Rocking Rackets Strategy and Tips Thread

[Brian Swartz]

Yup. Additionally mentality/home adv. never change. Skill/service/doubles depend on how well you train the player and how much xp you can gain with their endurance/talent levels.

[roeldaboy]

Hi guys, I'm a RR player as well. I play in rr2 and maybe you know Amir Abdullah? He was one of my pupils who won Roland Garros in rr2 some years back. Anyway, I hoped any of you guys have an indication of how many players actively play the game worldwide. For a while I thought there werent many, but after reading this my hopes are a little bit up .

[Alf]

Alright, back to my trainer question. My russian Borzakov is now

Skill : 121 (trainable)
Service : 102 (maxed out ++ )
Doubles : 100 (maxed out)

He is a 5.0 trainer already. I am wondering if it would be useful to continue upgrading his skill or make him a trainer already.

[britrock88]

Well, do you already have a trainer? Do you have players with high enough endurance that they could make use of training?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by britrock88

Well, do you already have a trainer? Do you have players with high enough endurance that they could make use of training?

No, and not really yet (I have a 4.8 Talent + 4 endurance - 101 age% 19yo, though).

[Brian Swartz]

That player could definitely make use of training. I'd do it now, that's just about the right age, or maybe a year younger, that I've seen significant use from trainers.

[Brian Swartz]

Thought I'd throw a little something out here I've been using since my players all just reached their birthdays or are about to. Several in-game years ago, I started 'benchmarking' my players; tracking their raw abilities by age so I could compare how well I was getting the next guy trained up comparatively. Here's how the list looks now with at least one player at most ages recorded:

42 -- Manohar 108/91/89 -- 4.47 trainer
40 -- Manohar 108/87/85
39 -- Manohar 108/84/82
38 -- Manohar 108/80/78
37 -- Manohar 108/77/73
29 -- Mehul 122/91/1
28 -- Mehul 119/89/1
27 -- Mehul 117/87/1
26 -- Mehul 114/84/1; Girsh 114/84/0
25 -- Girsh 111/82/0; Mehul 111/81/1
24 -- Girsh 108/79/0; Mehul 107/78/1
23 -- Girsh 104/75/0
22 -- Girsh 99/71/0
21 -- Mooljee 94/66/0; Girsh 94/65/0
20 -- Mooljee 87/60/1
19 -- Mooljee 80/53/1
18 -- Mooljee 72/46/1
17 -- Mooljee 62/37/1
15 -- Dudwadkar 20/19/0
14.29 -- Dudwadkar 7/4/0 -- 2.45 rating'

The three numbers are raw skill/service/doubles respectively. It's remarkable to me how similar they have been so far despite some variances in starting skills, periodic screw-ups now and then that I've mostly eliminated, etc. Having a trainer now will help with the younger two guys I have but probably only marginally. Every little bit helps though. Mehul and Girsh have both peaked at about 5.3/3.9, 5.3/4.0 for a while. I'd like to get to 5.4/4.0 which I haven't been able to sustain for more than a few weeks. Hopefully one of the youngsters can do it.

[kingfc22]

Looks like you move away from the 2:1 skill to serve ratio once they leave Juniors?

[Brian Swartz]

Well on all the previous players I've gone 2:1 from the start; but when I say 2 skill for each service, I'm talking about the experience required, not the raw number itself. For example, Mehul is at 122/92. Obviously that's not 2:1, but the xp to get there is -- 7.7k/almost 4k. The theory, in case it isn't clear, is that skill is more valuable unless you can get service for half the price. If you can, train service.

As I briefly mentioned a while ago, I'm doing a bit of an experiment with Dudwadkar though. He's going to train them both up evenly for a while, then when he hits 1.0 service he'll start gradually moving more over into training skill, getting to the 2:1 ratio about the time he hits 3.5 serve, by which point he'll be in the big time. I don't know if this is better or worse but it's worth trying due to how many double faults you cough up as a young player with a crappy serve.

