Grid-Iron american football game language selector
Language
ČeštinaDanskDeutsch
EnglishEspañolEspañol (Latinoamérica)
FrançaisItalianoMagyar
NederlandsPolskiPortuguês (Brasil)
RomânăSlovenčinaSlovenščina
SrpskiSuomiБългарски
РусскийУкраїнська 
Register
Login
Couple training result questions
 
Gambler
Posts: 0
Posted on 2010-09-10 9:00:05
Just curious if I can read anything into the results regarding the size of gains. Hypothetically, let's say a 4 star guy on fitness training gained .18 strength and .03 speed.

1) Can I conclude from this that he's far closer to the speed cap than the strength cap?

2) On that same vein, do caps occur at only integer values? (Locking in at say 17.00, or could someone cap at a decimal value like 16.57 or whatever.

Hoping that I can read the training results a little as far as distance til cap, as then I could get some re-evaluating done and place players where they'll eventually stick positions wise. Basically, just don't want to waste several matches of positional experience if they'll never develop fast or strong enough to stick there.
  
pstimpel
Posts: 10622
Posted on 2010-09-10 9:20:00
Gambler wrote:

Just curious if I can read anything into the results regarding the size of gains. Hypothetically, let's say a 4 star guy on fitness training gained .18 strength and .03 speed.

1) Can I conclude from this that he's far closer to the speed cap than the strength cap?

2) On that same vein, do caps occur at only integer values? (Locking in at say 17.00, or could someone cap at a decimal value like 16.57 or whatever.

Hoping that I can read the training results a little as far as distance til cap, as then I could get some re-evaluating done and place players where they'll eventually stick positions wise. Basically, just don't want to waste several matches of positional experience if they'll never develop fast or strong enough to stick there.



1.) NO. The training point disctribution does not give you any information - it is random as described in the FAQ - except for the percentage based on "focus"

2.) Caps only occur on integers, yes. The engine calculates on the Integer values too!
  
Gambler
Posts: 0
Posted on 2010-09-10 10:01:58
So it doesn't actually follow the 50% / 35% / 15% model given in the FAQ?

If it's say 36 points total gain:

50% rolled for STR: 18
35% rolled for SPD: 12 - actual 3
15% rolled for STA: 4

Just figured that this meant he was capped and falling under rule 7 of the FAQ for capped players:

7. Is it possible for a player to go above his maximum?
It is possible, it's just that much harder for the player to achieve that.
If a player is at his maximum then he has 1 in 3 chance to gain a point/level.
If a player is at his maximum + 1 then he has 1 in 5 chance to gain a point/level.
If a player is at his maximum + 2 then he has 1 in 10 chance to gain a point/level.
If a player is at his maximum + 3 then he has 1 in 20 chance to gain a point/level.
It is impossible for a player to go more than 4 above his maximum.

Then all the numbers actually jive, and this player is most likely cappped or capped+1 @ Spd. Or am I fundamentally missing something about how training works. (I have read it all a few times)

Cheers!
  
TheFreakinStud
Posts: 0
Posted on 2010-09-10 10:09:41
Gambler wrote:

So it doesn't actually follow the 50% / 35% / 15% model given in the FAQ?

If it's say 36 points total gain:

50% rolled for STR: 18
35% rolled for SPD: 12 - actual 3
15% rolled for STA: 4

Just figured that this meant he was capped and falling under rule 7 of the FAQ for capped players:

7. Is it possible for a player to go above his maximum?
It is possible, it's just that much harder for the player to achieve that.
If a player is at his maximum then he has 1 in 3 chance to gain a point/level.
If a player is at his maximum + 1 then he has 1 in 5 chance to gain a point/level.
If a player is at his maximum + 2 then he has 1 in 10 chance to gain a point/level.
If a player is at his maximum + 3 then he has 1 in 20 chance to gain a point/level.
It is impossible for a player to go more than 4 above his maximum.

Then all the numbers actually jive, and this player is most likely cappped or capped+1 @ Spd. Or am I fundamentally missing something about how training works. (I have read it all a few times)

Cheers!



the 50/35/15 model in the FAQ is completely random. One week the strength might get 50%, the next stamina might get 50%. You won't actually know if a player is capped until he gets that special red star.

