Honestly if it could be written like the rules for a sports board game, like how to resolve a dice baseball roll, that would be most helpful to me. See: http://gen1400gaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/DICE-Baseball-Rules-new.pdf How to Play, which isn't that well written (it could use a couple more paragraph breaks) but is an example.

Also I like to see percentages. "Max Sellers scores an ACE! (84%)" would be amazing in the match report.

Max has a draft of this put together from more of an algorithm standpoint.  This will be shared soon.  But there will be more to come on this topic such as John's ideas.  

Please see the new top menu item: algorithm

Over the summer Max put together a draft of this (there's still a bit more to do), but its a good starting point.  Since he is focused in school right now I will try to answer questions you may have and then can work with Max over Christmas break to update it further.

If you have questions or want to help update it further (perhaps by adding examples) email me and I'll work with you.

Started reading through it - I love understanding how the simulator works. Thanks!

I've just had a look at the algorithm. I think I get the serve part .

In the receive part there's two random numbers. Do both have to succeed to get a perfect/good/bad pass? Though it looks l8je you need  a very high SL SRV for the second one to fail.

In Set it mentions receive rating for perfect/good/bad set. Should this say set rating?

The bits with front or back row confuse me as I thought players would move about. So if my setter serves then while the other side is doing their 3 touches my setter gets to the net and a good DEF replaces him at the back? Or is this not practical in real life?

I do realise it's still a work in progress.

You lost me at algo...something.

Steve:  I'll work on this with Max a little more on Christmas break to clarify and update (hopefully with some examples).  

Yes, I believe there are two numbers though on serve receive like you noted. We will add examples.

I think you are right for set, it should say "Set Rating".

For your setter scenario where the other side has the ball, it depends:

1) If setter is in the front row, they will be in a right-front position and trying to block (if the attack is on their side).

2) If setter is in the back row, they will be in a right-back position.  Their role here as the other team attacks is FIRST to try to dig an attack.  If the attack is not to their area, they will move to the front row (between MB and RS) to receive a dig from their teammates so they can set an attacker.

Yes, more to come on this.  Thanks for asking.  

Thanks Al. I've since watched all the Texas Kentucky match and a lot more makes sense.

John: I'm going to try and write/draw a flow chart based on the algorithm that we have so far. I'm not sure how to uplaod pictures if at all possible but that might be easiest.

OK it looks like I can upload a splash image if I start a thread.

Change of plan. I'm going to work out the percentage chances of an excellent to bad serve based on my best server with fit+1 and a serving coach at home and my worst T7 server away with a successful 

Oops - successful director giving -1 SRV.

I might then go on to a specific case with a particular receiver getting a good serve and whether he gets an excellent to bad pass to the setter.

But I'm not going to micro analyse for myself any further than that. I suppose it's possible to work out the chance of the receiving team (assuming you know all 7 players) getting the ball back with every possibility of serve quality, receive quality etc. and the effect of CP on SRV and comparing to putting that CP on your OH's BLK or DEF instead. 

Suffice to say that a better SRV means less chance of an excellent pass -> less chance of an excellent set -> less chance of an excellent attack or more chance of a block.

I will go on gut feelings - it's more fun 

As promised.

Robinson has a SRV of 14 +1 FIT +1 coach

Excellent 57%, good 25.2%, OK 5.3%, bad <1%, out 12%

Diaz SRV 10 +1 FIT -1 away crowd

Excellent 45%, good 24.7%, OK 9.2%, bad 3.3%, out 17.8%

I've got music...I've got algorithm...I've got my girl, who could ask for anything more?