[kingfc22]

Ahhh...this whole time I thought you were referring to 2:1 raw numbers. Guess my #3 junior should build up some service a bit more now. :P

[roeldaboy]

Is the benchmark at 21 for example at 21 years and 1 week or 21 years and 52 weeks?

[Brian Swartz]

21 and 0 weeks.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Ahhh...this whole time I thought you were referring to 2:1 raw numbers. Guess my #3 junior should build up some service a bit more now. :P

I could be wrong about this. I don't think I am, I think it's the best way, but I'm the only manager with top players in any of the worlds I've seen who 'tilts' his players towards skill this much. Most of them stop at 5.0 or a bit higher in skill and then work on service. This does give them some more aces, but they're not as effective on return. Iglar for example is 5.0/4.1, the current #1 in rr2, Andres Ulson, is 5.2/4.1, and in rr11 it's Daniel Wira at 5.0/4.3. When my guys are at 5.3/3.9, they don't have the serve these players have, but they are better from a rally standpoint. Even the record-setting oprice in my world doesn't train his players the way I do, and frankly it's the only significant difference between us because he's a near-perfect manager strategically in all other aspects from what I've seen.

In my experience, you just don't get enough free points(aces) to convince me that it's better to go that way. Over a long 5-set match even it's maybe a half-dozen points more you get from that, and the better returning from my players at least neutralizes that from what I've seen. It's also just plain logical -- skill is used on all points, but service on only half(the ones you are serving for, obviously), which is where the idea comes from. I just think it's good to throw out the caveat since all the other elite managers don't do it. I'm bucking the trend here so to speak -- but I think the trend is a little bit suboptimal .

[roeldaboy]

Brian I think you are a great manager, however I disagree with you on this matter. When playing on your best surface for example or when you have a lot of power this adds to skill, so therefore you might be right considering a player with less than average power. However, in other cases I think a little extra serve is of greater importance than a little extra skill, since skill is influenced by other factors as well like I mentioned before. Your serve however isn't and when playing in higher tournaments everything stands and falls with your ability to win your service games. Of course its also important to be able to break your opponent, however other factors will influence a players skill nontheless, where service isn't and is just as good on hardcourt as on clay. On top of that I think the past has proven serve do be of major importance and I think you just underestimate its importance.

[Brian Swartz]

Thanks for the post. After considering this I think you are partly correct. I need to crunch some numbers on the matches between the top players in my world, but I think I'm going to making an adjustment to my player 'overall rating' formula.

[Brian Swartz]

A few -- eh, maybe more than a few, but not too many -- thoughts for anybody who is still playing.

Originally Posted by roeldaboy

Of course its also important to be able to break your opponent, however other factors will influence a players skill nontheless, where service isn't and is just as good on hardcourt as on clay. On top of that I think the past has proven serve do be of major importance and I think you just underestimate its importance.

I wonder here if you are talking about real-life tennis on the ATP tour or tennis as represented in the game of Rocking Rackets? Obviously one is modeled on the other but they are different -- for example, real-life is hardly as predictable in terms of career development. Some of these differences are even arguably good in terms of making a more enjoyable game.

At any rate, I took a look at the documentation in the game when thinking about how to respond to this post and was surprised by a couple of things I found. It seems that information has been added that wasn't there before, as of several months ago when I came up with what has been called my '10 point player rating formula'. This is quite curious, since there literally hasn't been a post in the RR forums in a year and a half. It is now specifically defined for all to see how much home advantage, mentality, and surface preferences impact a match. This was quite surprising to me, and gave me an opportunity to lay aside some of my assumptions.

There are also some interesting statements which are not new about serving. It's stated to be only slightly less important than skill, and the trainer formula uses 75% of service with 100% of skill in the formula, both of which would indicate that my approach is flawed. With clear definition of the other elements, it seemed useful to me to conduct a test. It just so happens that my world presents a great scenario. The top three players over the past several years have played each other in the pro ranks 37-38 times. Actually just a bit more than that, but that's where it was when I took the match statistics are started to analyze it. The details are pretty complicated so I won't bother with a full writeup of them unless somebody is particularly interested, but I did come away with two primary conclusions.

