Foo wrote:Well for a guy who has made 100 seasons testings in pair with other STHS owners I do believe I know what I'm talking about.
Evidently not
You could run millions of test seasons if you want, but if you're basing each and every one of them on bad ratings and you have no idea what you're doing, you get nothing but bad data. That's just basic common sense. And if you don't learn anything from the tests, what are you actually trying to do with them? Is it a case of the blind leading the blind?
Also, 100 test seasons isn't nearly enough to create a worthwhile set of ratings, as Nicklas Backstrom shooting the puck more than Ovechkin in your ratings so beautifully proves. Are you even interested in realistic simulations?
Foo wrote:When I do testings, I'm doing it from a player perspective not to have the same results in their respective NHL teams.
Evidently not
Foo wrote:It's easy to throw some partial stats here and their and said that the ratings are perfect to sell them 100$ a year.
Goalies ARE superhuman in 2.1 and their is a problem overall with scoring with this engine.
It's also easy, it seems, to make bold statements about things you obviously don't understand.Since you can't do ratings for the 2.1, you conclude nobody can do it. You should read up on Wittgenstein perhaps?
It's also easy to say that 1.5 is the more realistic engine and then proceed to have Nicklas Backstrom make Ovechkin look like a playmaker.
I'm not sure how stats proving your statements to be incorrect isn't enough to at least make you entertain the idea that just maybe somebody knows more about the 2.1 engine than you do, despite all of your
100 (wow!!) test seasons (all of which were spent using incorrect and useless ratings).
1. Goalies are
NOT superhuman in 2.1 if you use ratings designed for the 2.1.
2. There is
NO problem with scoring if you use ratings designed for the 2.1.
3. Using ratings
NOT designed for 2.1 to test 2.1 is like trying to set off a nuclear missile with a simple lighter (fans of James May will know what I mean).
Foo wrote:Don't burn a 100$ a year on that with several other free options that will do exactly what you are looking for.
Show me the free options for 2.1 where the ratings do exactly what my ratings do (or better yet, show me ANY set for 2.1 that does what my ratings do). You yourself just claimed that
ALL goalies in 2.1 are superhuman, and that there is an overall scoring problem with the engine. Neither of these things exist in my ratings, so where are these free options where the goalies are
NOT superhuman. And if such free options that work with the 2.1 engine exists, where as in mine the goalies are
NOT superhuman, why are you still claiming that goalies
ARE superhuman?!
As for having my ratings for sale, yes I have. I'm not forcing anybody to buy them though. I also see you have a banner linking to a site where you sell your ratings for $5, last updated in 2011. Having looked at the stats in your league I can see why your ratings are free these days.
Ultimately, people get what you pay for. It's very much a buyers market and if they don't like your product, or feel it's not worth the price, they'll simply not buy it. However, it might interest you to know that everyone who has bought my ratings have bought them again for the following season. Would they do that if the ratings didn't deliver everything I claim they will? Doubtful isn't it?