Leigh Hinds Finishing to 20 please - I believe that should take 42 points. Please put the remaining two to push Heading to 7 please.
Warren Feeney in info5 Pued - As it is now increasing Hinds with 12 from 8 to 20 cost you 47, so it is a no go. 12 standard cost +12 additional finishing cost +10 upgrade 11-20 +5 upgrade 16-20 +8 upgrade by 5 or more (12-4) also with you using all your points on finishing increasing way more than 4 I wonder if I should put in a max improvement on a attribute or have more additional cost as you go higher? I'm just thinking in the "special" training term how crazy it would be to increase from 8 to max in only 1 offseason. Comments? I will keep it as is if you all think so as it was what I outlined - I'm just saying an extreme increase in one attribute were not in my thoughts when I made the cost system. One change to the rule could be that when increase by 5 and more each step get harder, costing an additional extra point more than the last one. Also an attribute can never be more than doubled (increase of 4 will always be allowed, even if the attribute is below 4). Also Castor - hidden attributes, I know I said in chat yesterday that you had them right, but upon more thinking they now cost the same as the other special attributes and that was never the meaning so you need to include the standard cost too. An other problem with hidden attributes is that sometimes the editor *** up and show a value over 20 so I cant see the original value. That is not a problem for visible attributes as I just check with the game but I can't change an hidden attribute I don't know (I can still set it, but have no idea what the "cost" would be. That is the problem with one-on-one and consistency for you so you can't get those increases. I've noticed that: Ambition Loyalty Pressure (important matches?) Professionalism Sportsmanship Temperament never show the over 20 value - they are at a different page in the editor that doesn have that bug it seems. I could still allow for all the other hidden ones to be changed too, but only if I can see them, and that change from player to player or I can remove the possibility for all the other attributes - it is up to you all? I've also decided that the cost of increasing ability is only 2 as it runs on a 200 scale anyway. I will at the same time remove the connection to updating potential when updating ability. (the 2 when updating 5 bit)
OK well do this then. Use the 15 points I have in hidden to increase flair up to 13. That should cost an additional 11 points. Use the remaining 4 points to increase long shots to 9. CK
That should be good - even if we implement the new system: Attribute --- Value --- Change --- Cost* Creativity ----- 09 ------ +6 -------- 19/20* Finishing ------ 11 ------ +4 -------- 12/12* Flair ------------ 07 ------ +6 -------- 17/18* Long Shots --- 07 ------ +2 -------- 04/04* ---------------------------------------------------- Total Cost ---------------------------- 52/54* That leaves 5/3* points to use on potential/ability as you stipulated *) Cost with suggested new system that makes it increasingly expensive to increase beyond 5. 3 = 1 potential and 1 ability? 5 = 2 potential and 1 ability? btw what is your opinion on the suggested changes. You didn't take a big hit as you had used the pts in more than one area, but your opinion is still wanted
btw - for winning the prediction challenge: Increased manager reputation: Current: 5071 Increase: +750 New: 5821 Others reputation: 1. Houllier (Liverpool) -- World Class -- 10000 2. O'Leary (Man Utd) -- World Class -- 9996 3. Wenger (Arsenal) -- World Class -- 9737 4. Graham (Blackburn) -- Superb -- 8750 5. Eriksson (England) -- Very Good -- 8430 6. Toshack (Leeds) -- Very Good -- 8143 7. Watson (Middlesbrough) -- Very Good 7860 8. Baxter (Chelsea) -- Good -- 7339 19. Smith (Everton) -- Good -- 6679 20. McClaren (Millwall) -- Fair -- 6448 32. Taylor (Grimsby) -- Fair -- 5258 33. Francis (Birmingham) -- Average -- 5207 80. Francis (Burnley) -- Average -- 3754 22. Jaeger -- 6297 (Fair) 30. Vauthrin -- 5388 (Fair) 36. Thomassen -- 5139 (Average) 40. Kemp -- 5071 (Average) 48. DesAutels -- 5000 (Average) 58. Gilstover -- 4844 (Average) 60. Boville -- 4819 (Average) 68. Felagund -- 4383 (Average) 82. Mendola -- 3695 (Poor) 87. Young -- 3404 (Poor) (228. Scorpio -- 3475 (Unknown))