** Mentality isn't as important as I thought it was.. I had it pegged at 40% of the value of skill. According to the documentation it is only 30% when it is applied, which isn't most of the time. Key points like breakpoints and tiebreaks only. I thought I might be a bit high on mentality, but I didn't think I was off by that much.

** I was undervaluing service, but not by much. Despite the documentation's statements about it's value, the actual description of what it does indicates it simply isn't close to skill in importance. It's far more important than any other rating, but not nearly as important as skill. Aside from not being used at all when the other player is serving(as obvious a thing as obvious gets), it is also weakened by the returner's speed. Against an elite player, who is going to have at least decent speed, that is not an insignificant fact, and there simply aren't enough aces to make it a close call.

New Player Rating Formula

So, having analyzed the statistics from dozens of matches making up the mentioned sample, I have come to the conclusion that I can somewhat improve my formula. I like having a 10-point scale but this is nearly a true 10-point scale -- in this case, nobody is going to exceed that. I'll be very impressed if anyone gets to 9.5 and 9.0 flat would be just fine for me. For comparison, Iglar ends up at 8.82 right now, and the sublime Gaspare Cabrara from world 2 is, at slightly past his prime, recording a 9.29. He's a rare freak of nature, however. Here are the five elements of the new formula:

-- Skill * 0.95
-- Service * 0.515
-- Strength * 0.19
-- Mentality * 0.175
-- Speed * 0.17

I definitely understand how the game simulates matches a lot better now. As you can see here mentality is the big change, and as mentioned service is slightly more than half of the value of skill now. It's important to remember that some players overachieve with others underachieve. It is also true that service is slightly, but not all that much, more important for particularly old players since they don't have the speed to get as many returns in play and force as many rallies while receiving.

Hopefully this information will be of use to those of you still enjoying Rocking Rackets. I'll be making a few training adjustments, but not all that many -- thankfully it does not appear that I was very far off.

[law90026]

Thanks for the post, always helpful! To be honest I didn't think your original formula was too far off as the ratings tended to be reflected in the rankings at the highest levels. My players also tended to play within a ranking range of their rating relative to the rest of the world.

Will try out this new formula to see how it changes things.

[kingfc22]

Thanks for the info Brian. My best player just turned 19 and he's a bit ahead of Mooljee. Going to see how he trends moving forward.

[Brian Swartz]

I'd say he should turn out well then. Right now Mooljee is slightly ahead of the pace of my other successful players, so you probably have a good one there.

[digamma]

I think I can be a test case for the new ratings. I've fallen off the wagon and haven't been active in a week or so. I'll likely need to fire my current set (sorry, dudes) and start over.

[MarkBGregory]

Still playing. Your 'updtaed' formula intrigues me. I've not quite cracked a Slam yet, but Borowski (GW2) is currently 6th and Barth (GW12) is currently 7th in the world. High aging factors not helping, but hoping one or both might be able to grab a slam before they start fully deteriorating...

[Alf]

How to use a trainer ? :

I've got that new shining toy, but I haven't found a way to assign him to train a player automatically. Only way to use him is by assigning him to play firendlies vs my guys. Is there any other way to use a trainer ?

[Brian Swartz]

There's no way to do it automatically. You wouldn't really want to either -- trainers aren't as good as practice or tournament matches. The training sessions are better than friendlies against other players though which is the point: when you lose early in a tournament or run out of fatigue during a practice week, etc., they are the best option for plugging the gap.

[Alf]

Gotcha

[law90026]

So fyi, apparently the tournament calendar has been updated.

[Brian Swartz]

Yep. I've got another year before it takes effect though. Apparently Week 26 as of a few hours ago is the cutoff for having the new schedule next year as opposed to the year after. When it shows up, I'm going to have recalibrate a few things on my scheduling.

[Umbrella]

I'm a little confused about points and ranking. I had a guy win a JG4 event (40 points) and made the semis in doubles (15 points). My assumption is that he would get 40 points, plus 15/4 (lets say 4) points for a total of 44 points. Yet in the rankings, it looks like he only got 25 points from the previous week. Does anyone know why?

