Tárgy: High Importance Broken or Not what we think it is?

I am fairly certain it is not tied to XP.

1) The suggestion is based on the premise that in real life, experienced players do better on the "games that mean a lot". I would agree with that. But "High Importance" in this case is not necessarily equivalent to "games that mean a lot".

"High Importance" is just how aggressive the coach wants the team to play.

2) It also doesn't make sense, because when playing on "Low Importance" would those experienced players lose the knowledge they have from experience? No, not at all. Knowledge from experience is not just something you can turn on and off like the switch for High/Normal/Low importance.

3) The teams I have shown losing in each example WERE the more experienced team, with better more experienced players. So this suggestion is actually opposite of the examples I gave. It could be that the examples I gave do not represent the majority of the games, but the suggestion cannot be an explanation of the games I had shown.

Part of what I am saying is that xp means more for each level and on High it means most. That is just a thought. "High importance" to me means that the game is also very important to the team. So, maybe high importance is more then just playing more agressive as that is actually more of a strat. Which maybe that is all that importance is a strat connected to tactics. A way to tell how agressive uwant your team to play with energy side effects.

But, I feel that xp theory is also a possible. If you look from my point of view. I got destroyed by a team more experinced and better. I was expecting to lose but, not by the result I lost by playing high. So, my thought is that playing High added pressure to my players that inexperinced. My goalie also played unsatisfactory and he is also inexperinced as this is my first season and he was injuried so, he has very little xp.

I dunno there could be alot of factors and xp is a minor one. It will just be so hard to firgue it out. I think we need to come up with as many plausable theories as possible and combine game summaries with poor "high" results, test all the theoies and see if we come up with anything. I am extremly intrested in this and I would be willing to put work into it if others are.

I checked out your games.
23 OTS to 15 OTS is a big gap. 7-1 and 5-1 or whatever it was is about the average you will lose to a 23 OTS team on any importance :

Still, point #3) stands, which is that the better teams are losing while on high more than I think they should.

I do concede to your point in your first sentence though.

More results from the Playoff in my league

The lower team gets beat in tactics, and importance and wins
http://hockey.powerplaymanager .com/en/game-summary.html?data =3646449

The only that switches in the 2nd game was the two teams changed their importance, and this time the lower team loses while on the higher importance
http://hockey.powerplaymanager .com/en/game-summary.html?data =3646450

Both times the loser was the home team as well.

It seems that playing higher importance is hurting these two, overcoming all the other factors?

url http://hockey.powerplaymanager .com/en/game-summary.html?data =3646450

For some reason I can't see any of the summaries now

Oh... the forum automatically puts spaces before the .com, and before the = sign...
So you have to remove those signs

Okay thats funny I had them working before? Anyways, Looking at the last two, they were weird but, I would say those results are possible. In the game that Jackson lost they were out tactic'ed. But they were also in the game they won?! I would sum the game Jackson won with goaltending. Even the goalies are the same goalies(very close to the same) can have good games and bad ones. North Stars are the better team but they don't have very high shooting... Jackson's is the same but, the little goaltending edge I imagine could make a differnce. I think the problem with saying those games help the idea that there is another catch in playing High is that the results are high. Notice goalies played better on Normal...

I don't think any of us know enough to analyze a specific game and say they need more shooting, or defense or something.

The variables were almost all the same, team strengths, home/away, etc.
But the team playing the highest importance lost both times.

I'd like to pipe in with a contrary opinion... I played my first playoffs at high (for the semis and finals) and won the championship... I did it on the theory that playoffs are by nature highly important and therefore...

Both teams were marginally better than me (I finished the reg season in 3rd and faced the 2nd in the semis and the #1 in the finals) so its possible that the importance setting wasn't key, except that my leading goal scorer for the playoffs was my experienced 3rd line centre who led all goalscorers in the playoffs (and finished 2nd overall in points if I'm not mistaken). His performance in the playoffs was much better than during the regular season - clutch in other words... and he wasn't alone in that respect.

Personally, I think a mix of the right level of importance, combined with chemistry AND shooting is key. I've always drafted players who can shoot, so having them reach 35-40 shots per game can only help since you can't score if you don't shoot...

Maybe I got mad skillz? What I was saying was that Goaltending could have beat shooting in those games.