Posted by bistiza on 3/9/2015 4:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by milwood on 3/9/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):
-5 will not work the majority of the time because in general it will give up too many open threes and draw more fouls. However, in this case it worked because your opponent had an incredible defender that was able to compensate for the -5. However even with this incredible defender that team playing -5 is still vulnerable to a team loading up on threes. And yet another however, your team does not have a legitimate perimeter threat. You have a couple or few guys that could hit a few in the course of a game, but you definitely don't have a game changing outside threat.

A lot of what you are saying is accurate about how a team should be able to beat a -5. Your game planning is sound for attacking a team that is going to play heavy negative. The problem is you just don't have the players on your roster to execute that game plan.
In my opinion, the ill effects of playing a -5 doesn't mean anything if you can have "an incredible defender" who is able to successfully compensate for it.  I don't care if you have a world class defender, they aren't superman, and they can't guard the paint and the perimeter at the same time.

I think my team's three point threats were sufficient. Not great, but sufficient.

i think you are over-emphasizing the importance of the +/- setting, one of literally hundreds of factors that go into figuring the game's outcome (as i said earlier). and if you think your three point threats were sufficient, that explains much of the gap - they really aren't. compared to average, maybe, but for a s16 team, its way below average.
3/9/2015 4:56 PM
Posted by davis on 3/9/2015 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Best thread in a while, IMO.

First, I think Milwood pointed out something really important earlier in this thread, something I still struggle with at times - there is how each of us *thinks* the sim *should* work, and then there is how it *actually* works.  Get these two things mixed up at your peril.  I don't think the C should be a "stand-alone" defender in the 2-3 zone, for example, but when that information eventually was released I had to rethink how to attack a zone defense based on the opposing C's defensive capabilities.  I still think it is wrong, but I have to take it into account if I want to maximize my chance of beating a 2-3 zone opponent.  There are a lot of things wrong with reality, too - unless you can change them, you have to optimize your life relative to the constraints.

The other thing that jumps out at me is that despite repeated requests, Biz had still not posted his distro.  I'll just say that I think what a lot of people consider as an extreme distro really isn't.  One player set to take three times as many shots as another is NOT extreme.  A recent game for me included three players set at 12 (including one nonstarter), two players set at 3 (including one nonstarter), three players set at 1, and the remaining players all set at 0.  Don't be afraid to use 0 and 1 for offensively challenged guys or guys who are matched up against stellar defenders.  Having your best scorer set to only take three times as many shots as your poorest scorer, for example, is not a winning ratio.  Why let your worst guy shoot at all? - set him to 0 or 1 and forget about him.  Players will transfer for lack of minutes, but not for lack of shots (unlike reality).  Depending on the situation, there might be one player you want taking 25 shots for every 1 shot taken by a weaker teammate.  Don't run from that - exploit it.
all 5 players factor into the defense of all shots in the zone. its that the center uses his own equations, the pf/sf share an equation, and the pg/sg share an equation, for calculating their defensive value - in the 2-3. its unclear how the different players are weighted importance wise.
3/9/2015 4:58 PM
I don't think the C should be a "stand-alone" defender in the 2-3 zone, for example, but when that information eventually was released I had to rethink how to attack a zone defense based on the opposing C's defensive capabilities. 

Does anyone have reference to when and where (developer's chat, release notes) this info was released?  I'd love to read it.
3/9/2015 6:22 PM
I'll bump the ZONE THREAD.....I still don't know how the center works in a 2-3 though....I do think BLOCK is used more in the dEFENSIVE METRIC though for them
3/9/2015 6:43 PM
I'll bump the ZONE THREAD.....I still don't know how the center works in a 2-3 though....I do think BLOCK is used more in the dEFENSIVE METRIC though for them
3/9/2015 6:43 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 3/8/2015 3:36:00 AM (view original):
Posted by terps21234 on 3/7/2015 11:06:00 AM (view original):
Glad this is a rant topic. I just lost in S16 in IBA and spent 30 minutes gameplanning, but it didn't matter. Yes the other team was better, but I thought I game planned better to win. How do my best 2 defenders giveup the most points and his worse defender shuts down my best scorer. Why game plan if the computer is not going to take that into consideration. My pg, 93sp 92per, 79bh went 3-13 & 2-10 3's against his pg 84sp, 42ath, and 44 def. Than my C 84ath, 91 def gives up 22 points to his C at 86 ath and 69 lp. Why bother gameplanning.