[law90026]

Originally Posted by Umbrella

I'm a little confused about points and ranking. I had a guy win a JG4 event (40 points) and made the semis in doubles (15 points). My assumption is that he would get 40 points, plus 15/4 (lets say 4) points for a total of 44 points. Yet in the rankings, it looks like he only got 25 points from the previous week. Does anyone know why?

It depends on how many events your guy had played. At junior level, you only take the top 6 singles and top 6 doubles events to calculate the ranking points. So if you play a 7th event, you would only get those points less the smallest number of points you had previously gotten since the 7th event replaces one of the earlier 6.

So let's say you had 6 previous events where you had picked up 30 points each and then your picked up 40 points in your 7th event. You would only get a net increase of 10 points.

Hope that made sense.

[Umbrella]

Originally Posted by law90026

It depends on how many events your guy had played. At junior level, you only take the top 6 singles and top 6 doubles events to calculate the ranking points. So if you play a 7th event, you would only get those points less the smallest number of points you had previously gotten since the 7th event replaces one of the earlier 6.

So let's say you had 6 previous events where you had picked up 30 points each and then your picked up 40 points in your 7th event. You would only get a net increase of 10 points.

Hope that made sense.

Ah yes, that makes sense now. I forgot about that part of it.

[hugazox]

I just read a lot of the comments and this thread was really helpful. I have just returned to the game and started playing in world 9. Currently i have 2 players:

http://rr9.rockingrackets.com/index....r&extra=285775

http://rr9.rockingrackets.com/index....r&extra=284627

Do you guys think they have a chance making it into the top 10?

[NevStar]

Originally Posted by hugazox

I just read a lot of the comments and this thread was really helpful. I have just returned to the game and started playing in world 9. Currently i have 2 players:

http://rr9.rockingrackets.com/index....r&extra=285775

http://rr9.rockingrackets.com/index....r&extra=284627

Do you guys think they have a chance making it into the top 10?

These links aren't view-able except for players that are already active in rr9. You might get more feedback if you posted their stats directly.

[Brian Swartz]

What NevStar says is correct. Having said that since I'm only active in one world it's not too big of a deal to switch them around.

Ivan Yuste -- 8.23 on my rating system. He's got 3-4 years till he peaks. Fairly unimpressive endurance and needs to train skill more but definitely a very good athlete and excellent mental game, serve is already pretty good. I think he can definitely be a Top 10 player, though such things depend on how competitive the game world is.

Ramon Estevez -- 8.10. Estevez is more of a long-shot. Top 20 yes, Top 10 seems less likely. Clay specialists have to be one of the best on that surface and I don't think he's quite there, he'll age faster, a hair lower endurance, not as good a player right now and a year older, etc. Probably less than three years until he peaks.

Both are very good players, Yuste definitely the better of the two though and should have a fine career. Top 5 wouldn't surprise me, again depending on balance of talent and how other factors develop.

[britrock88]

With Mendez/Lebyedenko near the ends of their productive careers, I fired them and took a sabbatical (which lasted all of 4 weeks). Surprised to see that no one has picked them up for doubles/trainer purposes.

Just getting started in GW8.

[law90026]

Originally Posted by britrock88

With Mendez/Lebyedenko near the ends of their productive careers, I fired them and took a sabbatical (which lasted all of 4 weeks). Surprised to see that no one has picked them up for doubles/trainer purposes.

Just getting started in GW8.

I've actually seen them around and I think one of my guys beat Mendez recently. No real need to pick them up because there are a lot of good trainer candidates in world 2 most of the time.

[law90026]

So apparently the strategy a long time ago was to have your junior players not play any tournaments until they were 18 and then start in the amateur ranks. The intention being to maximise XP gain.

Is this still done or is the 10%xp penalty sufficient to make this a non-viable strategy now?

Edit: nm, the penalty was put in place to stop this practice.

