Time:
Log out
Subject: Questions & Answers
Or influence of chemistry is so low so we can not take it into account.
| Select a country: |
|
International |
Looks like it's a usual PPM bug Or influence of chemistry is so low so we can not take it into account.
Or influence of chemistry is so low so we can not take it into account.
If influence of chemistry really is so low, then it's not important at all and we can ignore it. But I doubt it and I think it should influence ratings and strengths the same way as it affects performance(s) in ME.
I agree. So I think it's usual bug.
Wild idea, but maybe ratings have to do with the players they are surrounded by as well? Since their use to be a teamwork indicator in team strength, maybe it still has an effect that who is also on the field affects your ratings, so since most national teams are comprised of much better players than they usually play with, it compensates from the lack of chemistry right now.
I doubt it. Single player's rating is not ifluenced by surrounding players' skills or anything. Team strengths are directly correlated to single players' ratings, so your idea is hard to be true.
What's the difference between training facility levels? Is there any stats?
There has been research done, but i don't know the details.
I have done some analysis and it appears to be linear. So for example level 11 trains 10% more that level 10 and level 5 trains 25% more that level 4.
I kind of agree with those numbers. About 10% up for each level.
1 4%
2 6%
3 9%
4 13%
5 18%
6 24%
7 31%
8 39%
9 48%
10 58%
11 69%
12 81%
13 94%
14 108%
15 123%
Shouldn't be something like this ??
And if you have coaches for example - 30%-30%
For lvl 11 - 69*(1+0.3/2) = 79%
For lvl 12 - 81*(1+0.3/2) = 93%
For lvl 13 - 94*(1+0.3/2) = 108%
For lvl 14 - 108*(1+0.3/2) = 124%
Of course - that's the case if player training is directly in relation with Facility+coach coefficient.
2 6%
3 9%
4 13%
5 18%
6 24%
7 31%
8 39%
9 48%
10 58%
11 69%
12 81%
13 94%
14 108%
15 123%
Shouldn't be something like this ??
And if you have coaches for example - 30%-30%
For lvl 11 - 69*(1+0.3/2) = 79%
For lvl 12 - 81*(1+0.3/2) = 93%
For lvl 13 - 94*(1+0.3/2) = 108%
For lvl 14 - 108*(1+0.3/2) = 124%
Of course - that's the case if player training is directly in relation with Facility+coach coefficient.
So you're saying +14% from lvl13 to lvl14 prior to coaches.
why 03./2 ??
Head coach 60% influence, assistant 40%....
Head coach 60% influence, assistant 40%....
0.3 each whether its 60-40 or 90-10 still gives 0.3 efficiency.
Yes - if formula is:
PP = Const * X
-------------------
but could be PP=Const*(1+X)
PP13=C*(1+1.08)=C*2.08
PP14=C*(1+1.24)=C*2.24
Diff = 2.24/2.08=1.077 ------> + 7.7%
To small ???
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget there is RF influence even if player don't play match.
PP = Const * X
-------------------
but could be PP=Const*(1+X)
PP13=C*(1+1.08)=C*2.08
PP14=C*(1+1.24)=C*2.24
Diff = 2.24/2.08=1.077 ------> + 7.7%
To small ???
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget there is RF influence even if player don't play match.
Your favorite threads
Newest posts
Copyright © 2007-2025 - POWERPLAY MANAGER, s.r.o. - All rights reserved
Contact - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Cookies settings - Site map
Advertising on PowerPlay Manager - Become our partner!
Partners: www.tennismania.com - www.biathlonmania.com - www.skijumpmania3.com - www.athleticsmania.com - www.wintersportsmania.com - www.summersportsmania.com
[all: 120ms / php: 68ms / db: 52ms ]
Web server: WB2
Contact - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Cookies settings - Site map
Advertising on PowerPlay Manager - Become our partner!
Partners: www.tennismania.com - www.biathlonmania.com - www.skijumpmania3.com - www.athleticsmania.com - www.wintersportsmania.com - www.summersportsmania.com
[all: 120ms / php: 68ms / db: 52ms ]
Web server: WB2