List of Training Changes

[Guest]

1. The slow learners having slower decreases. That's necessary because if slow learners had skill decreases at the same speed as fast learners, they wouldn't be able to maintain as high a total skill level. Let's say there was a universal decrease speed which was around 20 points over a period of time. A fast learner would have e.g. 30 points increase whilst a slow learner might have only 10 points increase. The slow learner would therefore not be able to reach the same peak total skills.

 

So yeah, whilst this variable decrease speed is a bit artificial, we needed to have it in there so that people don't just drop a fighter as soon as they realise he has a slow learner value, because he can never reach the same peak level.

 

2. You'll get a page which shows exactly what's going on with your tickers and triggers. I don't think I mentioned that on the page.

 

1. Correct me if I'm wrong but that basically means that there is no point in taking the fast learner hidden. He will learn faster but at some point he will be wasting time trying to keep his skills high - and then even the slowest learner will be just as skilled - if I understand it all correctly, of course. If it is as I say, then I am really not a fan of this particular change. I don't understand why the total skill level available to all fighters should be exactly the same. Some fighters (fast learners) should be able to not only faster reach the total max skill level but above all they should be able to reach higher total skill level. How can we assume that Mariusz Pudzianowski at some point will be just as skillful as Fedor, GSP or JJ? Some fighters have better chin, better knockout power etc. I don't quite understand why the total skill level should be the same for every single fighter. It was part of fun for me to hunt for a fast learning beast.

 

2. Fantastic! I was very concerned about that.

 

In general great work, Mike. I'm just not a fan of 1.

[j666]

1. Correct me if I'm wrong but that basically means that there is no point in taking the fast learner hidden. He will learn faster but at some point he will be wasting time trying to keep his skills high - and then even the slowest learner will be just as skilled - if I understand it all correctly, of course. If it is as I say, then I am really not a fan of this particular change. I don't understand why the total skill level available to all fighters should be exactly the same. Some fighters (fast learners) should be able to not only faster reach the total max skill level but above all they should be able to reach higher total skill level. How can we assume that Mariusz Pudzianowski at some point will be just as skillful as Fedor, GSP or JJ? Some fighters have better chin, better knockout power etc. I don't quite understand why the total skill level should be the same for every single fighter. It was part of fun for me to hunt for a fast learning beast.

 

2. Fantastic! I was very concerned about that.

 

In general great work, Mike. I'm just not a fan of 1.

over a long enuff timeline, fighter x (young slow learner) will be as equally skilled, if not more skilled, than fighter z (old fast learner) based on age alone, all day. an athlete that is 55 years old will be less skilled than most 22 year old athletes no matter how fast they learn...becuz that's how the body works. father time doesn't care about who u are or what u did. he just swoops in and takes what he wants.

[Guest]

I just had a read through the thread. Reasonable responses all round so thanks for that.

 

A couple of points.

 

1. The slow learners having slower decreases. That's necessary because if slow learners had skill decreases at the same speed as fast learners, they wouldn't be able to maintain as high a total skill level. Let's say there was a universal decrease speed which was around 20 points over a period of time. A fast learner would have e.g. 30 points increase whilst a slow learner might have only 10 points increase. The slow learner would therefore not be able to reach the same peak total skills.

 

So yeah, whilst this variable decrease speed is a bit artificial, we needed to have it in there so that people don't just drop a fighter as soon as they realize he has a slow learner value, because he can never reach the same peak level.

 

I have to disagree with you here. Yes, I agree that a extremely slow learner or so has to have decreased skill drop rate to prevent everyone dropping their fighters too much, it's definitely necessary. However, I don't get that why can't we reward the fast learners? It's a hidden, if you get high roll on that, you should be awarded and you should have an advantage. What's the purpose of getting a fast learner when they cannot have better peak level? That's like rolling a 150 on chin yet he gets knocked out by a soft punch or rolling a 150 KO power but cannot knock a dude with 30 chin out? No advantage at all. Using your example, universal decrease speed at 20 points over a period of time, I like slow learner's 10 points decrease but how about let the fast learner only drop 20 points to give them an advantage, a higher peak total skills than the others? Just like GSP, not many can be GSP but there's GSPs out there in Tycoonverse.

