Subject: Questions & Answers

Looks like the average would be 33.33 percent, since this looks like the first time that team faced that goalie, and that's what they shot.

"ring of countertactics" - is it still working or with this new engine that ring of "countertactics" is out of order? I mean - are there still some tactics that "destroy" other tactics?

The influence of counter tactics was reduced !

I think they still exist, just not as much as last time.

With the implementation of the PP and PK, it's more important for a team to play to its strengths rather than just pick a tactic that has a history of success.

Well, the fact is that they were lucky, very lucky. But exactly how lucky were they?

Lets say their normal shot efficiency should be 5% against this goalie on very large number of shots and I really think that on average they shouldn't score more against this goalie without powerplays.
The probalility of scoring 3 times or more in 9 shots would then be 0.836% or 1 in 120. That's how lucky they were.
Then let's be generous and increase their average chances to 8%, because of home advantage and Low vs. Very low importance. The probability to score 3 or more out of 9 then rises to 2.98% or 1 in 33.

And I'm sure that there are many more that 1 in 33 matches with the same distortions.

My point is, it doesn't matter what their "average shot efficiency" should be for a game. Once the game is played, the results are in, it is what it is. What's the point in debating if it is how it should be. This isn't a static math game, if it is it would be boring.

I Love math <3

I don't want a static math game either. I just want to point out that shot efficiency varies way too much for a real simulation game and such matches are way too frequent.

How often is too frequent? How many games are simulated in a single day? How many of them do you think are "too varied" what should be the standard deviation, and on every single day of the thousands of games played are off that "standard"

Secondly, we aren't talking about a IV.1 team beating a I.1 team, this is two I.1 teams facing off, so even if the "strength" indicators show one as weaker, he obviously can win to get to the top level.

+1 agree

I'm curious to figure out the ring of counter-special-teams-tactics. I have my hunches based off hockey logic but we shall see.

ice hockey logic should be correct...at least it worked good in all the games I have seen in the last few days

so it is not too hard to figure out that "ring"

Hey vlady why team with alot lower tech:agr dont have any penalty while my team have them?
Maybe it`s fail on engine? Are you sure that there is calculating tech:agr not agr:tech(where with hight agr then tech you dont have penalties ?)

Deviations should be comparable to real life hockey matches. It's not this particular match that bothers me, it's the number of such matches. And it really doesn't matter which league the team are from.
I have already shown some numbers and I hope I will manage to get some more in the future.

So, real life, a player that normally shoots 10% shoots 50, for 3 goals, and a goalie that normally stops 90% has a 75% save percentage just last night alone.

But that's in a 30 team league. We are talking, if you just count the top I.1, 37 20 team leagues, so the "frequency" is going to be higher than the NHL. And then in strong countries, some of the III.x levels are insanely tough, so if you start adding those in, you are talking about trying to compare 30 teams vs 2000 practically.