[MrBug708]

Reading this thread has been helpful, but man is there a lot of math

[MrBug708]

So I'm not sure how I am doing. I think I messed up my initial hire, but think my Junior player is doing alright as a stop-gag. I have no idea what to do with my other guy. The first one I hired was probably dumb, my second one isn't great, but Im not sure what I should do.

Peter Lillesoe
Toshiro Arita

Any advice would be helpful. I'm in World 12. I dont understand the training aspect really. I have 89 points to work with. I don't know if I should play every week, play both S/D every week or take some days off. My Junior play seems to have a run of playing well then playing horribly.

[law90026]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So I'm not sure how I am doing. I think I messed up my initial hire, but think my Junior player is doing alright as a stop-gag. I have no idea what to do with my other guy. The first one I hired was probably dumb, my second one isn't great, but Im not sure what I should do.

Peter Lillesoe
Toshiro Arita

Any advice would be helpful. I'm in World 12. I dont understand the training aspect really. I have 89 points to work with. I don't know if I should play every week, play both S/D every week or take some days off. My Junior play seems to have a run of playing well then playing horribly.

Don't have time to post anything substantial but here goes.

Your players should be playing every week. They should be playing practice tournaments (S/D) and playing actual tournaments when their form is about to reach 15 the next week. Typically this means you should be playing a real tournament the week after one where you form is in the 16.3+ to 17+ range.

Choice of tournament is important although a lot less so for juniors. At junior level, you play each level and, once you begin to reach finals or win at that stage, you can begin moving up to the next one. For senior players, seeding is important because it helps your player's chance to reach the later stages of a tournament.

Don't overplay your players. Your goal is to improve your skills to a certain point, not trying to rush a particular ranking. If your player is good enough, he will have a good chance of reaching the ranking his skills should allow him to reach.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

man is there a lot of math

True, but a lot of it has been done for you at this point.

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I dont understand the training aspect really.

Specific questions are the best.

Originally Posted by MrBug708

don't know if I should play every week, play both S/D every week or take some days off.

Usually you should play every week, practice weeks until your form gets down to 15 as law mentioned. Always S/D for tournament weeks to maximize the matches you get. I usually do only singles for juniors in practice weeks until they reach the point where they can handle doing both from an endurance standpoint. That's usually around 3.0 or higher endurance. Monitor how they are doing fatigue-wise ... you lose 50 fatigue per day and start getting big penalties if you get over 500. Usually you won't get any practice matches when it is higher than 200-300(but not always, the game logic seems to be a bit buggy in that area). Only time a player should ever have a week totally, completely off is if they have 350 or more fatigue going into it. If your fatigue ever gets to zero, that's a bad thing since you are wasting potential experience gain from practice or matches.

Originally Posted by MrBug708

My Junior play seems to have a run of playing well then playing horribly.

This is pretty typical, partly because of double-faults due to low serving for young players, and partly because there simply isn't as much difference between them in overall level of ability at that age.

As far as your two players are concerned, I would say keep going with them, regularly look for something better in the new juniors players as always and work on earning points so you can replace the older one with a trainer candidate.

[MrBug708]

A few questions I have come across: (apologies if asked before)

1. What is the best way to get down form? Practice? Skipping weeks of tournaments? How much does it factor into performance?

2. What exactly is aging factor? My 15 year old has an aging factor of 102%. Does that mean his skills will develop and regress faster than the average player? I also see a age percentage next to my players age, in parenthesis. It's at 79% for my junior player.

3. How do you know when to move up? I'm asking for my Junior level 15 player, he seems to do well mostly on J5 and doesn't have success on J4, other than with a previous junior player I had in doubles. That player was solid at J4, but I'm wanting a trainer.

4. Does playing both singles/double have disadvantages/advantages? Does ability go down with playing two separate brackets in the same tournament?

5. I'm working on a trainer, about 1000 experience points away. Had no idea what I was specifically looking for. What makes a trainer good/bad? When I hired him, he had 4600 experience points. Is there any idea how to know how many EXP points they have saved up or is it pure luck? My soon to be trainer does have over 3,000,000 in prize money in his career, so he couldnt have been that terrible, right?