 

Two graphs:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Goliath764/learningspeed1.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Goliath764/learningspeed2.jpg

 

Variation = Skill decreased speed

 

First graph, is just to show you the visual for the second graph. I constructed two variation for the decreased speed and am using 20 as the example.In the first variable, the breakthrough point is 80 so basically if your fighter has a learning speed of over 80, the peak total skills will be higher proportionally because they will retain the same skill drop speed, yet learn things faster. For variation B, the breakthrough point is at 100 learning speed so the net benefit will be on fighter with >= 100 learning speed. Here's what I believe will benefit over the quote and initial idea of Mike:

 

1. Learning speed is still a very useful hidden but you can still survive with slow learning speed, especially when your fighter is beast in other aspects.

2. More realistic? GSP picks skill up faster than others and he also, doesn't forget skill faster than other people. Also, no one has the same peak. Some are born to be better.

 

over a long enuff timeline, fighter x (young slow learner) will be as equally skilled, if not more skilled, than fighter z (old fast learner) based on age alone, all day. an athlete that is 55 years old will be less skilled than most 22 year old athletes no matter how fast they learn...becuz that's how the body works. father time doesn't care about who u are or what u did. he just swoops in and takes what he wants.

 

The problem is that a 25 years old slow learner and a 25 years old fast learner will likely to have the same peak level and perhaps same level of skill at 25 years old, if we go by Mike's "same peak level" hypothesis.

[Guest]

As Android17 said. If we take two 18 years of fighters - fighter A (fast learner) and fighter B (slow learner) and train them till they reach 25 (for instance), then most probably the fast learner will already start having problems with maintaining his high skills (maybe even at 23 or 24), while fighter B will reach fighter's A total skillset at 25, maybe at 26. The exact age does not matter, I am just strongly against this mechanics - if I understand it correctly, of course.

[Erik]

As Android17 said. If we take two 18 years of fighters - fighter A (fast learner) and fighter B (slow learner) and train them till they reach 25 (for instance), then most probably the fast learner will already start having problems with maintaining his high skills (maybe even at 23 or 24), while fighter B will reach fighter's A total skillset at 25, maybe at 26. The exact age does not matter, I am just strongly against this mechanics - if I understand it correctly, of course.

 

 

You get a few more in-game years out of fighter A at the peak of his skill set than you do of fighter B, which means more experience if they both meet at say.. 28 or 25. Depending on how much impact Injuries have on a fighters lifespan that means that

 

1. He gets to fight sooner in his career, so he gets a better experience hidden at the same age.

2. He could earn more money due to having more fights at the peak of his potential.

 

 

So you don't get a better peak level, but you have your peak for longer and get to build experience. Is it an ideal hidden? perhaps not, but it still does give an advantage.

[Face Kicker]

i can't believe the entire first page of this thread doesn't have any chicken little's on it, which is a pleasant surprise!

[jacky67]

well round fighter will not be 4*remarkable but higher , like 4*exceptional .

I could be wrong cause he talked about skills decreases with injuries and cuts too .

[felagund]

You get a few more in-game years out of fighter A at the peak of his skill set than you do of fighter B, which means more experience if they both meet at say.. 28 or 25. Depending on how much impact Injuries have on a fighters lifespan that means that

 

1. He gets to fight sooner in his career, so he gets a better experience hidden at the same age.

2. He could earn more money due to having more fights at the peak of his potential.

 

 

So you don't get a better peak level, but you have your peak for longer and get to build experience. Is it an ideal hidden? perhaps not, but it still does give an advantage.

 

If that is the case with proposed training changes, it's a great way to put the fast learner hidden more in line in terms of usefulness with other hiddens. I am not sure if that's what Mike means there.

 

Anyway, overall the changes look very good, can't wait to have them online and kicking!

[Guest]

You get a few more in-game years out of fighter A at the peak of his skill set than you do of fighter B, which means more experience if they both meet at say.. 28 or 25. Depending on how much impact Injuries have on a fighters lifespan that means that

 

1. He gets to fight sooner in his career, so he gets a better experience hidden at the same age.

2. He could earn more money due to having more fights at the peak of his potential.

 

 

So you don't get a better peak level, but you have your peak for longer and get to build experience. Is it an ideal hidden? perhaps not, but it still does give an advantage.

I get your point. I fully understand that getting your peak level quicker carries some weight. We could on the other hand say that if the fast learner starts fighting sooner, then the probability of even faster skills decrease later is bigger due to possible injuries. So yes, you get experience but you risk injuries.

