Originally posted by tautology DL24-> I recommend you take a break and think this through, because PT is right on the money and has a legion of forum followers who can verify the truth of his words (minus the understandably heated obscenities).
Originally posted by kalkmanc Uhhh. So why exactly was this bug doing? Only affected speed orrrr everything? And will my players not suck anymore?
It's hypothesized that weight was corrupted in the transfer. Weight effects Breaking tackles and speed, among other things. A 220lb WR that is being used as 0lb would be much faster then the 220 that is in the players page.
Originally posted by David Stern It is funny, if you had any background on this discussion, and knew we were comparing exact speed on 1st play of the game streak plays, you would clearly know we will only provide Concrete evidence. To quote a guy who has been trolling these threads for 48 hr's despite concrete evidence is asinine. Trust me when I say, had Bort not been presented with indisputable evidence, and the entire community who has followed this thread been in a complete uproar, he would have never commented on such ("Clown" accusations). The fact is we have proven there is something wrong, and we will be able to come to absolute certainty due to the speed script whether any/all wr's receive a buff/nerf. Other positions won't be as easy, but I am sure we will be able to tell if JJ is still JJ. Etc..
You just have comprehension issues. Just look at this wall of nonsense you presented us with. o_O
Originally posted by Adderfist Originally posted by kalkmanc
Uhhh. So why exactly was this bug doing? Only affected speed orrrr everything? And will my players not suck anymore?
It's hypothasized that weight was corrupted in the transfer. Weight effects Breaking tackles and speed, among other things. A 220lb WR that is being used as 0lb would be much faster then the 220 that is in the players page.
Does that mean my super fast players who move like they are stuck in glue could potentially weigh 1800 lbs, instead of 180?
I'm hoping a couple of my players may stop inexplicably sucking on my non-boost team... but my LB has always seemed inherently talented for his build (that's the only reason I didn't retire him before season 5), and I'm worried he'll see decline
Originally posted by Jack Del Rio Fuck, now I have to buy a whole new fucking set of level 56 equipment that I originally owned but abandoned due to shittiness
Originally posted by Bort Originally posted by Ryiotgear
Bort - why only height & weight? Did the error actually corrupt the players weight so that it would be reused by sim for the player's lifetime or was it only in transmittance and hence on a sim by sim basis?
It'd be an in-memory error. Ht/wt are never written by the sim to the database. Only read. So if we got some bad data, it wouldn't be transmitted back to the DB and you'd never know about it.
TBH, there's not a lot of ways to test it. It just makes sense to put in some sanity checks for supposed limits to head off potential issues. Kinda like how SA's give diminishing returns above 10, since I hadn't originally intended for them to get up to 18-20.
Do SA's give diminishing returns above 10 or is that just a myth?
Originally posted by David Stern It is funny, if you had any background on this discussion, and knew we were comparing exact speed on 1st play of the game streak plays, you would clearly know we will only provide Concrete evidence. To quote a guy who has been trolling these threads for 48 hr's despite concrete evidence is asinine. Trust me when I say, had Bort not been presented with indisputable evidence, and the entire community who has followed this thread been in a complete uproar, he would have never commented on such ("Clown" accusations). The fact is we have proven there is something wrong, and we will be able to come to absolute certainty due to the speed script whether any/all wr's receive a buff/nerf. Other positions won't be as easy, but I am sure we will be able to tell if JJ is still JJ. Etc..
To be fair though, he is absolutely correct.
It is a safety net...we aren't 100% sure it is even what's happening...but it might be what's happening, and there's no reason to not put in half a line of code as a safety net.
But at the same time, it MAY have an effect, so it wouldn't be fair to not put it in the changelog.