STHS Forum

I runned multiple tests lately with the 2.1 sim engine.

To get decent numbers, I had to change my players rates a lot. I mean to get them a lot lower. Even then, by removing around 20% in each offensive stat, I have players with 70 goals season on a regular basis and around 15 50 goals scorers.

Honestly, I can live with that and I prefer that situation over seeing the worst team winning the playoffs.

My problem is, for the first 100 or so test I performed, I never went to the point of rerating my players. I did so the last time and, surprise!, every player with over 30 goals et 70 points (that means a LOT of players) got the maximum raise I allowed (+5) in the offensive rates. So, all my work at getting lower rates suddenly disappeared because half the league got a +5 bonus.

Simon, If the engine changed the overall performance of the players by creating a large gap between top 6 and bottom 6 players, I guess that the rerate formula should be adjusted. To, 1st: give a chance to young players who play on the bottom 2 lines to get decent rerate. 2nd: an average player playing on the 2nd line should not get the same rerate as the league's superstars.

Understand me, my problem is not in the fact that players got +5, which I can adjust with the simulator. My problem is the fact that half the league (every player or so on the first 2 lines) got the +5...

Hi.

I note your point and I'll check it out for version 2.1.2. (I won't do it for 2.1.1 that I'll release in a few day).

Should we then wait for the 2.1.2 before starting our season? Or we can start it with 2.1.1 and then rerate with 2.1.2?

Thank you.

You can start with 2.1.0 or 2.1.2 and rereate with the version available then.

If you are to review the formula, do you think it could be doable to add an option to set different rerate limits for the pro and the farm?

Because I think players in the farm do not develop at the same pace as those in the pro.

What do you think?

Possible. I'll see in december when I check this out.

I have a question. Under what scale were you simulating? Medium? Did you try Low or Very Low?

Also, there is already a different Max Stat Modification for Pro and Farm. It's even different from Players and Goalies.

You are right about the pro vs farm. Though, maybe the whole formula should be different.
I don't see the option to set different limits for players and goalies.

And I didn't allow players rating to change during the season. Only during the off-season via the option "rerate".
Is the same scale being applied?

I was thinking you were talking about the in season change.

If you are talking about the off-season via the option "rerate", the formula will work on any kind of league because it's used the league average to rerate players.

Can you tell me how works the "maximum rating "?

Example.
Player A should be allow a +8 in SC
Player B should have +6 in SC
Player C should have +2 in SC

I set my limit to 4. What will I have?

Option 1:
A and B get +4 while C get +2 (only do: "max(what it should be,4) )

Option 2:
A get +4, B get +3 and C get +1 (calculating a ratio)

Thank you.

The formula is : (NewData - AverageData) / AverageData * MaxReRateChange

P.S. Potentiel also impact the formula.

Ok, but... finally, will you adjust the formula or not?
Because if you don't, this simulator is totally useless after the first season unless we go all over again a rating adjustment...

Currently, my league best scorer has 88 SC, which gives him a 70 goals season (insane, I know, but it's the best I can do...). Beacause he has a lot of hat tricks and way over the league average, he managed to get a +6 SC this year (settings very low, max 1 during the year and max 5 during offseason). The year after, he gets a 145 goals season and manage to go up to 99 SC...
And we have the same problem again...

Wait, not exactly the same problem because during this time, the 3rd line players all lost 10 SC and 10 PA (because they cant get season over 15 pts anymore...) so the gap is very HUGE between best and worst players... But you know, as we know since we tested the 2.1 that players need to have similar rates for the simulator to work correctly...

So, what's the solution? Well, I have some ideas. Do you want me to post them here? Or you prefer to do via private message or email?

Thank you

I had this discussion on the board multiple times over the year. There are many way to rerate players at the end of the year. I code one way in the STHS but you are free to create your own with Excel or the STHS API.

Then you should say in the manual to not use the rerate and, of course, offer a discount on your incomplete product. Don't you think?

You tell me it has been discussed yet... So? The only way to get support with your product was to be there... yet? Nice.

Or we can discuss about it one more time, and try to get it as fine as it could.

The problem is quite simple:
First, the goal production fonction is a logarithm one, but the rerate is based on an uniform one. Which creates non sense.

Second, the players are compared with the league average and not with the production they should achieve. A player with 90 SC should get 90 goals (as per your coding...), then, with 70 goals, despite being over the league average, he should not get a raise in his SC.

But, like you said... I can just do it myself via Excel... As, when I buy a book, I have to write the conclusion by myself. Or when I buy a house, I build the roof...
I don't know why I assumed you would feel concerned, I'm sorry I guess.

Just a little something: Its not that I don't like the rerate system, it was great under the older versions. It just doesn't work anymore with the 2.1... As I can see, a lot of people will stick with the poor 2.0 because they fear the extreme 2.1... Well, I'm one of the rare who likes the 2.1 BUT please, you just can't ignore that the rerate is a problem, I explained why in my previous post...

Dear Kronide,

That's what you get when someone who isnt used to encode dont ask for help to encode his product. You get random result and then, you cant encode the product you want it to be. It's sad. There are 1000 of options but the basic isnt working right now.

FHL was simple but eveything was worked they way they want it to work.