 

My point is though that I think that giving all the fighters the same possible skillset to reach is way too much. I always considered fast learner attribute similar to being a very talented fighter - the more talented you are, the higher you can get - not only faster but higher. Of course those less talented could overcome this through their granite chin, big heart or knockout power. Now it seems that no matter how shitty fighter you create, you can train him up just as high as a fast learner - it will only take more time. I don't like that. I don't know if releasing newly created fighters who turned out slow learners was such a big problem?

[jacky67]

 

My point is though that I think that giving all the fighters the same possible skillset to reach is way too much. I always considered fast learner attribute similar to being a very talented fighter - the more talented you are, the higher you can get - not only faster but higher. Of course those less talented could overcome this through their granite chin, big heart or knockout power. Now it seems that no matter how shitty fighter you create, you can train him up just as high as a fast learner - it will only take more time. I don't like that. I don't know if releasing newly created fighters who turned out slow learners was such a big problem?

 

Don't worry for that slow learner will still be very hard to train mike told the decrease points was about 82% that's high .

[Guest]

I love this game but the thing that blows is you pay for it and its a certain way a certain product, then a update comes and if you dont like the change you either play a game your less fond of or waste your money and quit.. This update is killing my drive to play, how much time do you guys have to play? Running a org and switching training non stop just to keep from decreasing? Man I get tied up with org stuff and forget to switch training all of the time, having to worry about conditioning/strength dropping is bad enough.. what about the cottage trips and 2-3 weeks away from the game, what kind of impact would away time have? Maybe the decrease is way slower than I expect but my first thoughts have been negative.. im not bitching either , Just voicing my 30$ worth of opinion.

[Guest]

I am one of those people with more private coaches than you can shake a stick at, and I wholeheartedly approve of this change. It makes the game much more realistic and provides the managers with more stuff to tinker with and consider. Well done, Mike!

[jacky67]

it will be fun to see red belt ,popping to black belt

[Guest]

So skill decreasing won't start until age kicks in or its at around 82%?

 

Well that does leave scope to make a stand-up or a ground fighter and have them high level, or a good level well rounded guy from my calculations getting a figure for the.decrease. But either way this will force managers to choose their style and mean fighters can always be beaten as "Styles make fights" but the slider masters and tactical builds should prosper

[sathias]

Man, I wish these changes came in when I had The Beez Nest. The advent of private gyms caused it to lose members and bleed me dry, so I started a private gym to keep up with the times, now this

 

It's going to take some time to take in what all this means, I like the changes from a game design and game health point of view, but in the short term its going to cause some upheaval.

[Grasman]

Yeah they'll be fine.

 

As for the second point, there aren't many people above the levelling off point. I went for about 82%ish. If they want to just fly around the world that would be hilarious so they can do it if they want. As agent Smith says in The Matrix. "Do you hear that Mr Anderson? That is the sound... of inevitability."

When i read the wiki, i was generally pleased with the changes, so fair play to you Mike, and thanks for the effort.

 

But,, Having skills start decreasing at 123, just above exceptional is way to low IMO, unless the decrease is extremely minimal at that point growing in value the higher you get. I just find it disgusting to think about struggling to keep certain skill sets at high exceptional.

 

I am definitely going to give this change a chance to flourish, but am VERY skeptical about that part, and feel you are barking up a well pissed on tree with that point, following bad advice IMO.

 

You can assume for the most part that 1 on 1 has slowed down and the others have sped up, though again, this is not always the case.

This bothers me as well, as you have clearly stated before you WOULD NOT slow down 1v1, but enhance "xxx" v 1, while the above Wiki statement is conflicting that previous statement.

 

Even though i am in favor of the most part of these changes,, none of it makes me more interested to play this game, but possibly some of the effects of these changes could have counter effect in that case.

 

Under what scenario is 1v1 slower or equal to "x" v 1 sessions. Does that have anything to do with the "1v1 triangle" on your graph.

 

I know there is a fine line between pissing off experienced managers and enhancing the scenario in favor of new players.

I for one am a bit annoyed by the too low decrease percentage starting point, unless it is extremely minimal at that point,,, and the fact how little diff there is between 1v1 and "x" v 1 training.

 

I sincerely hope the effect of these changes will have a positive impact on the game.

[Grasman]

it will be fun to see red belt ,popping to black belt

No it won't,, it will suck balls!

[Grasman]

well round fighter will not be 4*remarkable but higher , like 4*exceptional .

I could be wrong cause he talked about skills decreases with injuries and cuts too .

Something which is actually diabolical.

