 months ago.
If the assumptions about the TA were correct, I go even further.
Let's take a 2HP 9 8 and 2LP 8 8 player.
This player can become a star for an U21 National Team, but there are very high chances he will be discarded by the owner.
I find this a problem.
kostrzak16 wrote:Yeah but don't you think something like 3 LP would be too much information ? Now when you have a player 4 HP shot+bc but 2 LP in stamina you can take a risk and hope for that (1-2% ?) chance that he will have at least 7 there. Players with 3 LP (minimum 7 in one of 2 skills) would be insta pick 90% of time. At least I would keep such players even with 2 HP.
mihairo wrote:I'm not talking about risks or taking chances.
I'm talking about not losing this kind of players.
Let me tell you a little story.
The original TA had a 3 star system.
And all the issue started from all 8 skill players.
They were 3HP 3LP in that system.
So the TA information became very vague. If I had a maximum HP with a maximum LP and the skills turned out to be 8 - I would have been tricked.
So we all agreed that the 4th star is needed to separate 9-10 skillers from 8 skillers.
I don't know what happened on the way because 9-10 skillers became 4 stars and 3 stars - meanwhile the all 8 skillers who should have been 3 stars skillers became 2 stars.
And to understand my point of view - we all have or had players rated 4HP 2LP and even more players 4HP 1LP who turned out to be weaker than 2HP 8 skillers.
That's what I'm actually talking about.
So what's the problem if an all 8 skiller is rated 3HP 3LP?
Quo erat demonstrandum
Thank you for your patience.
I really hope the Crew reads this, because in turned out we ended up with a worse system than the 3 stars system.
3 types of HP
2 types of LP