manutoo wrote:2) normally, u should be able to read it all, check ur screen config or ur game's Windows position ; it says : "you won [Tournament Name]"
5) it's better to pair with a great volleyer which is already a double specialist (ie: high Double Spirit)
2) It doesn't show up (except the top few rows of pixels) in either full screen or 1280 by 960 windowed mode. I haven't tried other resolutions.
5) I like that! It matches what I just read in "Tilden On Tennis".
Since you are being so helpful
I will continue:
7) When players practice at a center that has several court surfaces, do they automatically choose the surface closest to that of their next scheduled tournament? If not, how is it determined? If there is no scheduled tournament do they default to cement?
8) In the documentation it says that sparring is the best way to improve technical skills, though randomly. In my last game I observed that my best player, Tanvier, did not seem to be benefitting from this. I ran a seven week intensive camp at the end of year two, in which each player played each other seven practice sets per week (21 sets total per player, which was when I noticed that some players practiced on cement and others on indoor carpet). By the end of the first five weeks Tanvier's best four skills, which had been in the 82-83 range, had dropped by about five points each. For the last two weeks I switched her to a more normal skills regimen of five hours in each of the four major groups, and they began to come back up again. (Those best scores were generally about five points below her potentials before the sparring started.) My question is, is sparring generally less effective for the elite players than skills training?
9) Do the players develop their own 'personalities'? (Long explanation follows.)
In my last game Tanvier was noticably my best player (most area under bars). The other three grouped quite closely, but ran in order Bouvier, Lamarre, Pitkowski. When playing those hundreds of practice sets against each other I kept track of their records, and they did not match their apparent skills sets OR their tournament records. Emily narrowly beat Pitkowski (which I expected), but won over 76% of her sets against Lamarre, and over 62% against Tanvier. Except for her record against Emily, Tanvier performed as expected, winning 70% against Pitkowski and over 80% against Lamarre. Lamarre and Pitkowski played to a tie
which was close to expectation. The real anomoly was Emily. I had previously noticed that she does much better in the between match practices at tournaments than she does in the matches that count. (Note that by this time her mental skills were all close to 94%; despite her 36 ranking in singles, she made first round exits in two majors.) This leads me to believe that some players in the game do better in practice than they do in matches. If true, I think that is a good thing for the game, because it is certainly true in real life. (Lamarre went the other way, being noticably better in real matches than in practice, while Tanvier and Pitkowski performed about the same in either situation.)
As other examples, three of the girls won around 40-45% of their set tie-breakers, but Pitkowski was absolutely amazing! Counting both singles and doubles in the 1992 French and British Opens, she was involved in nine tie-breaks, and she (or her team) won them all
. That's the kind of thing that gets written up in the newspaper, or talked about on SportsCenter. Similarly, matches against Narvratilova all seemed to go the same way for any of my girls — Martina wins a first set tie-break, only takes 0-2 games in the second set, then roars back in the third.
On paper, Tanvier was nowhere near as good as Navratilova, but was noticably better than Suvarova. In actual matches she went 4-0 against Martina in singles and 5-0 against her in doubles, but she couldn't beat Suvarova to save her life, losing even when bumping by ten and twenty points. Are these all just examples of luck, or are they things which follow logically from the way the numbers interact?
10) I know that the computer players' skills change with the start of each year. Do their potentials also change? And do the potentials of the players I have under contract ever change (other than the power technical skills that vary with their strength)?
11) This is probably more philosophy than you want to get into, but I was wondering why you made the default Emily a Puncher, rather than Varied style? Her potentials seem (to me) to be ideal for a Varied player.