 

Lets say you have built up a very good fighter, whose main issue is he gets injured every fight. Now suddenly he is going crappy because of something that has never affected him before,, now that fighter is getting ruined by these changes.

That's not even remotely acceptable or cool in any way!

[Grasman]

I'd like to add i am fully aware Mike can't please everyone, and i'm just one part of everyone.

 

I find these changes extremely well thought out, and have major respect for the effort made in improving this game.

 

But, I also think people should voice their reservations with certain parts of the changes.

 

Maybe my reservations are too harsh, but they are not meant to be harsh, just descriptive.

[Goatacre]

But,, Having skills start decreasing at 123, just above exceptional is way to low IMO, unless the decrease is extremely minimal at that point growing in value the higher you get. I just find it disgusting to think about struggling to keep certain skill sets at high exceptional.

 

I am definitely going to give this change a chance to flourish, but am VERY skeptical about that part, and feel you are barking up a well pissed on tree with that point, following bad advice IMO.

 

 

This bothers me as well, as you have clearly stated before you WOULD NOT slow down 1v1, but enhance "xxx" v 1, while the above Wiki statement is conflicting that previous statement.

 

Even though i am in favor of the most part of these changes,, none of it makes me more interested to play this game, but possibly some of the effects of these changes could have counter effect in that case.

 

Under what scenario is 1v1 slower or equal to "x" v 1 sessions. Does that have anything to do with the "1v1 triangle" on your graph.

 

I know there is a fine line between pissing off experienced managers and enhancing the scenario in favor of new players.

I for one am a bit annoyed by the too low decrease percentage starting point, unless it is extremely minimal at that point,,, and the fact how little diff there is between 1v1 and "x" v 1 training.

 

I sincerely hope the effect of these changes will have a positive impact on the game.

 

1. Do you even know what the ~82% is that Mike is referring to? The straightforward answer is no, you can't because Mike hasn't explained it to anyone. For all you know that could mean that the skill decrease effect (separate from the age impact, of course) kicks in once a fighter has reached an overall 82% of possible skill points as a total, not just when he reaches 82% of one particular skill.

 

To clarify, I'm not saying I necessarily think that is what Mike has done, I'm merely highlighting it as a possibility as none of us, except Mike, know the true answer to that. Try to engage brain before jumping to assumptions and giving the chap grief about it. As you go onto say, give the changes a bit of time and see what actually transpires rather than immediately assuming a worst case scenario for your fighters.

 

As for the 1v1 training - it is essentially semantics, isn't it? Whether Mike speeds up the effect of training for larger class sizes, or slows down the training speed for the smaller class sizes (including 1v1), what actually matters is the relative training speeds for the various class sizes.

 

The only difference is that if the 1v1 training speed is slowed down then you will see the effect of pops less frequently. If it was just that the larger class sizes were made more effective then, sure, you'd see your fighters pop after training just as frequently as now, but relative to others training in larger class sizes the gains are still smaller and reduces the competitive advantage.

 

The more I think about the changes as they've been made known so far, the more I like them, as it should bring benefit to those managers who are most effective in slider fu, which can only be a good thing.

[Goatacre]

Something which is actually diabolical.

 

Lets say you have built up a very good fighter, whose main issue is he gets injured every fight. Now suddenly he is going crappy because of something that has never affected him before,, now that fighter is getting ruined by these changes.

That's not even remotely acceptable or cool in any way!

 

But it does increase the benefit of the resistance to cuts/injuries hidden, which is a good thing, otherwise that hidden might as well be removed from the game.

[TK]

...

[Grasman]

But it does increase the benefit of the resistance to cuts/injuries hidden, which is a good thing, otherwise that hidden might as well be removed from the game.

No,as it does already hamper the fighter fighting wise, and possibly should also affect him training wise.

But not skill wise,, that's taking it too far IMO.

[TK]

As a self-confessed training whore and someone who averages less than one fight per week for 15 fighters, the skill decrease thing is very bad news.

[Goatacre]

I'd like to add i am fully aware Mike can't please everyone, and i'm just one part of everyone.

 

I find these changes extremely well thought out, and have major respect for the effort made in improving this game.

 

But, I also think people should voice their reservations with certain parts of the changes.

 

Maybe my reservations are too harsh, but they are not meant to be harsh, just descriptive.

 

You posted this whilst I was responding to your first post. Good to see, and I definitely agree that people should provide an honest appraisal of the changes, but it's far more effective if they are made in a constructive fashion rather than coming across in a bitter or harsh way.