|
Post by bj on Jan 26, 2012 10:14:17 GMT 1
yes it does still work.
maybe you can double check your data and find the mistake or explain the problem to us, maybe we can help.
|
|
beuh
Cycling Tourist Group
Posts: 6
|
Post by beuh on Jan 26, 2012 10:23:42 GMT 1
Ok good to know, I will check my data once more (couldn't find a mistake the first time), if no mistake is found again, I will need your help I think
|
|
|
Post by Genomico on Jan 26, 2012 13:50:53 GMT 1
Does this method still work (with x.0/2/4/6/8)? I tried to do the math yesterday for my cyclists, but it turned out wrong.. At the start yes, but if any of your cyclists gained training on a specific surface it screws up a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Jan 26, 2012 13:58:02 GMT 1
yes it does still work. maybe you can double check your data and find the mistake or explain the problem to us, maybe we can help. This 'trick' will be fixed very soon, so don't get used to it
|
|
|
Post by bj on Jan 26, 2012 14:09:10 GMT 1
Does this method still work (with x.0/2/4/6/8)? I tried to do the math yesterday for my cyclists, but it turned out wrong.. At the start yes, but if any of your cyclists gained training on a specific surface it screws up a lot. its his first week and he hasnt bought a rider yet. So no problem here. Btw even after training its still possible to get very accurate numbers
|
|
beuh
Cycling Tourist Group
Posts: 6
|
Post by beuh on Jan 26, 2012 16:26:40 GMT 1
At the start yes, but if any of your cyclists gained training on a specific surface it screws up a lot. its his first week and he hasnt bought a rider yet. So no problem here. Btw even after training its still possible to get very accurate numbers Indeed no one received training yet. So it should work, but I can't find my mistake.. But it will be hard for you guys to help me I think? How can I post it here conveniently arranged...
|
|
|
Post by Genomico on Jan 26, 2012 16:46:58 GMT 1
its his first week and he hasnt bought a rider yet. So no problem here. Btw even after training its still possible to get very accurate numbers Indeed no one received training yet. So it should work, but I can't find my mistake.. But it will be hard for you guys to help me I think? How can I post it here conveniently arranged... I would love to help you as I love puzzling But then I would need 12 screenshots from: 1) Flat skills sorted from low to high. 2) Flat skills sorted from high to low. 3) Hill skills ... etc (or 12 lists instead of screenshots with the orders) Can contact me via PM if interested.
|
|
beuh
Cycling Tourist Group
Posts: 6
|
Post by beuh on Jan 26, 2012 16:56:13 GMT 1
You got mail
|
|
|
Post by adipy on Jan 26, 2012 18:39:00 GMT 1
This 'trick' will be fixed very soon, so don't get used to it Will we still be able to see who is better? like 3,74...>3,316...
|
|
jmadsen
Cycling Tourist Group
Posts: 15
|
Post by jmadsen on Jul 24, 2012 14:28:45 GMT 1
Initially, I didn't bother to do this, but now I find myself with a week off from work, and since I also like puzzles, I gave it a go. Of course it gets a bit messy after 3 weeks of training, but still gives a fair indication of the cyclists' sub levels (at least I trained the same skill all the time).
So, I factored in an extra ~0.465 based on Schizm's training speed post here (trainer with skill level 10, 11 and 12 for the 3 trainings).
All my cyclists came out extremely "low" in all skills, and no matter how strict I was, one of them was just way above the 12 skillpoint sum (around 12.3 with lowest possible estimates, including training)...
Then I took a shower and suddenly had a thought: With 3 weeks of training, the skill sum for each cyclist should be ~12.465 and not 12.0, right?
I then also found out, that I actually formed my team 4 trainings ago, so the factor for the past 3 weeks should be (+0.155+0.160+0.165) ~0.48 instead (I went with an interval of 0.45-0.5 anyway, so this won't matter much.
What could matter is if I actually trained 4 weeks (I started my team the night before the July 1st training update, but don't know if I had training set). I have zero skill increases from July 1st on Training Statistics, but several each week from July 8th)... So I reckon it's 3 weeks of training, but I might do a check with 4.
|
|
|
Post by Quatannens on Jul 24, 2012 21:26:32 GMT 1
The first training your cyclists (not the ones you bought) won't pop. They start with a maximum of .8, so one training isn't enough to go to a higher level. If at least one of your startcyclists popped the 8th of july, you certainly trained the 1st of july too.
|
|
jmadsen
Cycling Tourist Group
Posts: 15
|
Post by jmadsen on Jul 24, 2012 22:44:27 GMT 1
Aha, good point. Thanks! Then I have to do the puzzle one more time
|
|
jmadsen
Cycling Tourist Group
Posts: 15
|
Post by jmadsen on Jul 24, 2012 22:47:31 GMT 1
We agree then, that their skillsum after 4 weeks of training with Level 10/11/12/13 trainer should be 12 + 0.15 + 0.155 + 0.16 + 0.165 ~12.6 ... Right?
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Jul 25, 2012 6:44:29 GMT 1
Not really, the numbers there where estimates and I think genomico was closer to the truth then me. Plus it is more compicated then that because skill height and age also have their influence (small but I remember clearly that 22+ cyclists popped a week later somewhere during the first 10 weeks).
|
|
jmadsen
Cycling Tourist Group
Posts: 15
|
Post by jmadsen on Jul 25, 2012 9:00:06 GMT 1
Aha, thanks to you too. That might explain why I still have problems getting one of my cyclists "high" enough (couldn't sum him up to more than 12.5 no matter how positive I was).
genomico's numbers are a bit higher than yours, so I will give it another shot with skill sum ~12.7.
|
|