xECK29x
commented
10 months ago To add to this from the Researcher guide, we should implement a "check" for attribute points per CA to make sure we are not going outside the expected range for attributes (ignore 0s).
"A good rule of thumb to use when working on technical attributes: in most cases it’s best not to assign a number more than 6 higher or lower than the attribute average the game will be expecting, as shown in the following table:
CA Average Minimum Maximum 10 4.5 1 10.5 20 5 1 11 30 5.5 1 11.5 40 6 1 12 50 6.5 1 12.5 60 7 1 13 70 7.5 1.5 13.5 80 8 2 14 90 8.5 2.5 14.5 100 9 3 15 110 9.5 3.5 15.5 120 10 4 16 130 10.5 4.5 16.5 140 11 5 17 150 11.5 5.5 17.5 160 12 6 18 170 12.5 6.5 18.5 180 13 7 19 190 13.5 7.5 19.5 200 14 8 20
So, almost all of the technical attributes of a player with an 80 CA should be between 2 and 14. There will certainly be exceptional cases – for example, a 17-year-old junior player whom you rate at an 80 CA but who already posseses a slapshot that’s comparable to a 140 CA NHLer could have a slapshot rating as high as 17. (Presumably, he only got an 80 CA because there are deficiencies in his game that offset the big shot; if you find yourself entering several attributes for a player above his recommended range, you may want to reconsider moving the CA upwards, unless there are an equal number of very bad attributes pulling the overall average down.)
(As a side note, the new system will also make young players improve in a more realistic manner, but that won’t directly affect how you enter the ratings.)"
Per the TBL research word document the following should be enforced via best practices, it would be good to have either a mass-edit tool or database validation task (preferred) to enforce these changes DB wide.