Posted in General
it does make a difference as far as i'm aware - 1 sec i'll pull up some examples for youDothraki Horde wrote:Yhe distribution shouldn't make any difference to converting one total number into a total % though?
I just checked one of my supers who had 217% increase but only scored 6.03 on old training - http://www.virtualmanager.com/players/9858310-ingalvur-bjarnason/training << 27/03 training
please note that the graph will only be valid from today unless you are comparing past aerobic trains with homogeneous stat distributions**** Iron wrote:My DR trained at 3.97 & 46%. Is it because I trained in defending?
Ah okRhythm FC wrote:please note that the graph will only be valid from today unless you are comparing past aerobic trains with homogeneous stat distributions**** Iron wrote:My DR trained at 3.97 & 46%. Is it because I trained in defending?
Just found one in the super I posted a minute ago (25/02) - 89% 89% 89% on aerobic, so perfectly even distribution... and it converts almost exactly using your chart - 266% = 8.51Rhythm FC wrote:it does make a difference as far as i'm aware - 1 sec i'll pull up some examples for youDothraki Horde wrote:Yhe distribution shouldn't make any difference to converting one total number into a total % though?
I just checked one of my supers who had 217% increase but only scored 6.03 on old training - http://www.virtualmanager.com/players/9858310-ingalvur-bjarnason/training << 27/03 training
http://www.virtualmanager.com/players/9597013-halim-alp/trainingRhythm FC wrote:it does make a difference as far as i'm aware - 1 sec i'll pull up some examples for youDothraki Horde wrote:Yhe distribution shouldn't make any difference to converting one total number into a total % though?
I just checked one of my supers who had 217% increase but only scored 6.03 on old training - http://www.virtualmanager.com/players/9858310-ingalvur-bjarnason/training << 27/03 training
No, that's irrelevant. It shows how much of one bar the stats have increased so the starting point is automatically zero and then the percentage is calculated, regardless of the % in the bar already.**** Iron wrote:What I'm saying is the percentage shows how much a players stats have increased so surely they will be different for all depending on what the stats were before the train?
28/01 is also fairly homogenous on aerobic. Converts properly again, so this conversion chart seems to be accurate. My maths comprehension doesn't extend to figuring out why it doesn't convert uneven aerobic trains correctly thoughDothraki Horde wrote:Just found one in the super I posted a minute ago (25/02) - 89% 89% 89% on aerobic, so perfectly even distribution... and it converts almost exactly using your chart - 266% = 8.51Rhythm FC wrote:it does make a difference as far as i'm aware - 1 sec i'll pull up some examples for youDothraki Horde wrote:Yhe distribution shouldn't make any difference to converting one total number into a total % though?
I just checked one of my supers who had 217% increase but only scored 6.03 on old training - http://www.virtualmanager.com/players/9858310-ingalvur-bjarnason/training << 27/03 training
the answer will be fairly long im afraid. In tl;dr fashion, i'd say that there were many things that were pretty bad with regards to the old (interim) training system. What happened was that when you clicked the 'Train now' button, the system would firstly train the old stats and then convert the old stats to new stats. If you use the Defending exercise for as an example, it used to train the old other old stats apart from Tackling, whereas only tackling would then convert to the new Tackling ability stat and increase in the other old stats would be wasted (i cant exactly remember the situation with the old marking stat since they changed something then changed something again).**** Iron wrote:Ah okRhythm FC wrote:please note that the graph will only be valid from today unless you are comparing past aerobic trains with homogeneous stat distributions**** Iron wrote:My DR trained at 3.97 & 46%. Is it because I trained in defending?
I'm confused. I'm going back to work and I'll look at it tonight.
.. (well tbf technique was the better until they released the interim interim training system .. whatever that was)
To be honest, I dont really understand it eitherDothraki Horde wrote:28/01 is also fairly homogenous on aerobic. Converts properly again, so this conversion chart seems to be accurate. My maths comprehension doesn't extend to figuring out why it doesn't convert uneven aerobic trains correctly thoughDothraki Horde wrote:Just found one in the super I posted a minute ago (25/02) - 89% 89% 89% on aerobic, so perfectly even distribution... and it converts almost exactly using your chart - 266% = 8.51Rhythm FC wrote:it does make a difference as far as i'm aware - 1 sec i'll pull up some examples for youDothraki Horde wrote:Yhe distribution shouldn't make any difference to converting one total number into a total % though?
I just checked one of my supers who had 217% increase but only scored 6.03 on old training - http://www.virtualmanager.com/players/9858310-ingalvur-bjarnason/training << 27/03 training
