Asunto: Questions & Answers

Play low...

Is there a penalty for playing high two ore more games on a row, other then the energy loss?
I have feeling that second high game the performance is beneath even normal/low play ...

ye i would like to know that to for sure, because i also had such feeling!

shouldnt be game wise as the energy returns to the current max after each game.

I have another question and it's freakin' strange. Certain strong club has sent his players to camp, and players which are in the game seem to be (by the red & blue pucks) twice as weak than those in camp. Their results in games however, are not following this pattern. So I'm starting to wonder is there any defensive mechanism/script in engine which provides continuous form of a club when players are away ? Just not to be handicapped much. Or maybe random just took it's course, and I'm seeing things which are not true.

Well, the pucks have nothing to do with the play of the team. How many games of a sample size are you looking at? The new players may have good experience and chemistry which would help cushion the blow of losing "higher puck" players. There are a lot of possibilities here. Just because they have higher pucks doesn't mean they'll play better.

If the pucks have nothing to do with the play of the team...I don't know what has (except tactics of course).
There are some others influences on game, but they are all well below pucks & tactic. Pucks represent strength of one team in that match, whether team has good or bad chem, exp, well trained skills...
So, if I'm saying that screenshot of one team in a game (which pucks are) are well below his true performance in that game, I'm actually asking for some other influences besides those that we all know.
I'm focused on 3 games in a row of course.

Couple things. First off I think your very accurate on pucks ect. As we know both chem and EXP are reflected in pucks and stars so there is no `hiden`` advantage in those areas as BB has suggested as a posibility.

The other is slightly different theory. As you are aware puck stars represent chem, EXP and prime atty in general. Thus a build issue might be in play. Does a 4:3:2 build play better in the game engine than a 2:1:1 buildÉ As it is my belief with identical chem and EXP if energy plus prime atty are the same they will show the same stars and pucks in relative terms but the 4:3:2 build has alot more second atty. Other than build not sure what to say unless tactics of course which I assume you`ve factored out.

If this was true, clubs with such builds should have no problem beating 211 builds even if they are much weaker on the paper. Somehow I think I never seen this here.

I was under the impression that the team strength was affected by chem/xp but the pucks weren't. my mistake, apparently.

Definately both. I have a 7 puck pair that wouldn't be close without chem and EXP. I think Vlady has mentioned it also previously.

@sickaiz

The answer would be no... and yes

Is there a built in penalty that if you play high two or more games in a row your team plays worse each game? No.

However, each game on high takes away 2 points of energy from your team so the next game everyone starts 2 points lower, so mathematically they are not going to play as well. So you already state the answer, the penalty is the energy loss.

But the idea of an "auto-penalty" makes as much programming sense as a 100-80-60 player being better than a 100-100-100 player.

we dig to deep

I meant the pucks don't tell you how well the team played. So I wouldn't correlate pucks and results.

While pucks show the strength of the lines on paper, it doesnt show how well the players played in the game.

The players could play poorly, have no luck and thus play
well below the puck representation