Выберите страну: |
![]() |
Международный |
Well figured. I had already noticed the OTR difference as a factor accounting for the all star selections, maybe this criterium has a stronger part in the compound than I thought.
Now i wasn't arguing that it was fair or not, thats subjective. I was arguing that it was logical, because the computer program has to follow a set of rules when selecting.
It is perfectly fair to disagree with the rules the computer has to follow.
This might be a language barrier issue as I believe we are using logical in different ways.
It is perfectly fair to disagree with the rules the computer has to follow.
This might be a language barrier issue as I believe we are using logical in different ways.
Hehe, maybe also "logical" is a point of view... sometimes logical is not only one straight way... so I just wanted to say that I feel sometimes it's unlogical that the performace of a player is measured with parameters of the past performance of another team and not the present performance and lineup strength...
i dont see a problem here. the 1st star had 8 shots on goal, thats a lot of activity
Not everything has to make sense. For example in real life the 3 stars is selected by the home town writers, which means the 3 stars is commonly a home team player, even if they don't deserve it.
Besides, what difference does it make who the 3 stars are? It's a cosmetic award anyways.
Besides, what difference does it make who the 3 stars are? It's a cosmetic award anyways.
It isn't just cosmetic, it counts in the popularity of the player!
as we discussed yesterday: could somebody say me why is the 1st star first? he has +1/+1/+1, but my players both have +1/+1/+2!! Is that logical? For sure not!!
hockey.powerplaymanager.c...
hockey.powerplaymanager.c...
i try to say it with vladys words:
i dont see a problem here. the 1st star had 6 shots on goal, thats a lot of activity
i dont see a problem here. the 1st star had 6 shots on goal, thats a lot of activity
Избранные темы
Новые сообщения