Login
no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Bug reporting / Error in training report Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 >| | |
| Poster | Message |
| posted: 2026-02-09 20:01:02 (ID: 100197110) Report Abuse | |
|
Sorry, I have no time for such research. I would prefer to discuss this example further to make up my own ideas, first. And yes, I do not have any history, beside the training reports.
You got the number from the database ... what exactly was wrong in that mentioned report? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-02-09 20:27:48 (ID: 100197112) Report Abuse | |
|
I have the feeling, we going in circles here.
I try to break down what I did see. 1) my last report on that player did show gain in STR of 0.7 from 44 to 44.7, including a red !. -> this should not have happend, since the player was marked as capped at 44 with a red ! already. But it did happen. Expectations were max a gain of 0.1 because of overtraining. 2) the players last gain on that skill, STR, did happen 1.5 years in the past, when he did gain 0.9 from 43.1 to 44 and marked now as red !. (as extra, a report before the gain was 1.1 from 42 to 43.1, marked with a yellow !) -> this does look OK, since I expected a red ! at 44. If the cap info would not be there and you would see just the gains, 0.9 and 0.7 on 2 trainings one after another on that skill, only with a gap of time, this would look like normal training. But it was no normal training. With the info of 2) looking like a training with normal gain and THEN a red cap, 1) looks odd, because THAT had already the red ! mark after the gain and if that would have been true, 2) shouldn't have been the way it was. Since I don't think your training routine does from time to time a booboo on the gain on overtraining, I think the error is a mix of rounding and visual. The rounding does show skill values as the next higher integer, while the real value is still a fraction lower, like rounding value = 44, real value 43.999. And then likely somewhere in your presentation code there is some sort of rule "if rounded skill value < cap, show yellow !, else show red !" if I ignore scouting level and all other cases. So, because that behavior 1) did show red ! at 44, while it was likely 43.999 and that's why 2) did happen and looked that odd. I bet, next training, still 90% STR on a capped value, will show no gain at all or max 0.1 gain, since now the cap is really reached. I can understand you don't have the time for such analyses. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-02-10 07:27:04 (ID: 100197117) Report Abuse | |
|
I don’t mean this in a harsh way, but I’m a bit confused because my questions haven’t really been addressed yet. To avoid us talking past each other, could you please clarify what was shown in the actual report, and what was shown in the previous one where the Strength of Leon was mentioned?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2026-02-10 08:17:34 (ID: 100197122) Report Abuse | |
|
But I did answer it, like 3 times.
Here just copy paste from the reports: 07.07.2024, in youth acadamy section: Leon Hildebrand (LB) strength from 43.1 to 44 cap hit (edit: red ! shown) 08.02.2026, in senior team section: Leon Hildebrand (FB) strength from 44 to 44.7 cap hit (edit: red ! shown) I did open the bug on the 2nd report, because I did not expect such a gain of 0.7, because the previous one did already show the red !, here named cap hit. Here is a copy paste of a yellow ! player from same report as the 2nd report. Denis Gevorkyan (DL) agility from 35.7 to 35.7 near cap All I'm saying is, that likely the rounding does lead the report to show "cap hit" too early and should have been "near cap" in the 1st report (now, after some chat here and research) and the easiest way to fix this would be to check and correct the logic on the near "cap/cap hit" check, which seems to work not ok. If that would mean we see a 44 near cap report, so be it, but then the manager would know, there is at least one more training possible. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 >| | |
| Main / Bug reporting / Error in training report | |
