Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 20:38:04 GMT -5
125. How do we decide when and if to adjust down from 150? Could be a mess.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Oct 16, 2012 20:54:06 GMT -5
While ive said i dont mind adding injuries, lets not forget that real nhl injuries already have affected the ratings, makin injury prone players much less useful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 21:18:24 GMT -5
I say 125...... the way it is right now is unrealistic.... I wouldnt mind running a trial on 150 to see where that puts us as well but i think what's most important is that whatever we decide.. we stick to it.
It's not fair if we increase it to 150, see some teams experience their top players getting injured for 4 months.....then decrease it so that the the possibility of having any other teams go through the same issue is less.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Oct 16, 2012 21:21:52 GMT -5
100 for me. Maybe a poll?
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Oct 16, 2012 21:23:40 GMT -5
125. How do we decide when and if to adjust down from 150? Could be a mess. I could live with 125. 150 would be a 50% increase in the setting - likely a little much. Would've been nice to know before I trade 2 forwards (stay tuned).
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 16, 2012 21:26:24 GMT -5
I say 125...... the way it is right now is unrealistic.... I wouldnt mind running a trial on 150 to see where that puts us as well but i think what's most important is that whatever we decide.. we stick to it. It's not fair if we increase it to 150, see some teams experience their top players getting injured for 4 months.....then decrease it so that the the possibility of having any other teams go through the same issue is less. Sounds like we need 3 test runs. One with 100 (to give us a control base to work from) One with 125, and another with 150. And compare the results and see what might look best.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 16, 2012 22:17:24 GMT -5
Sounds like we need 3 test runs. One with 100 (to give us a control base to work from) One with 125, and another with 150. And compare the results and see what might look best. Well for a quick test I ran 30 days at 150. There were 3 long term injuries, all for 2 months. If I ran it again it might be 1 or it might be 9. To get accurate numbers you'd have to run it a shitload of times, you're not gonna get accurate numbers off a few times for each scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 16, 2012 22:40:22 GMT -5
Sounds like we need 3 test runs. One with 100 (to give us a control base to work from) One with 125, and another with 150. And compare the results and see what might look best. Well for a quick test I ran 30 days at 150. There were 3 long term injuries, all for 2 months. If I ran it again it might be 1 or it might be 9. To get accurate numbers you'd have to run it a shitload of times, you're not gonna get accurate numbers off a few times for each scenario. 30 days is about roughly 14/16 games per team. So 3 long term injuries within a 14 game period of time. (btw, anything short term?) That works out to about 17-15 long term injuries for a full season, using just that small sample. This is why I want some more data, thats the only way we're gonna figure out the best course of action.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 16, 2012 22:45:34 GMT -5
30 days is about roughly 14/16 games per team. So 3 long term injuries within a 14 game period of time. (btw, anything short term?) That works out to about 17-15 long term injuries for a full season, using just that small sample. This is why I want some more data, thats the only way we're gonna figure out the best course of action. Yes there were short term injuries, about the same amount as usual, 1-2 days here and there. What kind of data would be satisfactory? 'Cause I'm not about to sim several hundred 30 day sections on different settings and go through it all.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 16, 2012 22:49:28 GMT -5
Well, we need enough to get a strong sample base, or we're guessing. We don't need 100, but maybe 10?
Also if we could increase to about 40 days, that would be a larger sample of each season. (43 days is roughly 25% of the full season)
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 16, 2012 23:31:11 GMT -5
I think we just have to wing it. Let's use a conservative increase, say 125-135, and see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 16, 2012 23:59:23 GMT -5
Well, we need enough to get a strong sample base, or we're guessing. We don't need 100, but maybe 10? Also if we could increase to about 40 days, that would be a larger sample of each season. (43 days is roughly 25% of the full season) Ok, well it takes about a minimum 10-15 minutes to run a 40 day test, look through and record the info. So if you want 30 done (10 @ 3 different levels) it's gonna be a few days.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 17, 2012 0:11:11 GMT -5
Well, we need enough to get a strong sample base, or we're guessing. We don't need 100, but maybe 10? Also if we could increase to about 40 days, that would be a larger sample of each season. (43 days is roughly 25% of the full season) Ok, well it takes about a minimum 10-15 minutes to run a 40 day test, look through and record the info. So if you want 30 done (10 @ 3 different levels) it's gonna be a few days. Well, lets just start at 150, and see what those look like first.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Oct 17, 2012 5:40:47 GMT -5
My actual original concern about injuries was that they didn't happen with realistic frequency not necessarily that the % of long-term injuries wasn't high enough. The issue was that there were no injuries at all. Maybe if we adjust the injury slider to a higher rating and actually have some injuries, the % of long-term injuries might be ok at the default value of 100.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 17, 2012 6:26:27 GMT -5
Ok, well it takes about a minimum 10-15 minutes to run a 40 day test, look through and record the info. So if you want 30 done (10 @ 3 different levels) it's gonna be a few days. Well, lets just start at 150, and see what those look like first. Logics tell me it is easier to start low and go up if necesary, so again I'm in favor of 125 to start. Jon, where do you think we should start?
|
|