This season is so despressing... but that is perhaps the effect of going from a 19 CON 4½ BPOS HB to a 10 CON 5 BPOS HB... Nothing else has really changed on my team except basic improvements due to player training.

squarebear wrote: SrednaD wrote: This season is so despressing... but that is perhaps the effect of going from a 19 CON 4½ BPOS HB to a 10 CON 5 BPOS HB... Nothing else has really changed on my team except basic improvements due to player training. Oh gawd. You've just maybe explained why my high skilled backfield pairing so often fail to live up to their salary. Consistency is 5 for both of them.

I have always tried to have high CON players on key positions but did not imagine when I let Braüner go last season that it would be such a hit. I know that there are at least 2 or 3 other factors to take into consideration (based on the complexity of the game-engine), but skills are almost the same except footwork which my present HB does not match Braüner.

Tom 1860 wrote: Low levels of consistency mean that a player could also have a great game every so often, that is better than a 20 consistency guy? My starting RBs have consistencies of 10 and above, but I used to have a long serving RB with a low consistency and a FB with a 20 consistency...

Yes, a 10 CON player would be able to play better (max 10%) than he is trained to, but for my 18 carrying HB, he would be at a +/- 10% on a given day scoring as low as 16.20 or up to 19.8. Which is not bad. not bad at all, just not what I am paying him for. 18 is what I want him to be at. He is at that level one fourth of the games. One other fourth, he is at level 19 and excels. Half the time, he is underperfomring according to his pay.

My calculations show that you will in only 38 out of 160 possible scenarios (for skill 13 to 20 and 1 to 20 CON) will have a situation where (low) CON could give you a +2 bonus on a skill. 3 scenarios where the bonus could be 3. 54 where there would be a +1 gain. The sest would be at par with training.

For lower performance, I get these figures:
-4 skill points: 14 out of 160
-3 skill points: 42 out of 160
-2 skill points: 50 out of 160
-1 skill points: 46 out of 160

Rest would be at par with training.

Comparied,

+/- 4 point gain: 0/14 (number of + / number of -)
+/- 3 point gain: 3/42
+/- 2 point gain: 38/50
+/- 1 point gain: 54/46

So there could be a sweet spot where you could have players with skill / consistency levels that could give them more gain than loss (on average), but I have not digged into that as it is clear that playing with low CON players (even 15 and below) does not give an edge. Most of the scenarios where a player would have a great loss in skill (-3 and -4 points) are in situations where you have players trained to level 17 and above and have low CON. The issue here is that skills on gameday can not pass 20, so a player trained to level 18 with 1 CON would risk a low of 14, but only a high of 20 eventhough math says it should be 21.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_KC-OY9xCCsLzLSjjusZm3qgHymywk-v-mVN6CNJOuM/edit?usp=sharing

acooper1004 wrote: I suppose it had to happen my helmet design updated to the new style i know its petty, but i really hate the new one, why change something without my asking? does anyone like the new designs? i preferred the old/classic style coops

I agree. Does look odd in its proportions.

Happy that I don't have 79.99€ to spend