I don't feel persecuted, I'm simply noting that lately you're so focused on the minutiae that you're oblivious to the big picture - you're not just missing the forest for the trees, you're so busy chewing on the leaves you haven't noticed you're sitting in one. I pointed out a much larger, more obvious thing to focus on to demonstrate this fact.You need to work on your sense of persecution
Then you'd simply make entry into your scheduled league require a team originate from an open league that did not use the injury-heal system. I don't personally see an issue either way, since the only real objection would be that teams from certain environments would develop more quickly and with less bumps on the road... you could still get to the same place in any of those environments, it'd just take longer in one with more random fluctuations in team composition. To each their own.I am actually open-minded about this system for open league play, although I do have reservations about the transition from open leagues to scheduled leagues with CRP injuries.
Based on pretty basic logic. The limited number of apothecaries that a team can field on a given match combined with the objective rarity of casualties as demonstrated by existing match statistics make it very unlikely that the minor shifts (16% better chance of getting a BH result, for example, though as I say, it's not integral to the system and can be shifted down) creating a statistically significant shift in any of the numbers we see in the data. Let me counter your question with one of my own: what do you imagine you'd see as a difference in terms of the data... or are you just waving your hands around saying "there will be a change wooOOOooOOOOOOOooooo prove me wrong woooOOoooOOooo!"?I'm asking questions about a system which would make "no change to on-pitch attrition". There are changes, but now you're saying they won't be statistically significant (based on what evidence? Or is that just conjecture?) or that other changes will balance them out (again, based on what evidence?).
When it comes to future events we can only guess, but not all guesses are created equal - some are better educated than others. In each case, even the more significant one that I pointed out, the actual change is in the potential choices that coaches may make given the fact that the attrition system is lightened, not in core mechanics of the game. Environmental changes always result in variable, but environmentally influenced choices: people choose to play bash in open MM, people choose to avoid playing against bash in R, people choose to play teams that are better at winning matches when there is actually something to be won. When bash is prevalent, people focus on bash-related skills... when bash is low in prevalence people focus on scoring skills. These affect "on pitch" play, but not because there is a core difference in the rules.
No, you're being castigated because while you're pretending this is about data, this is really just innuendo - you don't have the foggiest clue what sort of change you'd be looking for in the data, but you don't care about that, you just want to suggest that there's a potential difference and then demand proof that the potential won't be a big deal in some nebulous, unspecified way. Get specific and I'll give you specific answers, but the hand waving from you in recent threads has become tiresome. It'll end up being another thread I don't even bother to read until yours isn't the "last poster" name.You're asking people to drink the kool-aid, and I'm being castigated for asking about the taste.