Tid:
Log ud
Emnet: Reporting Bugs| Vælg et land: |
|
USA |
yeah the playoffs are all screwed up. I'm top seed now playing other top seed. two 3 seeds playing each other
For what it is worth, my league seems to be ok. The left and right brackets were the top four of each conference. Round 2, I am actually playing the other winner of my conference.
They fixed the issues before the games, everyone should have played who they were supposed to.
ah! good to know.
On the Team Comparison, Arena page, I started a parking garage but it shows a 0 instead of a .5 in the parking, yet in the total for snack bars etc., it shows 17.5 when I have 17 total. It appears to be adding the parking that isn't showing up to the wrong total.
The regular season Conference winner gets #1 seed for playoffs. The playoff Conference winner plays the other Playoff Conference winner for final position. The Winner of that gets promoted the loser plays a relegation game.
You got the bonus between 11 and 12. If before 12 it goes to that day which shows up as previous day after 12 and nothing shows up current day.
This wasn't reflected by the playoff tree at the time.
Yea. I was a little late. I didn't look at the original post dates.
The 3rd and 4th place teams are picking after the 1st and 2nd place teams in the draft.
In draft history for USA I.1, the system is saying season 1 week 10's draft has not taken place.
I think the players are growing way too slowly.
I have a player that was labeled as C by draft.
If I recall correctly, he started at 184.
A season later, he is 187.
If this growth continues in a linear function, he'll be 193 by 18. Nowhere near the projected C, not even a PF.
Is the growth effected by Training Academy or Coaches? It shouldn't be.
So far, I can't make sense of the "growth" but it seems way too slow.
Pete Myers
I have a player that was labeled as C by draft.
If I recall correctly, he started at 184.
A season later, he is 187.
If this growth continues in a linear function, he'll be 193 by 18. Nowhere near the projected C, not even a PF.
Is the growth effected by Training Academy or Coaches? It shouldn't be.
So far, I can't make sense of the "growth" but it seems way too slow.
Pete Myers
I totally agree. It has been frustrating
I drafted a projected PF that was about 177 cm last season. He is now 182 cm (5 cm seems to be a fair estimate for seasonal growth, though it is supposed to be different for different players). I decided to train him as an SF.
I think the draft projection gives more consideration to relative qualities (based on qualities, PF would actually be a good projection for the player) than the height.
Another consideration is that a player one day from having a height of 188 might have a height of 187 today.
I think the draft projection gives more consideration to relative qualities (based on qualities, PF would actually be a good projection for the player) than the height.
Another consideration is that a player one day from having a height of 188 might have a height of 187 today.
Dine favorittråde
Nyeste poster
Copyright © 2007-2024 - POWERPLAY MANAGER, s.r.o. - Alle rettigheder forbeholdes
Kontakt - Forretningsbetingelser - Privacy policy - Cookies settings - Portal kort
Reklamer på PowerPlay Manager - Bliv vores partner!
Partnere: www.tennismania.com - www.biathlonmania.com - www.skijumpmania3.com
[all: 165ms / php: 122ms / db: 43ms ]
Web server: WB1
Kontakt - Forretningsbetingelser - Privacy policy - Cookies settings - Portal kort
Reklamer på PowerPlay Manager - Bliv vores partner!
Partnere: www.tennismania.com - www.biathlonmania.com - www.skijumpmania3.com
[all: 165ms / php: 122ms / db: 43ms ]
Web server: WB1