Subject: Questions & Answers

As you like numbers. How do pucks in shooting work?

Calling me a "fool" is a character attack and a violation of the rules sir!

Incomplete thinking refers to process.

As to the last paragraph the "discusions" here between you and I start out usually one of 2 ways. I write a post to try and help people as the initial post here and you start with your usual smart mouth and condescending comments. Or you make simillar remarks to someone else and I give my opinion on your comments.

1st: Stop saying things like: 10 year old understand it or you have problems with math. It isn't only not true, it's offensive too. Please have some respect for other people.
2nd: I know 100:80:50 is better than 80:80:80, I wasn't talking about that, please read posts before reacting.

Guide also says that you should play with tactic what best fits your team, and some dev and/or a user close to devs said that is not the case. Devs are still arranging the Guide and some things are changed in it. I'm not saying that Guide is half wrong half right, but we shouldn't be blind and stick firmly to it.
If we touch the 80:80:80 thing, I just can't accept a fact that someone has seen the benefits of player using 100:80:50 instead of 100:110:110. Who could measure that thing?

Not even close on pucks interms of a formula or application. I have a 6puck defense pair with 1 player having 48 primary atty. The other is 63. It could be the wieghting rolls pucks at 55 average to 6 pucks. It could be a large value is added for experience and chemistry and who knows what else is in the mix. And of course energy is a factor. I might try doing an exercise to figure this out at the start of next season again.

Shooting for stars I have come up with a formula. Add all forwards together then divide by the number depending on the lines played 3 or 4 thus 9 or 12. Then multiply by 0.8. The do defensemen the same and multiply by 0.2. Add the 2 numbers together then divide by 1.75 that has accurately predicted an additional star every time in my team strength. Might be coincidence but it has worked for me. Because shooting is uneffected by energy it has the best chance of being figure out. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

ANd Stan, I'm not attacking you or similar, I just asked what are the standing grounds for "claiming" something. I don't like this argument that has grown out from this, if it has to do with your history with nsblues then it should stay with you guys. I've been in some disputes also and I know what it could do and how it looks like to others.

Fair enough to a point Popaji. But the devs do know the code and the formulas. Though things evolve in the guide this example remains unchanged. Until my exercise yesterday I had thought for a very long time there was an error in the examples. But for now I'll except the examples as accurate while keeping an open mind.

I'd love to read someone else that comes up with an explaination that works.

As to measuring the results I can only look at builds within my team and stats season over season. canucks and I PM constantly on ratio/builds and theories. The farther into the game we get the more I take your position that there is not a single effective build. I've found certain positions and non bundle atty development very effective within the game relative to my team. I use different bundle builds at the same position. Look at points, goals, SOG% ect over multiple seasons looking for paterns. If I see something I'll try it on several players. Like 75% pass on wingers and 50% shot:tech on defensemen. I get terrific SOG% with that non bundle atty build. I get good results with 75% pass:tech for centers. But terible results with 75% tech:agro for wingers. Not on the penalty issue specifically but SOG% was terrible on the 3 of them I tried 75% agro on. All each of us can do is make the best we can of the results and draw our own conclusions.

Just want to say again I sincirely appreciate your fair and balanced approach to judging and commenting on my posts. Nothing wrong with having a different point of view.

I know you aren't attacking me. And your a gentlemen as well. I certainly don't see anything wrong with anyone disagreeing with me. It isn't about credit. That is not why I post or put my ideas forward. It is to help folks and give my perspective/theories. There are no "brownie points" for coming up with a solution. It's a FORUM to share ideas. It isn't who's smarter than the other guy.

Blues doesn't like me. I'm well aware of that. No one has to like anyone that is individual choice. But if someone is fair and goes back to my initial post on the issue and reads his and my comments it's very clear who started the negative comments IMHO. I will always defend my position.

I suggest to keep it simple.

Assumption: the player is recognized by his effective primary attribute, which is the smallest number from the set {the primary attribute, the secondary attribute multiplied by some constant A, the tertiary attribute multiplied by some constant B}.

It is trivial to check that only values 7/3 < A, B < 10/3 are consistent with the Guide. Full stop. Since we all seem to agree that both A and B are smaller or equal to 2, we also have to agree to disagree with the Guide

I didn't make the guide numbers into equation, but I guess you did by this example. So making them back from that relation you gave 80:34:24 is no way a player could prospect.
To be honest, I don't know why you did that right now if you did just that what I've said you did, and if you did not did that - I'm just more confused

I did it long way back just in order to be sure that this can indeed be done for some people had claimed the opposite to be the case. Then some months later I did it again for no apparent reason, perhaps being confused by the confusion caused by the first attempt, anyway I hope that now any confusion is too confused to come up again

I'm more than satisfied with your effort so far

It seems to me the issue isn't that we all have different theories, but that sometimes the attitudes can come over a little as "i know better than you". Whether we like each other is irrelevant, and needs to stay off the forum, especially in threads like this one.

As for Atty's... i had a team that was 100-80-70, and it was GREAT, but had lower puck ratings to other teams. I build my primarys up to make it approx 100-65-60 and while the pucks went up, the wins etc went down.

So now, i'm re-building the team again, this time to the 4-3-2 ratio, which from what i've seen, is pretty damn effective.

Yes TB but did you have that first team in lower league, and then (as we know you did get promotion) in bigger league made lower secondary attys?

This is a number and percentage both usually. I often refer to 4:3:2 builds as 100:75:50 which is both the same ratio as 4:3:2 and represents the percentages to prime.