6. Is there a natural progression of training I should follow? Like 2.0 of kill, 1.0 of experience, before moving up? Are doubles points worth spending on? I'd imagine the more options to gain points, they better, I just dont want to spread it out and find my player is grossly underskilled for his age.

[Brian Swartz]

First I should recommend taking a look at the game's documentation. Some things are answered there. There's a lot of information on various things here and in other threads, so it can be hard to find specific information certainly.

1. Practice weeks. Skipping a week entirely means you will lose out on experience. The only reason to do that is if your fatigue is super-high. At less than 15 or more than 30 form, you lose 0.1 skill and 0.1 service from your playing ability per point of form outside that range. Even worse, you also don't gain as much experience; that penalty gets worse the further you are outside the range. So there's basically only rare situations where it is justifiable to have less than 15 or more than 30 form.

2. Aging factor you have nailed; the range is 95-105%. Lower is better for longevity; faster will improve early development, making for better juniors players, etc. Age % is different though the two are easy to confuse. That's your current level of aging. That means you would currently have 79% of your max. strength and speed, are only using 79% of your skill + service, and so on(doubles, talent, etc. are unaffected). Endurance is a special case as it gets multiplied twice: current endurance is the maximum * 0.79 * 0.79, or whatever your current age % is.

3. General rule of them I use is to play the highest-levle tournament that I'm confident of being seeded in. It's not helpful to play a tournament that you will lose in early - that means less matches and xp that week, and less weeks off for practice before the next one. In juniors, I usually wait until a player has won 4-5 events at a particular level before moving up. This 'maxes out' their ranking and ensures they are ready for the next step.

4. You won't play any differently due to playing in both brackets, but you will have form and fatigue go up faster. This is a good thing unless you are a successful pro in roughly the Top 50, at which point maximizing your form for best results in big events will become more important. Before that though, there's really no drawback to playing both and you get more matches and xp that way.

5. There isn't any way to know how many xp they have saved up. Using the 'raw' numbers from the Use Experience screen, NOT the tennis ball reading which shows your current ability including age %, the trainer formula is as follows:

** Skill +
** 75% of Service +
** 33% of Doubles

All of that is divided by 2.3 to get your trainer's ability. Divide again by 20 to get the 'tennis ball' rating, instead of the 100-point scale. It's worth taking the time to get a trainer at least 5.0. You can actually go above that(I've seen 5.2 or 5.3) but it's pretty rare and I've never had one that high yet so I don't know how much a performance boost you get. The best trainer candidates are usually mid-late 30s guys.

6. I would look at my player rating formula not far back in this thread for a guide. You don't want to invest in doubles at all unless you want to be a doubles player. If you want to do well in singles you need to focus on that instead. As far as skill/service, skill is almost twice as important(since service is only used when you are serving, skill is used on all points), so in general you want to train skill unless the points required are almost twice as much as service. I have started experimenting with training both equally until a new player has about 1.0 or so in service, since at first they will have a ton of double-faults otherwhise. I think the jury's still out on whether that's a good idea, it certainly isn't a necessity.

[thehitcat]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Partial credit only for this answer :P. You do get them from practice matches(the higher group you are in, the more you get per win; 45 for the top group, 25 for the second, then 14, 7, 4, 2, 1. if you are down low enough, I think Group 9 or below, you get nothing). However, you also get points equal to the ranking points your player earns in tournaments. For example, winning a Masters is 1000 ranking points and 1000 manager points.

Once you start accumulating manager points, you will also notice another aspect: you lose some of them weekly, so if you do nothing your manager points will decline. If you are VIP you lose 1.5%; free managers lose 1%(this is to off-set the advantage of the VIP managers getting four players instead of two). At first this means basically nothing and is not noticeable. As you move up though it's more and more noticeable; I lose almost 500 points a week this way, so if I'm not bringing in a considerable amount on a particular week, my total will drop.

OK so two questions 1) when do you get Manager points. Do they come as soon as your player completes a practice round or exits the tourney they are in or do they come at the end of the week. And now 2) and this is the one I'm having the most trouble with.

