Asunto: I.1

To say his 2nd and 4th lines were better I assume you were just adding up all the pucks. And if that is all you go by then what is the point in the star ratings? Plus if you go by puck ratings, his top line had the best shot rating but it was his 2nd line that did all the scoring so obviously puck rating doesn't necessarily tell the whole story either. I don't mean to rant or complain, I just feel like alot of games (not just mine) are won by a coin toss not by any real statistical comparison.

games are not won by any of those things. each individual event is calculated separately. we only see the top level. goalies have bad games, goalies have good games, players lose battles they normally would win leading to scoring opportunities. the game is in the details, and your teams are likely not that different.

I think people are just misinterpreting what a real upset is. As the game progresses and we start to see major separations between the top teams and the bottom teams, then I think we'll see if there's something wrong with the game engine.

I don't think a 37 team strength beating a 41 team strength is a real upset, even with the right tactic. Because essentially there is no difference between the strengths of the two teams.

If we get to the point where 50 strength teams are beating to 150 strength teams then I'd worry. That would seem like the equivalent of a junior team beating an NHL team.

Thats my biggest problem. You guys continually contradict yourselves. First everybody claims team A's shot is so much better even though it may only be by 4 points but you will claim that was the difference maker. But when team B's overall rating is 4 better it suddenly becomes 4 points is nothing and is virtually a wash. I definitely agree 4 points is not a big difference. But how can me having 4 less points in shot make a difference when my goaltending is 19 points better and that obviously doesn't matter.

I understand what flyers is trying to get at b/c one day you talk about a loss you had in the forums and someone responds and say one thing then when you are in the revese situation those same people same the reverse of what they said before. When it all comes down to it no one knows a damn thing and everyone is trying to just make the best guess possible.

As for your definition of an upset what number diffence would you consider, yes you point out 100 pt diffenece as one but what would be the lost number 50 20 75?

By what I assume and I do mean assume 13 points isnt considered an upset by your statement, but yet that is the diffence you and I are from leggman (sorry to keep bringing you into this but if you weren't the #1 team in the US i would pick on someone else). I dont know about you but if I every manage to beat him this season, I would consider that an upset on my part. Also if 13 points wasn't that big of a diffenece why has most people lost to him, why is most of his players leading the league in every catergory? 13 points may be a little larger then you give it credit.

I can agree that there is no difference in strength if their strengths are off-setting. Meaning if one team is better in shot and defence and the other team is better in goaltending and offence. But if one team is better in everything, whether it be by 1 point or 10 points in each category, he should still have the advantage. Plus you can't say 50 compared to 150 because if somebody like me beats somebody like Leggman which is only a 15 point difference we would all agree it would be an upset.

will you stop repeating what i'm trying to say here...lol

Sorry, I apparently can't type fast enough.

What I'm trying to say is the game itself is simply a series of rolls of dice. Team Strength and tactics, simply weigh the dice. Even with the dice in your favor, sometimes you crap out. You had the dice in your favor today... but when they rolled, they came up for him.

As far as upsets, yes me beating leggman with a 15 point strength difference was an upset... but it wasn't implausible to the point where we need to question the game engine. If you want a number where I'd start to question the game engine, I have no idea, but I'd think it would have more to do with percentages then real numbers. What I mean is, I'd consider it a bigger upset if a 75 strength team beat a 150 strength team, compared to say a 125 strength team beating a 200 strength team.

one other thing to consider is that as teams get better and individual players get better the absolute value of their day-to-day fluctuations will also get bigger and roles of chemistry and experience will become more prevalent.

I've seen people post that 100% chemistry gives you +10% stats (roughly) and that 100XP gives you +10% stats (again, roughly). 100 chemistry and Xp gives Buckley about +40 pts each since he's about a 400 OTR while a 300 pt goalie might gain 30.

Of course players have good and bad days periodically. If a good day is +20% and a bad day is -20% the best players gain and lose more with those fluctuations than anyone else which can really mess with your results.

As players all get better ANY advantage becomes bigger in terms of absolute value - thus a +10% home ice advantage will buy my team about 5.5 otr and give someone else 4. It all figures in to make things less predictable in the long run...

Well, obviously some people believe certain things and others believe other things. But my stance has been the same all along; most teams are pretty even and on any given day anything can happen, even if you choose the "correct" tactic. As jdevils3 said, it's just a series of events with percentages assigned to them based upon a number of factors.

I'm an avid poker player, and as such I've learned to forget about short term (1 game) results. You can have a 95% perfect chance to win a certain event in a game, a poker hand, or an entire game...but it doesn't mean you're going to. The fact of the matter is that if someone actually tries to give you a definitive answer for why you won a certain game, they are incorrect in their assessment before their first sentence is complete.

percent chance*

Guys, I know it's frustrating to lose, but luck is still a factor in any sport, including RL hockey. i know this isn't RL hockey but it's supposed to simulate it. If I wanted to play 5>3 = win I could make a game in excel.

Good luck the rest of the year everyone!

Without offense you get less chances to score and witgout defense you give the other team more chances. Every attribute matters and while shot is important if thats all you ever train be prepared to get rolled when everyone else gets ahead of you.

I dont think that he claim your game is implausible but rather getting people to acknoweldge that it is an upset and upsets happen.

The moment you use the word upset in here or on any other forums, just about all people jump do defend the winner and leave the loser scratching there head going ok what the hell am I missing that it seem everyone else sees. Or who knows maybe flyers was just looking to vent without any real feedback. I personally take it out on my mouse after I lose a match I felt I should have one. I'm on mouse #6.

@ taloncarde

Yes luck is understood to be part of the game & yes if it was only 5>3 then yes it would be boring. I cannot speak for flyers but I'm just trying to get a better understanding or even a hint on how to limit the luck outcomes. There probably isn't a way to but, it couldn't hurt to try. Or what would be the point of reading everyones opinions and thoughts on the forums.