In your given case, it seems speed simply got the 15% draw, and stamina the 35%.
  
TheFreakinStud
Posts: 0
Posted on 2010-09-10 10:11:38
Gambler wrote:



7. Is it possible for a player to go above his maximum?
It is possible, it's just that much harder for the player to achieve that.
If a player is at his maximum then he has 1 in 3 chance to gain a point/level.
If a player is at his maximum + 1 then he has 1 in 5 chance to gain a point/level.
If a player is at his maximum + 2 then he has 1 in 10 chance to gain a point/level.
If a player is at his maximum + 3 then he has 1 in 20 chance to gain a point/level.
It is impossible for a player to go more than 4 above his maximum.


Cheers!



Also, this only refers to the whole integer number. So training between the integers can't be affected by this section.

Also also, lol, Speed and Strength don't abide by this rule. They are random caps that have nothing to do with talent.
  
Gambler
Posts: 0
Posted on 2010-09-10 10:16:56
Still not really jiving that one could be that high, and two that low if it's following a 50% / 35% / 15% model.

I get that which one goes up changes each week.
I don't get the math in 18 + 4 + 3 fitting into 50/35/15 ... square peg, round hole ... get me a hammer!!!
  
Gambler
Posts: 0
Posted on 2010-09-10 10:24:23
The math would at least be closer if it was say ...

Fitness - Focus on STR: (75% Str / 10% random 2nd / 5% random 3rd)

18 Str / .75 = 25-24 total pool.
.1 * 25 ~= 2.5 Sta
.5 * 25 ~= 1.25 Spd

Still doesn't line up exactly, but it's much closer to fitting ... but he wasn't on focus
  
Gambler
Posts: 0
Posted on 2010-09-10 10:36:48
Even if I take the +/- 2 in the training FAQ, and apply it post pool being split up ... I still can't make these numbers jive.

Taking 18 Str +/- 2 = 16-20 original starting point.
4 Sta +/- 2 = 2-6 OSP
3 Spd +/- 2 = 1-3 OSP

Taking the minimum side for Str of 16 ...
16 / .5 = 32 starting pool.

32 starting pool * .35 for 2nd highest = 11.

Still way outside the range for the 35% stat chosen 2nd, regardless of whether it was Stam or Spd ...

Guess for the moment I'll give up trying to decipher their gains, and just wait until week 2 to see if I can make any sense whatsoever of this. But there definitely seems to be more random factor at work than just which skills fell into the 1/2/3rd stat slots?
  
projectrracing
Posts: 7952
Posted on 2010-09-10 10:48:28
read the FAQ, you seem to me making up random calculations that are not the real thing.

(10 +/-2) + (teamwork / 2) + coaches + training hall/fitness centre bonuses.

training is not effect by your current skill levels.
  
Gambler
Posts: 0
Posted on 2010-09-10 10:58:37
Can you point to where I said it was?

My point is this ... 18 / 4 / 3 will NOT fit into a 50/35/15 scheme regardless of how you arrange the order of which got picked 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

I wasn't stating the +/- 2 IS applied post pool calculation ... I read the FAQ at least a dozen times, but what it says and what comes out of the system DON'T JIVE.

I was playing around seeing how I could try to make it fit ... At this point, I'm giving up and waiting until next week for more data. There seems to be some other undocumented randomization factor at play, and I was merely spit-balling at what it might be.Last edited on 2010-09-10 at 11:04
  
 
Last posts
2024-10-07 21:56
DACH Cup
Author:Dalkeck
2024-10-07 16:40
DACH Cup
Author:liberalmente
2024-10-07 8:06
Survivor game
Author:Radu27
2024-10-06 23:22
Magyar nemzeti válogatott
Author:Czuli3
2024-10-05 18:40
Messages I can't delete
Author:philiom
2024-10-05 16:33
Ligathread
Author:liberalmente
2024-10-05 12:40
Verkaufsthread
Author:liberalmente