Comparing players: grey skills vs white skills

[nikolgiorgos]

that skills are cosmetic ?

[Toxcatl]

that skills are cosmetic ?

You don't know that. Me neither, but I think you're wrong. I seriously need to gather all the facts about it and make a thread with arguments for and against. Just for, you know, settling this in my head.
Ah, I hate being agnostic, though sometimes, like in this case, there is no other choice.

When I'm looking for players on the TM, I often compare players on auction with my own of the same role.
Very often I find that even though the auctioned player has higher quality %, his white skills are more or less at the same level as those of my own player. The difference lies in the grey skills only.

You need to consider other factors that affect training pace: age, stars and, ideally, talent. The last one is a bitch though. Read Nik's guide about FTs to get more info, if you haven't already.

[LarryC]

Thanks, I think I read pretty much all the great stuff you both have written. That was immensely helpful.

My question is not about training pace, but rather:

Would the overall rating of a player be somehow misleading?
What If grey skills enter in the average % (and in star calculation) but are in fact of much lesser importance in the game itself.

That resonates with other reports of players with imbalanced skills
I suspect this 4* player plays probably as well as another 5* or 6* player having more balanced skills.


This relates indeed closely to another discussion: do individual skill matter or not? I think they probably do, but not as some think.

A player with 500% speed does not run five time as fast as one with 100%, as some dismissed

I think the game engine uses these attributes when calculating the chances of a particular event in the game.
E.g. shooting skill (and others?) of a ST against one or more of the keeper’s skill, to determine if the shot gets in (distance and position must also matter in this example).