(07-26-2021, 11:10 PM)Maglubiyet Wrote:

(07-26-2021, 11:02 PM)Gragg9 Wrote:

(07-26-2021, 11:01 PM)Maglubiyet Wrote:

(07-26-2021, 10:59 PM)Gragg9 Wrote:

(07-26-2021, 10:51 PM)Maglubiyet Wrote: The reason you are under the impression that there is no breakpoint at 71 is because you are only looking at the SubtractEnergy method. There are no breakpoints at 71 in SubtractEnergy, and it is largely unchanged (thought not entirely) from the DDSPF16 implementation. However, you have not accounted for SubtractEnergy's counterpart, AddEnergy, which does have a breakpoint at 71 in both DDSPF16 and DDSPF21.

thanks for this snippet! Is there concrete evidence that this still exists in 21 however

Yes, that screenshot is from DDSPF21.

So some teams have access to the 21 code while others do not?

Just to be clear, I haven't done a deep dive into the code like I did with 16 for several reasons. However, I came to this conclusion independently and cannot speak for what other teams have done on their own. If you are worried about my team having some sort of competitive advantage, you can ask my GMs how much I have contributed to sim testing in DDSPF21 (zero!).

(07-27-2021, 03:49 AM)Swanty Wrote:

(07-26-2021, 07:32 PM)Gragg9 Wrote: That’s right, the entire league has been spending 25 extra TPE into endurance for virtually no reason. I did a good bit of testing in DDSPF21 to confirm the benchmark is at 60 instead of 71 and testing does indeed seem to confirm.

So we've cleared up that 71 wasn't a figment of Eldorian's imagination, does exist in DDSPF21 and has a positive effect on the ability to retain 'energy', but you make a good point that we can't know the effects of it on team win percentage without testing.

It seems that others have seen from tests that it does have an effect while you are seeing that it doesn't.

Rather than confusing rookies even further by leaving this thread up and the question unresolved, should we compare testing results / methodology to figure out whether it does or does not have an effect?

(07-27-2021, 09:23 AM)Gragg9 Wrote: I've talked with several people in private about if who have seen the code or done their own testing. I'm the only one that looked at exclusively win percentage with a sample size of a couple thousand and the endurance change applied to the whole team. I'll be running additional tests with higher sample size and possibly position specific changes as and publish the results when ready. Until then I am almost totally confident that no rookie should be getting 71 endurance.

Edit: and to be clear I do concede that 71 endurance does probably exist.

(07-27-2021, 10:39 AM)Tomasnz Wrote:

(07-27-2021, 09:23 AM)Gragg9 Wrote: I've talked with several people in private about if who have seen the code or done their own testing. I'm the only one that looked at exclusively win percentage with a sample size of a couple thousand and the endurance change applied to the whole team. I'll be running additional tests with higher sample size and possibly position specific changes as and publish the results when ready. Until then I am almost totally confident that no rookie should be getting 71 endurance.

Edit: and to be clear I do concede that 71 endurance does probably exist.

These are two different things. I have never suggested that rookies get 71 but for isfl players I think it is worthwhile