So I currently have 95 manager points that I can use for hiring players. Here is what my 4 players did this week.
John Hart got knocked out of his JG5 tourney in singles in Qualifying and shows no points but he and his partner Seamus won the Doubles in the same JG5 and he shows 20 there. Since that's a doubles win I would expect 10 Manager Points.
Seamus Hughes was the other half of the doubles team that took the crown so again 20 becoming 10 MPs. He also progressed further in Singles and ended up with 15 pts for bowing out in the Semis so I believe I get all those points so 25 for Seamus or 35 total MPs so far.
George O'Shea got 2 points for a QF finish in singles and 3 for a SF in doubles. Rounding down I see that as 3 MPs or now 38 total.
Richard Hanlon my fourth player had a practice week and played singles only. He went 3 and 2 in Juniors group 2 with his listings being 3 Pts 2+, 9+, 1-, 2-, 7+ so did he earn me 45 MPs for the 3 wins or the points listed in the boxes 2+9-1-2+7= 15? I am totally confused.

Basically I thought I was going to have enough saved up to buy a trainer in last nights overnight and came in 56 points short which tells me either a) the points are getting added on the fly and I'm not doing a good job keeping track which is eminently possible and/or fixable or I have no effing clue how the points are being awarded and I just need to be patient hoping that I stumble onto a way to earn what I need piecing together the info I laid out above.

In short HELP!!

Thanks,
Dave

[Brian Swartz]

#1 -- They only change at the end of the week.
#2 -- 2+, 9+ etc. only refer to which player they played and whether they won or lost. You get the points per win(15 each I think you mentioned in this case)

From what you've described you should get the following:

** 1-2 pts subtracted due to the weekly penalty
** Hart -- 5 points not 10. You get only half as much for juniors
** Hughes -- 12 not 25, for the same reason
** O'Shea -- 3, correctly
** Hanlon -- 18 points, 6 for each win NOT 15.

So for this week as you described it I would expect you to gain a total of 36-37 points when you add them all up, ending at 131 or so. Another similar week and you would have your 56 with some to spare.

[thehitcat]

Awesome thank you! I'll check out the totals when I wake up tomorrow. Still trying to find my way and would really like to buy a trainer. I think Hart might be somebody

[JohnWillow]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

#1 -- They only change at the end of the week.
#2 -- 2+, 9+ etc. only refer to which player they played and whether they won or lost. You get the points per win(15 each I think you mentioned in this case)

From what you've described you should get the following:

** 1-2 pts subtracted due to the weekly penalty
** Hart -- 5 points not 10. You get only half as much for juniors
** Hughes -- 12 not 25, for the same reason
** O'Shea -- 3, correctly
** Hanlon -- 18 points, 6 for each win NOT 15.

So for this week as you described it I would expect you to gain a total of 36-37 points when you add them all up, ending at 131 or so. Another similar week and you would have your 56 with some to spare.

Hey!

I have played RR for a long time, but I still don't understand one thing, how you know how athletic is player? Because of strengt and speed skills? And I'm gonna finally buy VIP this week, because I want to create some players from my native country, Obviously I have to choose aging factor peaks late, but what would be the best for the player to choose strongest skill and weakest skill?

[Brian Swartz]

** Athleticism does refer simply to strength and speed.
** Depends on what you are looking for; you can make different styles of players if you want up to a degree. If going just for what is best though, speed for the weakest skill, endurance for the strongest.

[Olsson]

I have jumped into this game a few weeks back, mostly because of your discussion and dynasty threads.

I have a question. At which age can I convert a player to trainer?

[Brian Swartz]

The minimum age is 30, but you don't want to do it that soon(they will suck as a trainer until they have more time to develop).

[1738]

What do people think about a meh aging, talent, endurance player, but insane athleticism and mentality?

Aging Factor 102, 3.3 Endurance, 4.2 Talent, 4.4 Speed, 4.2 Ment, 3.5 Str

[thehitcat]

Not for me with that aging factor and endurance but I've never had that level of athlete so...