Subject: II.3

As far as I can tell shooting is virtually useless. The ONLY reason I've kept it up at all is because I predict at some point the developers will alter the engine to make shooting have some relevence. I don't want to be caught completely off guard when that happens.

He was third star of the game!!!

Also, 88.89 isn't such a bad percentage that it should change after 1 or 2 periods.

As you can see, I've devoted a lot of practice time to shooting. I might change some ratios around after yesterday's debacle.

I though they did an update on the shooting in this game last update.. But i do see the inconsistancy of the shooting tactic in this game. I saw a few posts last yr that the slayers shooting was weak, but his shooting is lower than i realized.

I was told it's normal. Lost against him last season. He had like 50 to 60 shots a game, so by % alone some are bound to actually score randomly even without shooting.

Yes, but in this game his opponent had 50. The Slayers only had 27. And they were going up against an excellent goalie.

In season 10 Cocievski had a 91.95 sv%; good for a top 5 finish in II.3.

After this game, his save percentage on the season has dropped to 90.99%. The worst shooting team in the league, from this season or last, has dropped his current and career save percentage.

This was one of two miracles for the Slayes. The second miracle was that the Raging Pigs didn't score at least 5-6 goals on 50 shots.

With a 50-27 shot lead, in a game played on home ice, with a 4x edge in shooting and 1.5x edge in goaltending, I would have put my odds at losing this game at 0.05% or lower.

As you can tell, this was a traumatic loss. One which the Raging Pigs really could not afford.

Three things
1 as said, it appears that shooting doesn't matter much
2 upsets happen
3 I got revenge for you

Comparing the games:

1) you had 3 more shots on goal and scored 8 more goals
2) my shooting strength, up and down, is better than yours
3) your goalie stopped the same amount as mine on 3 more shots
4) my goalie is better than yours
5) I had home ice

Please don't take any more revenge for me, I'm trying to catch you in the standings!

I was told that higher shooting means higher shot quality because shooting the puck is controlled by the offensive attribute. So low shooting with above average offensive = more shooting but less scoring chances. High shooting with low offensive = less shots but higher chance of scoring.

In the end, if you choose the path of no shooting, you got the make sure the offensive attributes are way high (like he has) so that you have many many chances to score.

I know they should tie shooting with shots but that's not how it is.

If that's how it's supposed to be, then my 4x better shooters should have scored more goals on 2x as many shots.

Yet another game today where my supposedly superior shooting and goaltending have let me down. C'mon Pigs!

I don't know. You send your shooters and goalie out there telling them that it is a game of very low importance, initially. They came out with a win for you. You should consider your lucky, but instead tell your players they've let you down. I don't see the logic in it.

The logic is simple:

If my goaltenders and shooters are better, then I expect my team to score more goals given an equal or greater number of shots on goal.

I was correct in my assumption that the Raging Pigs would outshoot the Calgary Patches on very low intensity, but were matched in goals.

Out of an abundance of caution, I had them switch up to low intensity. Again, the raging Pigs outshot the Calgary Patches, but wound up tied.

Finally, arising from their failure to establish a lead over the first two periods, I had them switch to normal intensity in the third, where the Patches were outshot 15-5, but the Raging Pigs could not convert.

I lost a point and expended more energy than I wanted to. I am disappointed.

I hear you. I had the same thing against the twigstars. Wasted a bunch of energy and didn't even get a point. Sucks but w/e.