PDA

View Full Version : Unusual "at peak" numbers


mking55
10-03-2011, 09:07 AM
As mentioned earlier, I use a 20-80 ratings scale. I lied before when I said ratings don't go below 23. With potential they can be as low as 21. However, that's not the point of this post.

In the past whenever a player was "at peak", his rating was always 21. 21 to me meant he couldn't go any higher and he never did. However, now I'm seeing things like a potential of 63 and the wording "at peak". That doesn't compute to me as compared to the "old" way or there is a new way of delivering the "at peak" numbers.

My question is, what is it? Is it a bug? Is it a new way of doing things? Please help me understand. Thank you,

CrashDavis
10-03-2011, 11:00 AM
From Update.html:
-New - Major changes to career trajectory (peak, decline, cliff) allowing for longer arc's.
-New - Major changes to talent distribution and aging algorithms.

Definitely not a bug. Intentional.

Whereas, in the past, on avg, players would meet their peak at 28 yrs old and immediatey drop off, this has been extended - again on avg - to 31 yrs old. And their cliff pushed back as well (ie., some players not falling off a cliff until 40+).
This is especially true in Fictional players and 60 man rosters.
Of course, if playing in Strict development with real players, their retirements are still controlled by their real life playing time.

mking55
10-03-2011, 11:04 AM
From Update.html:
-New - Major changes to career trajectory (peak, decline, cliff) allowing for longer arc's.
-New - Major changes to talent distribution and aging algorithms.

Definitely not a bug. Intentional.

Thank you.

I read all that but for some reason I didn't think it would translate into the numbers used. I guess that's a DOH on me.

So as my follow-up question, does this mean a player who is at peak with a rating of 63 will remain at peak longer than a player at peak with a rating of 21?

Thanks.

CrashDavis
10-03-2011, 11:27 AM
No it doesn't. The rating in this case is Potential. How this is used hasn't been changed. The higher this rating the more likely player is to improve in other ratings. Once the player reaches a point where he will no longer improve in other ratings, this Potential rating will drop to its nominal number (1 for 1-100, 21 for 20-80, etc).

What determines where the drops takes place?
PeakAge, DeclineAge and CliffAge (and the differences between those ages).

So for example (1-100 scale):
Player A = PeakAge is 29, DeclineAge is 34 and CliffAge is 38. Potential is 40.
Player B = PeakAge is 30, DeclineAge is 32 and CliffAge is 40. Potential is 60.

Player B - because of the 60 POT - will be far more likely to have his ratings improve over time. On the other hand, his POT for improvement will halt at or just before he turns 32.
Player A - because of his 40 POT - will see little in improvements in ratings (compared to Player B). But his ratings will maintain their level a while longer since his DeclineAge is 2 years longer than Player B.

CrashDavis
10-03-2011, 11:33 AM
And to follow up on this:
What does description "At Peak", "Past Peak", etc mean?

Again, this has not been changed either. The text description is referring to the relationship between the players current age and his PeakAge, DeclineAge and CliffAge. It bears, and never has, no relationship with the Potential rating.

Now that I think about it, it would almost be more useful to move this text description to the top of the Player Card beneath the Players Age (as opposed to where it is currently located).

mking55
10-03-2011, 11:51 AM
And to follow up on this:
What does description "At Peak", "Past Peak", etc mean?

Again, this has not been changed either. The text description is referring to the relationship between the players current age and his PeakAge, DeclineAge and CliffAge. It bears, and never has, no relationship with the Potential rating.

Now that I think about it, it would almost be more useful to move this text description to the top of the Player Card beneath the Players Age (as opposed to where it is currently located).

A big "AHA" here. I don't think this has ever been explained so simply and clearly. i always thought it was in relation to potential (because that's where it's written). But as you say it involves the total player and his relation to peak age, decline age, and cliff age. That makes sense.

And yes, it would be less confusing if it was at the top of the player card or in it's own box or wherever, as long as it's not sharing a box with something like potential.

Thanks again for making this clear to me.

Wrathchild
10-03-2011, 11:59 AM
I agree that this is the best explanation I can remember seeing for this. If it's not already in the manual it should be, including the example.

akw4572
10-03-2011, 01:18 PM
Amen, thanks for posting that.