I've said this before and I will repeat it now. All skills should be included in the salary formula for each position, even if their impact is negligible. The proper way to set things up would be that after the initial settings decided by the devs, the salary automatically changes a little towards an equilibrium level. The equilibrium level is determined by how much of each skill (say, beyond respectable) can be found on players playing in a specific role. It needs to be gradual, but if everyone plays players with very high IS at PG then you either change the Game Engine or you make IS cost more for the position. In the R&G days, JS would have become increasingly more expensive too.
I've let this ride for a while to see if someone else would coment on some of the illogic here.
(1) "a specific role" is completely subjective, and at this point, undefined. The "specific role" could equally be "point guard" or "giraffe" until you define the roles you are talking about, and
justify their inclusion in your design.
(2)
Automatically making the most-used skills more expensive and the least-used skills less expensive just drives everything toward a mid-point. Who wants all 9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9 players, or all 18-18-18-18-18-18-18-18 players?
There are a couple of things in the posts I agree with, however.
"All skills should be included in the salary formula for each position, even if their impact is negligible." "Whatever is currently not in the formula could start at a 0 or negligible weight towards the salary and reach a reasonable level over time." It should be done by logical design though, not just automatically.
Last edited by Mike Franks at 12/3/2014 2:31:23 PM