Subject: Questions & Answers

Loses like this are supposed to happen about 3 times in 50 (6%). Since I have been told this, I'm arguing it's way too much.
But I wasn't angry watching this game, I was p****d off.

Loses go, Wins to come. Dont entanglement to one lose. He just won. Even tho you were better. Even Detroit dont win all of their games..

Here in the guide Players/Attributes description/Passing...last sentence

I really have no problem losing such a match or any other match. But losing 3 such matches in 50 is another issue. Slovenia just haven't won a match against top 8 national teams yet and none of division II national teams haven't won Slovenia in over 50 matches over past 18 years.
Some things just doesn't happen that much as 6%.

But what team strength difference are you basing that 6% on? teams with only slight strength differences could consider 6% to be too low. Teams with drastic differences would think 6% too high.

I talking about this particular match, it's strengths, tactics (no countertactics), importances (all the same) and home advantage.
hockey.powerplaymanager.c...
A defeat for me has happened 29 times in 500 simulations of the same match. And that is 5.8%.

Please. We all heard. As evidence shows shit happens. Be good loser?

Ahh in that case i absolutely agree, 6% is way too high.

There's one thing I don't get. How can you say which strength difference is right for the team to lose 3 out of 50? Even the best teams are still developing with 20yo players and are not even nearly there where the best teams gonna be in a few seasons. You have a great team right now but with those strengths it will be average later. Just thinking the bigger picture here.

Vlady sayed that. bigger picture.

EDIT! said.
I was so playing

On a quality scale of national teams, there are at least 5 quality groups of teams, for which 3 out of 50 is way too much in matches against next quality group. And there are teams that are much worse than the worst national team, so there would be at least 6 such classes.
If 200 is the highest possible team strength and
we divide this exponentially into 6 classes (linear distribution makes no sense here), we would have something like this:

1st class: 121-200
2nd class: 74-120
3rd class: 45-73
4th class: 27-44
5th class: 16-26
6th class: 0-15

This would be the margins for let's say 5% success. Strength 74 has 5% chances against 121, 120 has 5% chances against 200 and so on.
Then 45 would have 0.05 squared (0.0025 or about 1 in 400 chances to beat 121 etc.
And strength 15 team would stiil have chances to beat strength 200 team. 1 in 3 200 000.

Is this big and scalable enough?

Does anybody know what the penalty is for playing a player on his off-side (ie. right side player on left wing)?

7.5% (if it is maintain from last GE version)

Is that based on your own research, or something PPM have said? just curious as have had a friend ask.