Select a country: |
![]() |
USA |
How does CL affect training rate? Is it just a straight % reduction, i.e. a 3/6 player will train at %50 the rate he did at 6/6 (assuming everything else is equal), or is there something more complex?
There seems to be a bigger drop off between 4 and 3 than between 6,5, and 4. But that's just my observation.
Training rate drops appear to be as follows.
6/6- 100%
5/6- 90% (-10%)
4/6- 80% (-20% net)
3/6- 60% (-40% net)
I ran this over 3 seasons at various yimes testing it using players with simillar quality and same atty/manager influence to the atty being trained. It was very consistant. I also found an approximate 10
%@ "random" variance on any given day. I used 99% quality as the control to establish the percentages I mentioned. That's how I remember my testing anyway.
6/6- 100%
5/6- 90% (-10%)
4/6- 80% (-20% net)
3/6- 60% (-40% net)
I ran this over 3 seasons at various yimes testing it using players with simillar quality and same atty/manager influence to the atty being trained. It was very consistant. I also found an approximate 10
%@ "random" variance on any given day. I used 99% quality as the control to establish the percentages I mentioned. That's how I remember my testing anyway.
Any laywers here ?
I have a big problem and I need some answers really really fast !
Pls PM !
I have a big problem and I need some answers really really fast !
Pls PM !
Why ask for a lawyer on PPM? And any advice you get here is likely suspect. We've all played doctors/lawyers on the internet.
I think the reason the way that it is because it generalizes when there are fewer than 4 feeder leagues.
If there are three feeders, 18-20 relegate to .3, .2, and .1 respectively, and 15-17 playoff against .3, .2, and .1.
So it is consistent in treating a non-existent 4th feeder and an existent 4th feed as the weakest feeder.
In the USA, there is no III.13 - III.16, so that II.4 has no feeders, and it is very much weaker than the other DII leagues. The playoffs for 13-16 and 17-20 in I.1 are fairly meaningful because of that imbalance. I don't think the 13th place team in I.1 has ever lost to the runnerup from II.4.
If I were doing it, I would let the teams that finish 13-16 pick their opponent, and teams that finish 17-20 pick their league to relegate to. So while the 3rd round is being played, the teams could rank their preferences, and then after 13-16 is decided, the matchups would be set, with 13 getting their top choice of opponent.
If there are three feeders, 18-20 relegate to .3, .2, and .1 respectively, and 15-17 playoff against .3, .2, and .1.
So it is consistent in treating a non-existent 4th feeder and an existent 4th feed as the weakest feeder.
In the USA, there is no III.13 - III.16, so that II.4 has no feeders, and it is very much weaker than the other DII leagues. The playoffs for 13-16 and 17-20 in I.1 are fairly meaningful because of that imbalance. I don't think the 13th place team in I.1 has ever lost to the runnerup from II.4.
If I were doing it, I would let the teams that finish 13-16 pick their opponent, and teams that finish 17-20 pick their league to relegate to. So while the 3rd round is being played, the teams could rank their preferences, and then after 13-16 is decided, the matchups would be set, with 13 getting their top choice of opponent.
I married a lawyer. Not highly recommended to marry someone trained in arguement techniques and theory...
You can override that misfortune agreeing with her on everything

there is another way. in another sim game i play (sokker.org) they use a calculation of team stregnth to determine where you promote or relegate. it isn't a set feeder system. i think something along those lines would be a huge addition to this game.
Your favorite threads
Newest posts