Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffR
With all due respect, I've explained at length why your contribution wasn't usable, and that there are fundamental differences between the way you want historical mode to work and the way it actually does. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by continuing to suggest the research is bad because the game doesn't work in the manner you want it to.
|
Jeff... with all due respect when the game benches Henri Richard for the last 10 years of his career, and Bobby Orr is a lady bing candidate, your research is shoddy. It's gotten better in 2015, but there is still too much "opinion" (the recent thread on Alex Mogilny is just the latest example).
It's intellectually lazy to keep pretending that it's about how *I* want it, vs actually rating players in a way that fits within the way the engine handles ratings (which in truth the Historical research does a better job than Modern) AND produces results that do a reasonable job of reproducing actual player production (Which Modern research does better than historical).
Having said that, I gave up on trying to hand you all the answers for free. Use whatever method you wish. from what I've seen though, the game engine itself is actually quite solid when left to it's own devices. That leaves the only cause of the imbalances and discrepancies down to player research. What I suspect is happening:
Modern Play
- Players are over-rated across the board compared to what the game expects, which leads to players expecting higher salaries across the board, which means that the pool of player talent is out of balance with the pool of money (Salary cap). the results are decent because most leagues Ratings are internally consistent, which the game engine seems to handle well in terms of generating game results and stats. If instead of averaging 12s across the board for attributes, you average 14s, but everyone is over-rated the same, the right results (roughly) are produced, BUT the financial model makes the players think they should be PAID as 14s, but the salary cap is balanced for 12s. (numbers chosen at random for illustration purposes).
So you can change the financial engine to reflect how players are being rated by researchers OR you can downgrade everyone across the board to fit the financial expectations of the game engine.
Historical
- The ratings seem to be inline better with the scale used by the player generation engine, BUT the internal balance between players is completely off in many cases. I have seen big issues especially around the time of the WHA merger, and also anything after 2004, but then those are the only periods I've tried yet in FHM2 because I've been trying to understand how the base engine has been modified since the first version.