Old -> New Conversion

Johns Army wrote:

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Rhythm how did you come up with the %/point totals?

what do you mean?

Like how do you know 89% = 2.85 for example

Used a conversion factor of 0.3125

How did I find the conversion factor?

Firstly, the devs indicated that the new training system will give the same amount of +% for each training exercise. I looked at the new training routines and saw that Interval was exactly the same as Aerobics. I knew that Aerobics, in theory, was the only training exercise that converted 100% of the old stats trained into a +% value (I say 'in theory' because the Aerobics would only have a 100% conversion rate it all three of the stat areas received equal amounts of gain from the training exercise (you may remember that there was a random distribution of gains between the stat areas for some reason)). If you divide the +% training score (the real numerical value for +100% would be 1.00) for a Aerobics routine (with homogeneous stat gain distribution) by the old training score, then, hey presto!, you'd arrive at the 0.3125 figure (you might get a ever-so-slightly different value due to propagation of errors).

Hope that explains it

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Rhythm how did you come up with the %/point totals?

what do you mean?

Like how do you know 89% = 2.85 for example

Used a conversion factor of 0.3125

How did I find the conversion factor?

Firstly, the devs indicated that the new training system will give the same amount of +% for each training exercise. I looked at the new training routines and saw that Interval was exactly the same as Aerobics. I knew that Aerobics, in theory, was the only training exercise that converted 100% of the old stats trained into a +% value (I say 'in theory' because the Aerobics would only have a 100% conversion rate it all three of the stat areas received equal amounts of gain from the training exercise (you may remember that there was a random distribution of gains between the stat areas for some reason)). If you divide the +% training score (the real numerical value for +100% would be 1.00) for a Aerobics routine (with homogeneous stat gain distribution) by the old training score, then, hey presto!, you'd arrive at the 0.3125 figure (you might get a ever-so-slightly different value due to propagation of errors).

Hope that explains it

Okay so how accurate would you say the chart is?

As i have looked at a player who got 159% twice from training in aerobics but got different results by a big difference one got 159%/4.73 and the other was 159%/5.34 on wctf..

Johns Army wrote:

Okay so how accurate would you say the chart is?

As i have looked at a player who got 159% twice from training in aerobics but got different results by a big difference one got 159%/4.73 and the other was 159%/5.34 on wctf..

link please?

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Okay so how accurate would you say the chart is?

As i have looked at a player who got 159% twice from training in aerobics but got different results by a big difference one got 159%/4.73 and the other was 159%/5.34 on wctf..

link please?

Message sent on T/L

Johns Army wrote:

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Okay so how accurate would you say the chart is?

As i have looked at a player who got 159% twice from training in aerobics but got different results by a big difference one got 159%/4.73 and the other was 159%/5.34 on wctf..

link please?

Message sent on T/L

"(I say 'in theory' because the Aerobics would only have a 100% conversion rate it all three of the stat areas received equal amounts of gain from the training exercise (you may remember that there was a random distribution of gains between the stat areas for some reason))"

" If you divide the +% training score (the real numerical value for +100% would be 1.00) for a Aerobics routine (with homogeneous stat gain distribution)"

easy mistake to make - your player had different increases for speed, acceleration and stamina

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Okay so how accurate would you say the chart is?

As i have looked at a player who got 159% twice from training in aerobics but got different results by a big difference one got 159%/4.73 and the other was 159%/5.34 on wctf..

link please?

Message sent on T/L

"(I say 'in theory' because the Aerobics would only have a 100% conversion rate it all three of the stat areas received equal amounts of gain from the training exercise (you may remember that there was a random distribution of gains between the stat areas for some reason))"

" If you divide the +% training score (the real numerical value for +100% would be 1.00) for a Aerobics routine (with homogeneous stat gain distribution)"

easy mistake to make - your player had different increases for speed, acceleration and stamina

So if this is the case then how can we use it as a comparison?

@John

Do we know for a fact that both of these player trains were under the new training system and that one of them wasnt performed before the updated training at 9am. Dont forget that a lot of people still trained before 9am.

Do you think a comparison of today and tomorrow would be better (Or to forget the old training altogether )

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Okay so how accurate would you say the chart is?

As i have looked at a player who got 159% twice from training in aerobics but got different results by a big difference one got 159%/4.73 and the other was 159%/5.34 on wctf..

link please?

Message sent on T/L

"(I say 'in theory' because the Aerobics would only have a 100% conversion rate it all three of the stat areas received equal amounts of gain from the training exercise (you may remember that there was a random distribution of gains between the stat areas for some reason))"

" If you divide the +% training score (the real numerical value for +100% would be 1.00) for a Aerobics routine (with homogeneous stat gain distribution)"

easy mistake to make - your player had different increases for speed, acceleration and stamina

Okay so he had different increases... Which gave the same 159% total increase BUT gave different results before 4.73 and 5.34.... On your chart 160% is 5.13 but one of the 159% trains gave 5.34 which is bigger than 160%/5.13... So the chart is not accurate?

FC Stoke wrote:

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Rhythm FC wrote:

Johns Army wrote:

Okay so how accurate would you say the chart is?

As i have looked at a player who got 159% twice from training in aerobics but got different results by a big difference one got 159%/4.73 and the other was 159%/5.34 on wctf..

link please?

Message sent on T/L

"(I say 'in theory' because the Aerobics would only have a 100% conversion rate it all three of the stat areas received equal amounts of gain from the training exercise (you may remember that there was a random distribution of gains between the stat areas for some reason))"

" If you divide the +% training score (the real numerical value for +100% would be 1.00) for a Aerobics routine (with homogeneous stat gain distribution)"

easy mistake to make - your player had different increases for speed, acceleration and stamina

So if this is the case then how can we use it as a comparison?

good question

a) the devs indicated that the new training system would be 100% efficient
b) the only time any of the old trains were exactly 100% (some were higher/lower) was when speed, acceleration and stamina got equal gains from a Aerobics train

therefore *in theory* it is possible to convert from one training system to the other using a constant. There is a chance that i'm wrong here but im 99% confident in the graph

Also, it might worth noting (if you hadn't realized already) that i think its completely fine to convert your old training average into a new % training average using the same formula:

(old training average) x 0.3125 x 100 = new % training average

Johns Army wrote:

Okay so he had different increases... Which gave the same 159% total increase BUT gave different results before 4.73 and 5.34.... On your chart 160% is 5.13 but one of the 159% trains gave 5.34 which is bigger than 160%/5.13... So the chart is not accurate?

tbh im not sure what you mean here