I here you bistiza, this game doesn't take into consideration some changes you make to your team. It seems like it's mostly luck.
Explain this, if it's "mostly luck", why do the same coaches keep winning all the time?


That's why I'm asking the question. You all explained Bistiza, can you explain this. Or is just a 1 game thing. I'll listen. LOL
3/9/2015 7:15 PM
I think -5 is like a NBA sagging defense. Some teams use it and really pick up a player Inside the line. It's a defense that says, you are not getting close to the basket. It's not a defense that won't challenge shots, it will, just it needs more time to react as if it was a close man to man defense. In this particular situation, we had a speedy defender which means that he closed on the shooter a lot faster than an average player.

To me, it's a setting. It's not like I set it up to -5 so you can shoot all night. It's I am giving space to protect the rim and rebounds, to prevent the ball to get Inside but I will challenge your shot if I have time to close in.
3/9/2015 7:25 PM
Posted by bistiza on 3/9/2015 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 3/9/2015 3:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tkimble on 3/8/2015 8:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 3/8/2015 8:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zorzii on 3/8/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I am thinking this thread is about coaching. And it is not simple. This is what makes this game fun. If it was easy, would we play? The distro is certainly about plays run to a player, not shots taken. Say you run a play for someone, he got doubled up or was not in position or received a bad pass, will he shoot at all cost? I doubt it. The game is simulated and unless we can predict what the other team will do, there is no way the distro ends up being what we decided it would be for our players. The defense that probably disrupt the distro the most is man to man. Sometimes I am scratching my head as why I lost a game, why I shot so bad, why I was unable to score over 50... Sometimes I look at teams, check mine and think : I am winning this and it ends up being a nightmare. Coaching. I guess this is why good coaches specialize in a specific offense and in a specific defense.

I am pretty bad at playing press. My teams (I will drop one) lose most close games. I'm pretty bad with Motion offense. Everytime I add another dimension to my recruiting to suit FLEX or ZONE or MAN TO MAN, sometimes I forget about stuff I already knew that were important and it's back to the drawing board. Should I play UPTEMPO, NORMAL or SLOW, how do I set up my distro, which player will score against particular défenses etc.

That is why good coaches are consistent, they know all about that.
Sure, the distro is plays run for a player, but more distro equals more shots (relatively speaking). If it didn't, it wouldn't serve much purpose.

When I give a guy a lot of distro, I expect him to shoot more than guys with less distro. 

On the question you asked which is more personal than having to do with the game itself:

If it was easy, would we play? I don't know about you, but yes, I would. I'm not here for the challenge - real life provides enough of those. I'm still here only because I am successful enough to keep me here. If I was terrible or even only decent, I wouldn't keep playing. I'd give up on it because it's a game and if I can't win to at least a minimum level at a game, it's not worth playing (let alone paying to play it). 

If there were no challenge, I might arguably find it to be MORE fun. I know this because I never tire of playing sports video games against a computer and absolutely destroying the computer opponent. That to me is much more fun that barely beating or sometimes losing to the computer opponent.
lol
I know, right?  That last paragraph actually speaks volumes.
How so? Seriously I'd like to know what you think it says.

Then I'll tell you precisely why I feel that way if you'd like.

With making only the least amount of assumptions, I would say it has largely to do with immidiate vs delayed gratification. I used to always (and still sometimes do) fire up Madden and slaughter the sim season after season in dynasty mode. It was gratifying (independant of the difficult setting) because in all reality I was competing with myself...on how much I could beat them by, etc., etc.

This game, both in terms of it's medium and pace(s) of schedule, doesn't offer the immediate visceral feedback that 3 games of Madden can in 20 min, despite roughly the same amount of time being needed to see similar results.

