I still don't get your point. I'm really trying to understand how is it that PFs with high OD having more salary benefits LI teams.
Are you seriously suggesting that all those 18 IS, 14 ID, 12 Reb center in third league got a raise in salary due to their high OD?
The inside players who have less salary are the ones who worst could defend motion or run and gun, so I still don't understand how it benefits LI teams either.
The success of LI primarily depends primarily on guards.
LI guards with low JS, JR but 20 OD and 20 IS have a better efficiency per cost of ownership ratio than outside guards.
(cost of ownership depends on salary and training cost, the latter influences TL purchase prices if you dont train yourself)
With cheaper guards, LI teams can afford big men with more IS to overpower the ID an outside team can afford after paying for their more expensive outside guards while suppressing game flow with their high OD guards.
You are right that LI bigs on top teams do have OD but Li bigs were always about scoring more than your opponent, not defense.
Outside players with high JS and JR and low IS have less salary. I don't think iit's good for LI teams either.
They do, but not on top teams. IS is, with the current engine, quite important on guards, even for outside oriented tactics.
A 18 JS, 18 JR, 18 OD, 13 IS guard had a smaller percentage salary raise than a 5 JS, 5 JR, 20 OD, 20 IS guard but since its total salary was much higher to begin with the net raise was about equal if not more. This is due to the change appearing to be linear on IS, not exponential with e.g. the first 10 points of IS rather cheap with a steep increase once you close in on 20.
I would accept that you think that the change should have been higher or that it will not stop people prefer a LI team, but I don't understand how this measure is punishing motion (unless you want to play motion with guards with 16IS and PFs and Cs with 15OD and PA)
The reason i talk about LI is that this was given as the reason for the change.
I would indeed like to run motion with exactly those kind of players, yes.
To summarise: the intention to remove LI team salary advantage was missed with the change (in my humble opinion) but more important, the change penalizes high TSP training by increasing the cost of ownership for those players, which (in my humble opinion again) is 180 degrees from what they should do.
If you want faster training for more players on TL you could just increase the number of available staff by 50% or increase training speed by 20% or something similar.
I am feeling a bit strange explaining fundamentals to an EGM, so if you dont get my point again i will give up ;)
Have a nice day.
Last edited by Robard at 12/9/2016 3:35:54 AM