|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2012 17:31:10 GMT -5
Tough loss against the Flames. Lots of fights too! Reading the play by play, Beauchemin was clutch for Calgary... always causing turn overs.
The difference was the 1st lines, and in net. While Sedin/Stamkos/Parise scored two goals that game, they were also -2. Maybe I should up the D or hit rating for my top line. Bad game for Bryzgalov, he was beat cleanly by shots most goals.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 26, 2012 17:57:39 GMT -5
So I'm a bit confused over the EN and -1/2 CD... I was basing my max TOI on this formula, to prevent my players from losing CD points: Ice time threshold where one CD Point is removed = 0.EN * 23 For -2 CD = 0.EN * 25 So for Crosby (58 EN) I would calculate 0.58 * 23 = 13.32 minutes before 1 CD point removed, and 14.5 minutes before 2 CD points are removed. Yet today Crosby played 19 minutes and only lost 1 CD, so I'm a bit confused! What is wrong with my calculation? Ok, so I have been going back and forth with Simon (program creator) in regards to EN/minutes played, as well as farm goalies taking bigger CON hits than they should. It hasn't been easy to say the least lol. You can see the conversation here... sths.simont.info/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=9833
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2012 18:11:47 GMT -5
Not sure what he means by this formula... Crosby still lost -1 even though he played 19 minutes, not 23.
Players : TimePlay + (100-EN)/10
19.78+(100-58)/10 = 23.98 Minutes --> More than 23 minutes = -1 Hit
Damn Frenchmen haha
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 26, 2012 18:27:44 GMT -5
The way time is calculate is really stupid.
His "TimePlay + (100-EN)/10" formula makes EU ratings boardline meaningless.
For example: Using 23 played minutes
Joe Thornton: 23+(100-93)/10 = 23.7 (1 point loss) Sidney Crosby: 23+(100-58)/10 = 27.2 (2 point loss)
Thats not much change in the final number (4 minutes) when the EU ratings are 35 points apart.
The figures we were using, such as 23*.58 are WAY off. Using that math, Crosby should lose 1 CON at 13.34 minutes. But in the sim, 13.34 minutes is actually just 17.54 minutes, and not even close to 1 CON point
Seems to me the divide by 10 is what ends up making everything equal. Adjusting this number has major influence in the end figure.
13.34+(100-58)/4 = 23.84 (Crosby) 15.18+(100-66)/4 = 23.68 (Horton - 23*.66 = 15.18) 17.48+(100-76)/4 = 23.48 (Boyes - 23*.76 = 17.48)
Seems like "divide by 4" provides the results we're seeking in our sim.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 26, 2012 18:27:54 GMT -5
Not sure what he means by this formula... Crosby still lost -1 even though he played 19 minutes, not 23. Players : TimePlay + (100-EN)/10 19.78+(100-58)/10 = 23.98 Minutes --> More than 23 minutes = -1 Hit Damn Frenchmen haha The formula converts his actual minutes played and creates a new total of minutes played based on his EN to compare against the fatigue settings.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 26, 2012 18:33:31 GMT -5
The way time is calculate is really stupid. His "TimePlay + (100-EN)/10" formula makes EU ratings boardline meaningless. For example: Using 23 played minutes Joe Thornton: 23+(100-93)/10 = 23.7 (1 point loss) Sidney Crosby: 23+(100-58)/10 = 27.2 (2 point loss) Thats not much change in the final number (4 minutes) when the EU ratings are 35 points apart. The figures we were using, such as 23*.58 are WAY off. Using that math, Crosby should lose 1 CON at 13.34 minutes. But in the sim, 13.34 minutes is actually just 17.54 minutes, and not even close to 1 CON point Seems to me the divide by 10 is what ends up making everything equal. Adjusting this number has major influence in the end figure. 13.34+(100-58)/4 = 23.84 (Crosby) 15.18+(100-66)/4 = 23.68 (Horton - 23*.66 = 15.18) 17.48+(100-76)/4 = 23.48 (Boyes - 23*.76 = 17.48) Seems like "divide by 4" provides the results we're seeking in our sim. I completely agree with all of that! The question is how do we fix it though? Also, reading a post in the thread Simon referenced he apparently interjects some sort of "penalty" formula as well, but it is in french and makes no sense... Translated: The options are based on endurance 100. So a player with less than 100 endurance to a penalty calculated by the formula mentioned above. I decompose 2.4 in 2 Minutes (For 2. *) And I 0.4 * 60 to get the number of seconds that a 0.4 do 24 minutes so
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2012 18:39:38 GMT -5
Ah I see. Gavin is right, that formula really reduces the effect of EN.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 26, 2012 22:40:40 GMT -5
The way time is calculate is really stupid. His "TimePlay + (100-EN)/10" formula makes EU ratings boardline meaningless. For example: Using 23 played minutes Joe Thornton: 23+(100-93)/10 = 23.7 (1 point loss) Sidney Crosby: 23+(100-58)/10 = 27.2 (2 point loss) Thats not much change in the final number (4 minutes) when the EU ratings are 35 points apart. The figures we were using, such as 23*.58 are WAY off. Using that math, Crosby should lose 1 CON at 13.34 minutes. But in the sim, 13.34 minutes is actually just 17.54 minutes, and not even close to 1 CON point Seems to me the divide by 10 is what ends up making everything equal. Adjusting this number has major influence in the end figure. 13.34+(100-58)/4 = 23.84 (Crosby) 15.18+(100-66)/4 = 23.68 (Horton - 23*.66 = 15.18) 17.48+(100-76)/4 = 23.48 (Boyes - 23*.76 = 17.48) Seems like "divide by 4" provides the results we're seeking in our sim. I completely agree with all of that! The question is how do we fix it though? Also, reading a post in the thread Simon referenced he apparently interjects some sort of "penalty" formula as well, but it is in french and makes no sense... Translated: The options are based on endurance 100. So a player with less than 100 endurance to a penalty calculated by the formula mentioned above. I decompose 2.4 in 2 Minutes (For 2. *) And I 0.4 * 60 to get the number of seconds that a 0.4 do 24 minutes so I can't think of a way to correct it within what we can adjust in the settings, without making everyone always losing at least 1 CON just for playing, which I don't really want to do. As far what you said there at the end...mind translating that into english? lol. I don't get what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 26, 2012 23:05:38 GMT -5
I don't see any way around it either. The sim is just designed with EN having a small impact.
