Θέμα: Reporting bugs

lets try the links this time:
hockey.powerplaymanager ....

hockey.powerplaymanager.c...

lol -1st one screwed up:

hockey.powerplaymanager.c...

I reported it, thanks.

Anything running tonight?

my nose

looks like nothing else besides that... boo.

Sorry if this is already a known issue.

My team's default Play Day-to-Day setting is No. Yesterday I bought 2 injured players on the market, and today I noticed that their PDtD setting is set to yes. I suspect it was set that way according to their old team's default, and not updated when they moved. I suggest that when an injured player transfers, it would be nice if his PDtD setting was updated to the value of the buying team's default setting.

you know there is a warning that the default setting applies only to new injuries. Because you bought them while they were injured, it is only logical that their setting hasnt changed.

There is no particular logic in that. Changing the default setting does not change the value for players who are already injured and already on your team; I understand that, and that's what the warning says. It even makes logical sense, because you may have carefully chosen different settings for different players, and it would be annoying if there were no way to change the default without undoing all the work you did choosing those settings individually.

But a player acquired via the market is "new to me", so the logic above does not apply. There is no reason, logical or otherwise, not to switch the setting to the buying team's default. Unlike the case of existing injuries to players you already own, I can see no reason why a buying team would be hurt by the change I have suggested.

Of course, you could put it under suggestions. But as vlady pointed out, it's not particularly a bug. The logic is as follows: player injured is assigned a day-to-day injury setting based on the default setting; player is injured, therefore the player's day-to-day setting is based on the default setting. It's simple modus tollens if I remember correctly. Since it follows a simple deductive rule of inference, then, it must be the original if-then conditional that you wish to be modified. Hence, under suggestions. Just trying to help!

Sorry, but you don't recall correctly, because modus tollens has nothing to do with it.

You are definitely correct that this could go under suggestions, though. Unfortunately the line between bugs and suggestions is not always clear, as it requires us to know the intent of the developers. In theory, they could respond to any bug we reported by saying, "No no, we meant to do that! But put it under suggestions if you want it changed."

Anyway, this is all quite beside the point. The idea has been conveyed to the developer, so I see no point in making another post in the suggestions thread. It is a very minor issue in any case.

As I stated in my last post, I see a good reason for not modifying the DtD status of existing players when the default is changed. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever -- nor has anyone yet been able to provide me with one -- why changing the setting as part of the player transfer process is not a good idea. I could not possibly care any less whether making this change would be considered an implementation of a suggestion of a bug fix.

Think of it this way, when the player was injured, the default setting for his original team was applied. Depending on how they code things, that toggle was probably applied to the individual player object. So when he changed teams, he was already set one way, but since it was not a new injury defaults did not apply.

I see your point that as part of the transfer process new defaults should apply, but I also understand on a back end process why it might be this way.

Yes I know. I offered the same explanation in my original post. Understanding how things got to be the way they are is not the problem.

Dang it! Modus ponens! I always get the two mixed up. It's why I prefer English: affirming the antecedent. There. But I still say it's a suggestion and not a bug. OK, I am done with my non-serious teasing!

There ya go! hehehe

I agree now, in retrospect it probably should have gone in the suggestions thread.