[purplerat]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dempseylicious23

From my viewpoint, you make a good case with this post. A good programming squad would implement a lot of variables that factor in to the simulation stats engine. However, Adembroski's recent twitter rants seem to indicate that his work on the simulation stats engine was undone by someone in a higher position than himself, leading to some of the wacky stats that happen during CCM's over time. If what Adembroski ranted about was true, it leads me to believe that his work was good and took into account a lot of variables, but may have been unpolished and buggy in certain instances which were not conducive to what the brass wanted (or maybe not, it could have been inter-company politics or something way deeper than that). Then it would make sense that a lead designer might rework the code at a later time (and now we're on the hook to meet deadlines and such) to a much simpler system. That's why it's also very possible that OVR is a large determinate factor in the equations. Good programming leads one to take your viewpoint. Bad programming by one of the worst managed/run corporations in America done in a short time frame leads one to think that the system may not be as complex as you believe.

What you say about code being changed later and using lazy programming to meet a deadline could very well be the case. Trust me I know all about how that goes down.

One point of clarification though is that I would call it good/bad programming in relation to how the stats come out in terms of realism. The programing could be good and have unrealistic results as well could it be bad and have realistic results. So I wouldn't jump to wonky stats being the result of some major programming flaw such as using OVR ratings where they really shouldn't be used.