Warrior General Games

Originally posted by whatje
fwiw, this entire argument is between like 3-5 points end build. oops.

Potentially, but those 3-5 points could be worth 80+ SP value , which can make a bit of a difference. I would estimate a Quad vs. Normal/intense ends with closer to 10-15 point difference. If you end up quading your first primary for first 6 seasons, you actually can raise it 7-9 points above your cap alone, which gives amazing SP value , espacially if your first cap is 78 or better. Granted it is hard to build most positions with a first attribute included in the big 3 multi-unlock, all 3 primary positions, and a couple 4 primary positions can get away with it.

Originally posted by Hagalaz



For some positions I preffer capping at level 1. For example for a QB, you'd be a fool not to take advantage of extra 0.67 of ALGs or 1.23 if you cap on level 3.



Depends honestly.... Most build show no benefit to capping at 1 anymore. The 3 primary positions being the exclusion. All capping at 1 really does is free up some extra days of training for second attribute IMO, and when you plan on quad'ing , it will be ready by the time your first caps anyway.

Shrakzil, the issue is simple. Let's look at a LB. Other than a blitzer, you will not be aiming for 81 on your primary attribute, others will need more attributes higher and thus can't afford those 4 points that come at the cost of more than 28 SP. You can and will reach 81 in several positions like the linemen, but on a few others like say, dual-threat QBs you simply can't afford to get as high on the primary, since you need too high secondaries to make it work.

Also, 0.5 points or 0.67 points of extra growth on your primary attribute will save you SP several times check it out, for example, for a QB. Or maybe for I dunno, last time I calculated was with a LB starting with vision. (Also, yes, I tested in practice on a few dots, but mostly I calculate stuff, if you know the numbers, this - other than breakthroughs - gives you the same answers but quicker).

Still shrakzil, the difference isn't the nobmal vs multi. My approach also uses multi, but you were planning on 6 seasons while I was planning on 4 seasons and a few days. That's the only difference.

And now, mr Rage, I have a question. Did I understand correctly that you are planning to stop multi-training and train relaxed until you can get all your multi attributes at the first cap before continuing with the multitraining ? Or did I misunderstand?

Originally posted by Hagalaz


And now, mr Rage, I have a question. Did I understand correctly that you are planning to stop multi-training and train relaxed until you can get all your multi attributes at the first cap before continuing with the multitraining ? Or did I misunderstand?


Definitely not something i planned on. Must be a misunderstanding. I probably won't train relaxed until after my 5th season, likely 6th, unless the plan changes.

Relaxed is solely for BT's at a point that i have no other stats that are in need of serious increasing. Only to finish out my AEQ needs. I figure in most of my builds, my second attribute should rise 4-6 points past final cap of 78. My thrid should rise 2-3 past 78, and 4th/5th should get a few increases in the 48 cap range.

I will only be staying multi-train because of the increases to already capped stats. My 4th multi-train will continue to change season from season, and will be low on importance pasr first few seasons.

Yeah but the issue is that training attributes at 40s is a waste, and I don't see how rage wants to avoid that, since he said he won't do it.

You can always go to relaxed training in season 5, then go back and multi-train in season 6.

However, I'm also always willing to hold onto sp when it makes sense. There are times you can boost and take 3 attributes from 38.xx to 48.xx at the same time and not lose anything to ALG because of decimal values at the time.

Yeah, that's what I figured. Makes total sense to have a relaxed "pause" to get the attributes to the cap and then train again.

Excellent approach

(I do hope it turns out to be better than mine)