Allowing Players to be trained into Purple

[IamQuailman]

This came up a few times during the latest Town Hall and seems to have some interest in revisiting whether we should be allowed to train into Purple or not. Personally, I have no problem with it. It's a potential waste of time for the commissioner to input a training, see it's purple turning, revert, and then communicate all that back to the requesting GM who may now do a completely different training.

In terms of parity, I don't think it will really impact that either, because we've seen plenty of purples not really make impacts... and plenty of Blue Potentials (Hello Kevin McHale) just utterly dominate. I say allow training into purple... the hate only bled over from the previous league and I think there wasn't significant reason for it even then.

[Mike Lowry]

I think the vote will pass if you have it.

[digiskunk]

I vote no.

Purple players are special for a reason: Because they're generational talent.

The last thing we need are super teams boosting their players into purple and dominating everybody else. Clubs who're lower in the standings wouldn't be able to keep up nor afford this. Teams that're top-tier will be earning all these points whilst the lower-class will earn almost none. It would benefit only the top 25% and nobody else.

[LazyTitanSmash]

I vote no as well.

Agree with Dig, and wish we could just end training all together. It favors winning teams, and hurts teams dependent on the draft and makes people want to trade less.

[WigNosy]

I vote no as well.

Agree with Dig, and wish we could just end training all together. It favors winning team, and hurts teams dependent on the draft and makes people want to trade less.

I sort of agree with LTS here.

I think we should continue to allow "Current" ratings to be trained up to their potential when they fall short - this is helping your player reach their potential faster rather than increasing their potential and I think is needed when a player comes into the rookie draft with a huge gap between "current" and "potential" ratings (like Clyde Drexler). This isn't improving a player past their "natural" potential - and I think should be allowed even if it moves a player into "purple current" - he's already got purple potential, so what's the big deal with allowing him to get to his potential?

I also think personal foul rating training for players with a rating of under 20 is desirable so they can actually stay on the floor a little. Same with injury training (although injuries seem random enough i don't know it's worth the bother).

Finally, I would like to see the ability to train a player's three-point usage attribute up OR down as this rating controls how many outside shots a player takes that are threes instead of twos - but as far as I can tell does NOT control the number of shots a player takes overall - i.e., this rating is 100% shot selection, which is something we can already affect somewhat by gameplanning (inside/outside/balanced) and is really a gameplanning thing rather than an "innate" attribute.

But potential training and athletic training do allow players to improve past their "natural" potentials and as such I wouldn't mind seeing these options removed (and yes, I am aware I have made a lot of use of them in the past).

[greepleairport]

This thread took a turn and can suck my balls.

I’m voting yes, let’s roll


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tbone963]

I think a player should be able to be trained into purple but not once they hit purple. So if you train a b/b that turns purple, so be it. You just can't train a b/p or p/p.

[IamQuailman]

I vote no as well.

Agree with Dig, and wish we could just end training all together. It favors winning teams, and hurts teams dependent on the draft and makes people want to trade less.

I think bad offers make people want to trade less more than training

[IamQuailman]

I also think personal foul rating training for players with a rating of under 20 is desirable so they can actually stay on the floor a little. Same with injury training (although injuries seem random enough i don't know it's worth the bother).

Finally, I would like to see the ability to train a player's three-point usage attribute up OR down as this rating controls how many outside shots a player takes that are threes instead of twos - but as far as I can tell does NOT control the number of shots a player takes overall - i.e., this rating is 100% shot selection, which is something we can already affect somewhat by gameplanning (inside/outside/balanced) and is really a gameplanning thing rather than an "innate" attribute.

Probably requires a separate thread, but I think we need to raise the FLOOR of PF ratings from 0 to 20 or something like that. someone with PF 0 is essentailly unusable, and honestly, paying training for that would take 4-5 seasons of PF training alone to just get them able to stay on the floor for more than 20-25mpg. We've seen this with a lot of players who come into the league (creation and rookie drafts alike). I think a floor would still have them being a fouling liability, but they would at least be able to make SOME kind of contribution.

The 3pt Usage rating is interesting too. I'd like to flesh that out more as well.

[IamQuailman]

I vote no as well.

Agree with Dig, and wish we could just end training all together. It favors winning teams, and hurts teams dependent on the draft and makes people want to trade less.

I think bad offers make people want to trade less more than training

A more serious note, if you take away trainings, then you GREATLY diminish the importance of points and incentive to collect points. Teams would just earn them naturally and stockpile and just use to pay off tax or insure ALL young players on the team (instead of making tough decisions). So i think this would actually greatly impact the trade economy greatly in a NEGATIVE way and lend to teams competing to keep competing by remaining in the tax and stockpiling points to pay off tax bills.

[greepleairport]

It brings me great pain to say

Thank you Doug for making this thread no longer suck ass

3pt usage training should be a thing
Points are useless with out training
Any training that takes a player into purple potential should be their last paid training, no matter how deep it takes them




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AngryBanana]

I vote no as well.

Agree with Dig, and wish we could just end training all together. It favors winning teams, and hurts teams dependent on the draft and makes people want to trade less.

I think bad offers make people want to trade less more than training

A more serious note, if you take away trainings, then you GREATLY diminish the importance of points and incentive to collect points. Teams would just earn them naturally and stockpile and just use to pay off tax or insure ALL young players on the team (instead of making tough decisions). So i think this would actually greatly impact the trade economy greatly in a NEGATIVE way and lend to teams competing to keep competing by remaining in the tax and stockpiling points to pay off tax bills.

It can be altered by changing the scale of points for over tax and doing a second apron.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Lowry]

I like the mention of 3pt usages and PF rating as well.