I re-calculated max TOI for my guys with this formula. It makes a big difference. Max TOI = 23 - ((100-EN)/10).
I guess it makes sense in reality for EN to have a small influence on TOI, when EN is evidently calculated largely based on GP. However, I completely disagree with that. Crosby missed a lot of games, but when he did play, he still averaged like 20 min/game. I don't think GP should effect EN at all... it should be based entirely on average TOI.
So if you agree with that line of thinking, increasing injury frequency is the only thing we can do, and it has already been done.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 26, 2012 23:35:11 GMT -5
I still find it pretty stupid that a guy that missed an entire season can be better than someone who played all year long.
Hell, best scenario would be to play 1 NHL game, and get 1 goal and 1 assist. You just got a player that can play 17 minutes a night (and not lose 1 CON) that "averages" 160 points a season. Thats pretty dumb.
The only real solution is to have to the developer modify the formula. Any figure less than divide by 10 would be an improvement, as I said, 4 was the magic number to match what we were originally planning.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 26, 2012 23:57:11 GMT -5
I completely agree with all of that! The question is how do we fix it though? Also, reading a post in the thread Simon referenced he apparently interjects some sort of "penalty" formula as well, but it is in french and makes no sense... Translated: The options are based on endurance 100. So a player with less than 100 endurance to a penalty calculated by the formula mentioned above. I decompose 2.4 in 2 Minutes (For 2. *) And I 0.4 * 60 to get the number of seconds that a 0.4 do 24 minutes so I can't think of a way to correct it within what we can adjust in the settings, without making everyone always losing at least 1 CON just for playing, which I don't really want to do. As far what you said there at the end...mind translating that into english? lol. I don't get what you're saying. Simon was saying (in french) that in addition to the formula he uses to calculate minutes played, there was also some sort of "penalty" formula built in to compensate for EN under 100. So the number result of the formula isn't exact because the other formula needs to be taken into account as well. I have the ability lower all players EN by select percentages and/or adjust the minutes levels by decimals. There has to be some sort of mathematical balancing act we can do to get the numbers to work how we want, based on what we now know. I highly doubt Simon is going to change how he the game is coded
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 27, 2012 0:42:30 GMT -5
I can't think of a way to correct it within what we can adjust in the settings, without making everyone always losing at least 1 CON just for playing, which I don't really want to do. As far what you said there at the end...mind translating that into english? lol. I don't get what you're saying. Simon was saying (in french) that in addition to the formula he uses to calculate minutes played, there was also some sort of "penalty" formula built in to compensate for EN under 100. So the number result of the formula isn't exact because the other formula needs to be taken into account as well. I have the ability lower all players EN by select percentages and/or adjust the minutes levels by decimals. There has to be some sort of mathematical balancing act we can do to get the numbers to work how we want, based on what we now know. I highly doubt Simon is going to change how he the game is coded If there was an extra penalty in place, I'm sure it would have actually worked on Crosby, yet Crosby fell perfectly in line with the formula we've been given. I'm sure we have at least one french speaker here in the league don't we? copy/paste the original french, could just be a mistranslation leading you off. I wonder if the "extra penalty" has to do with ice time during shifts. As Crosby is only getting about 19 minutes on a 40% first line, so he is tiring out more quickly during the game and needing replacement more often, but not enough to actually tire himself out to lose CON points. I dunno what can be done mathematically, we have an incredibly tight spread of numbers to deal with, 35 EU points = 4 minutes is pretty damn tight. Only thing I can think of would be something like 20 = -1 22 = -2 24 = -3 Even that would cause basically every team in the league to lose 1 CON point on their entire 1st line, every game (which I think is bad), and the effect on somebody like Crosby or Horton would only equal -2 for 19 minutes of play.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 27, 2012 15:36:02 GMT -5
I was wondering why the exhaustion injuries pitts got today, didn't show up in the game notes and only the transactions.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 27, 2012 16:15:09 GMT -5
I was wondering why the exhaustion injuries pitts got today, didn't show up in the game notes and only the transactions. I think its technically a "post game" injury.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 28, 2012 15:38:24 GMT -5
It's a relief to get the win today against Calgary... dropping two in a row against one of our biggest rivals wouldn't bode well for the season!
Should have won by more than one goal since the reffing was pretty heavily biased towards us. Only 1 PP goal on 12 PPs. The Flames had 1 PP goal on 3 PP's. I better make some changes.
Another tough game against TO tomorrow. Elliot will get his first start.
|
|