Unrealistic simulation results on V2

[solsticejf]

Hi, we've switched from v1 to v2 during the summer and we're using the same rating we've used in the past (SIMHL) but we have a problem with the simulation results.

No matter the settings I put in the League Options (Goal, penalties, PP, etc...) I always end up with 1st line payers scoring 70-80 goals a year, with at least 150pts... I tried to figure out what the problem was and after around 20 seasons simulations, I realised that even if I mass edit the players SC and PA to lower them down, the good players always have surreal seasons but the bottom 6 players have problems reaching 20pts, while the goalies all have over 930 save% ... The only constant is that the good players all have a shooting % of over 20%, which makes no sense and explains why we have unreal stats. Has anyone else had this problem when you made the switch? And if so, how did you solve this issue?

I tried different calibration with the league options sliders and after trying 4-5 different ratings pack and always end up with the same issue so I don't know what else I can do. I don't want our league to end up with 10 70goal scorers!!!

thanks for your help!

-----------------------------

Salut, nous avons fait le switch cet été de la v1 à la v2 et nous utilisons le même pack de cotes que nous avons pas mal toujours utilisé (le SIMHL) mais nous avons des résultats qui ne sont pas réalistes du tout.

Peu importe les settings que je mets dans League Settings (goal, shot, PP, etc.) je me ramasse toujours avec une dizaine de joueurs ou plus avec 70buts et plus, plusieurs joueurs avec 200pts et plus aussi. J'ai fait une bonne vingtaine de simulations sur une saison complète avec différents settings et set de cotes et le problème revient toujours. Même si je fais un Mass Edit pour diminuer le PA et le SC de tous les joueurs et que j'augment la cote DF des défenseurs, le problème survient. La cause semble être que les bons joueurs ont un shooting% trop élevé (+ de 20%) alors même si je diminue le nombre de tirs ou les buts, les joueurs de premiers trios ont toujours des sets irréalistes alors que les joueurs de 3e et 4e trios peinent à avoir 20pts... et les goalers ont tous 930 de save% en montant.

Je dois avouer que je suis à bout d'idée pour régler cela et nous voulons avoir une saison réaliste comme par le passé. Est-ce que quelqu'un a vécu ce problème lors de la transition de la V1 à la V2 et si oui comment avez-vous réglé le tout???

merci!

JF

[SimonT]

Quel engine de simulation utilises-tu? Il y a 4 engins de simulation dans la V2.

[frank86]

utilise l'engin 1.5 c'est la plus réaliste

[Foo]

I'm betting on 2.1, if you like 2.0 engine juste us it instead of 2.1

you'll have much random in simulations but at least a descent spreading in the scoring and you'll be able to ajust it like you want. But if you want the almost perfect engine use 1.5 with ratings created for this engine (if not you'll have high scoring D-men).

[solsticejf]

I was using 2.1 . Tried 2.0 and for now seems much better. Wilk try 1.5 too to see the differences. Thanks for the help, missed the part about the different sim engine when doing first tests

[36Henry]

2.1 is vastly superior to anything else out there. I would never ever use 2.0 again.

[starfrit]

2.1 is vastly superior to anything else out there. I would never ever use 2.0 again.

Wow, I think it's the first time I read something like that. You should share your results and how you got them because I have never seen it

[36Henry]

2.1 is vastly superior to anything else out there. I would never ever use 2.0 again.

Wow, I think it's the first time I read something like that. You should share your results and how you got them because I have never seen it

Here's an old thread from back in January showing results of some of the 2.1 tests:

http://sths.simont.info/Forum/viewtopic ... 258#p46254

The stats from that test is based on the 2012/13 season.

[BRHL Hockey]

2.1 is vastly superior to anything else out there. I would never ever use 2.0 again.

absolutely

[starfrit]

Haaa, remember that topic now, I even responded. Did you try to sim seasons with farm players on the firsts lines ? That was my problem with 2.1, because only players on the firsts lines are making points

[BRHL Hockey]

Its all based on ratings settings. IS there still a bias to guys playing top line, sure, they get more ice time, more opportunity. But as far as outputting realistic results, having the best teams, be the best teams. 2.1 is the best there is, the PA and SC just look wonky.

Our cash league is using 2.1 this season, we've tested the new ratings literally hundreds of times, the averages work out, and we have seen fantastic results.

[36Henry]

If you build the ratings specifically for the 2.1 engine, there's no need to have "wonky" PA & SC ratings. I glanced at the BRHL site (congrats on a very interesting league btw) and saw that your ratings are certainly different to mine. Here are two players to illustrate the difference in wonky PA/SC:

BRHL
Sidney Crosby: 56 SC & 60 PA - 82 games - 36 goals + 40 assists = 76 points - 273 shots on goal
Joe Thornton: 47 SC & 59 PA - 82 games - 27 goals + 47 assists = 74 points - 286 shots on goal

My ratings:
Sidney Crosby: 86 SC & 99 PA - 82 games - 45 goals + 65 assists = 110 points - 286 shots on goal
Joe Thornton: 78 SC & 98 PA - 82 games - 10 goals + 65 assists = 75 points - 136 shots on goal

NHL:
Sidney Crosby - 82 games - 33 goals + 67 assists = 100 points - 262 shots on goal
Joe Thornton - 82 games - 12 goals + 61 assists = 73 points - 127 shots on goal

As for "farm-level" players on top lines scoring more than they should, yes I suppose they might. I haven't really tried that, but I can say that in my most recent test season there was only an 11 point difference between the #1 scoring forward and the #6 scoring forward for the same team. So while on some teams you will definitely have a very dominant line (a one-line team) or even just a really dynamic duo that racks up the points, you will also have teams that bring a much more balanced attack.

Where you may go wrong might be in leagues where some teams are incredibly stacked while others are so weak they will have a top line made up of players who would barely even crack the fourth line on the stronger teams. I've been in leagues like that and regardless of what engine you use, the weak team will have overachieving players while the strong team will have underachieving players.

[BRHL Hockey]

Curious where you came up with the scoring stats for our league.

How do goalies typically perform within your ratings? I know in the tinkering to make things work, the goalie save percentages are a bit higher than you would typically see.

[36Henry]

Your signature contains a link to your league, I simply clicked it. Sorry if that was somehow not kosher.

For me the goalies are usually pretty much right where they should be. They don't really tend to give me too much trouble.

[BRHL Hockey]

No, no worries, the results you'd be looking at last year were with 2.0 that's the only thing that threw me for a loop