Ämne: Questions & Answers

Are match outcomes calculated on a individual vs individual basis, or a team stats vs teams stats basis (ignoring the actual text of the commentary)?

What I mean is, is it better to have all your players able to shoot, or a few players with a huge shooting ability (and so on for other skills).

I'm guessing it is the former, but does anyone know for sure?

It seems to me that it's the second one. That's what I think, cause I just bought a new player with 130 TS since I didnt have enough players after I'd sent my best players to a training camp, and he scored two goals in two games against teams where their players had an average overall rating around 200~.
Also I have a player with 20 in shooting and he's my 4th best goalscorer.

As far as whats better I think thats personal preference. I have a few guys with no shooting but really high passing and they do just fine, even chipping in rebounds now and then.

My understanding is that every play is calculated individually based on the players on the ice. The commentary is representative of that calculation.

Even if the play is based on the players on the ice at the time the question is still whether its just based on the total attributes of the players or whether individuals ratings are factored against opposing players during the play.

It would be brilliant if we could get some more stats shown for the games. Ie number of faceoffs won by individual centres, number of takeaways by individuals, blocked shots etc.

This would give more information (that you would have if you could actually watch the game) and help to build better functioning lines.

the question is, are those factors counted in any way?

I know faceoffs are (in total), but can they be divided amongst the players?

Blocked shots, takeaways, is there anything counting that?

if those aren't there, they will need to tune the engine, and I'm affraid this won't happen anytime soon (football)

every single play in a game is calculated individually and the attributes of players taking part in that play determin the outcome. If you have a play where a defenseman is shooting, then it is his individual shooting attribute (combined with the passing attribute of the player who passed him the puck) that will decide whether he scores or not. Of course his shooting attribute is compared with the goalies attributes because goalie also has something to say about that.

Really good answers, thank you. Another question, if each play is calculated, are all players used in each play, or only the three maximum mentioned in the commentary?

there is not a maximum or a minimum number of players taking part in a play. whoever is involved has the influence and you could say that every player on the ice has some sort of an influence on the play just because of their presence (even if they are not mentioned).

How is chemistry worked out? I've been looking at how mine changes for a few days - playing a match increases it, as it says in the rules, but I'm not sure how much - also, does the type of game matter?

I checked the line chem after last night's game, but they'd dropped a couple of % this morning. Therefore, is it missing a match that causes chem to drop, or does it always drop a bit every day, but increased more by playing.

Thanks!

yes, missing matches means losing chemistry

Yes, I know that is what is says in the rules, but I'm asking if players only lose chemistry if there is a match and they don't play in it, or if they lose chemistry when they don't play because you haven't scheduled a friendly etc.

it doesn't matter if you have or don't have match scheduled, if player don't play, he loses chemistry

Great, that's the answer I was looking for, thanks

that's what I said, no ?

No, you repeated what is in the rules, which I've read a few times. I was asking a more precise question because it is not clear whether 'missing matches' means 'scratched from the team for a games' or 'not playing a game every day'.
I hope I didn't sound ungrateful for your answer before, but it didn't quite tell me what i wanted to know.