I don't have a problem, with it. I don't see why anyone would want to make that type change anyway. Making a player a stud in only one attribute doesn't really mean they will be a super stud. It's kinda like in the baseball sim. A guy can be a 13 in 3B but if he is only a 4 in hits it doesn't make him a stud. Same here a guy may be an awesome finisher but if he can't dribble run or create it won't matter how good he can finish. CK
I've decided after some thinking to use my points on Danny McDonald. I first thought of Graeme Porter, but my attack is too deep for that. Also making Paul Wheatcroft into a even more stud attacker fell by the same thinking. I decided I needed something special in the creating department of my midfield. Gary Fisken was my first thought as I'm not really to high on the current starters, but Danny McDonald was younger and have more time to develop. Danny McDonald in info6
I tried assigning points by doing attributes first, but then I used all my 50 points up before I came to ability/potential. So I decided to start in the other end and use the leftovers on attributes: Ability: +3 -- 6 points Potential: +7 -- 9 points Creativity: 8-12 -- 10 points Decision: 7-10 -- 6 points Flair: 5-9 -- 8 points Strength: 7-10 -- 3 points Left Foot: +4 -- 8 points ----------------------------------------- Total: 50 points leftover: 0.5 down the drain
ok, I screwed up with Hinds . . again. Moving Finishing to 19 seems to cost only 42 points then, I'll do that. Then put the other two points to Increase Heading to 7.
Steve Benbow Upgrade Agility to 10 - 10 total points used Upgrade Reflexes to 10 - 27 total points used Upgrade Jumping to 8 - 31 total points used Bobby Hassell Upgrade Anticipation to 10 - 37 total points used Upgrade Aggression to 14 - 45 total points used Upgrade Heading to 10 - 48 total points used Upgrade Marking to 10 - 50 total points used Upgrade Positioning to 10 - 53 total points used Then upgrade ability by 1 and potential by 1 and there you have it - 56 points! =)
Warren feeney Fin- up 3 points to 16, 10 points used Dec- up 4 points to 14, 12 points used Det up 3 points to 10, 3 used Hidden Attributes Leadership up 3- 9 points Pressure up 2-6 points that should be my 40 if leadership cant be used, put those nine thowards upping off the ball 3 points
I'm not sure where it says so, but you can only upgrade 1 player even if I have to look for it without finding it Zac. So either Benbow or Hassell have to get even better. If you do not want another now. Btw, I'm pretty sure it said so in one of the opening prediction posts.
Special Goalkeeping Attributes Agility: The ability to make acrobatic saves Handling: The ability to hold on to the ball following a save. Reflexes: The ability to make the close-on reflex saves. I know outfield players have reflexes DV - but are you sure you want Feeney to become an emergency backup goalie too?. Not saying it is stupid, sometimes outfielders have been known to have to step in to guard the goal, but that usually doesn happen that often. --- http://users2.ev1.net/~chkemp/ccnet/cmleague/attributes.txt more about attributes --- http://users2.ev1.net/~chkemp/ccnet/cmleague/tactics.txt about tactics and what attributes is needed
Heath: Here's how I want you to allocate my 32 points: Lee Johnson: add 8 for anticipation add 8 for decisions add 4 for tackling add 8 for longshots add 4 for finishing
Manny - as I told Zac... you can only upgrade 1 player - and also handling - it is a special goalkeeping attribute... and adding it for outfielders is not possible (you can have the other gk attributes for outfielders, but not handling)
Anticipation from 2 to 6 = 8 points Decision from 3 to 7 = 8 points Tackling from 3 to 7 = 4 points Long Shots from 3 to 7 = 8 points Finishing from 5 to 7 = 4 points Is this what you meant, and if not - is it ok this way?