Seems like you may have reached that level were the time you put into it isn't enough to achieve that ultimate payoff of the delayed gratification becaue you eventually have to run into people that are here almost purely for the egoistic intrapersonal competition, and thus are more prepared.

I'm not saying either is better than the other, just throwing this out there based on your posts.

P.S. at least our cav's are still in the mix yo.
3/9/2015 7:39 PM
How cute, someone thinks Cleveland, the city, is still relevant in some way....looks like the "Hey, we aren't Detroit" ad campaign has really worked.
3/9/2015 8:08 PM
Posted by bistiza on 3/9/2015 7:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by getbedarded on 3/8/2015 11:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by milwood on 3/8/2015 9:09:00 PM (view original):
Oh, I thought you started this thread a great way by warning people it was a rant. You should have left it there instead of trying to defend your position. Your position isn't even that wrong under normal circumstances. But this wasn't normal circumstances. Why your gameplay didn't work was correctly explained to you. Just accept why it happened and move on with more knowledge about this game than you had before.
Was it correctly explained by him? We still don't know how the distro was set up.

I wouldve played -5 too. Shoot all day with mid-70s perimeter guys, I'll take my chances.
If this works this way, then -5 doesn't have any drawbacks as far as I'm concerned. The setting is relatively meaningless. Run whatever you want and it'll work.
-5 has drawbacks. I'm just saying I don't think slow, mid-70s perimeter guys are going to be able to take advantage of the open space on the perimeter. I suppose I'm assuming I'll have good defensive guards, but that's sort of typical for me.

Like others have said, without knowing what your distro was set at, we're all just guessing. Which, I mean, we did kind of assume you wanted to figure out why this happened, even though the title of the post says rant.
3/9/2015 9:48 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/9/2015 8:08:00 PM (view original):
How cute, someone thinks Cleveland, the city, is still relevant in some way....looks like the "Hey, we aren't Detroit" ad campaign has really worked.
oooh snap, very true, but at least my players still got the pride & $ to make some propoganda distancing themselves from Detriot, something they've been doing since the early 1960 anyways. Does Trenton still have the 2nd slowest 911 response time in the nation after Detriot? And spend all their shame & $ on trying to convience the world that the entire state is a suburb of Manahattan?
3/10/2015 12:12 AM
What I've found in DII, a "good" perimeter threat is going to be at least 210 in spd+per+bh. I happen to like the 70-80-60, but there are different types of players that can have success using different attribute combos. And I know you can get success from guys who don't have those levels; but then you're relying on getting good match ups, which is less likely to happen when playing against coaches who are planning against you. I wouldn't plan on using a guy like Lachance to exploit anything. I'm not convinced that even if distribution works the way you want it to work, the end result is any different.
3/10/2015 11:59 AM
Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/9/2015 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 3/9/2015 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 3/9/2015 3:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tkimble on 3/8/2015 8:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 3/8/2015 8:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zorzii on 3/8/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I am thinking this thread is about coaching. And it is not simple. This is what makes this game fun. If it was easy, would we play? The distro is certainly about plays run to a player, not shots taken. Say you run a play for someone, he got doubled up or was not in position or received a bad pass, will he shoot at all cost? I doubt it. The game is simulated and unless we can predict what the other team will do, there is no way the distro ends up being what we decided it would be for our players. The defense that probably disrupt the distro the most is man to man. Sometimes I am scratching my head as why I lost a game, why I shot so bad, why I was unable to score over 50... Sometimes I look at teams, check mine and think : I am winning this and it ends up being a nightmare. Coaching. I guess this is why good coaches specialize in a specific offense and in a specific defense.

I am pretty bad at playing press. My teams (I will drop one) lose most close games. I'm pretty bad with Motion offense. Everytime I add another dimension to my recruiting to suit FLEX or ZONE or MAN TO MAN, sometimes I forget about stuff I already knew that were important and it's back to the drawing board. Should I play UPTEMPO, NORMAL or SLOW, how do I set up my distro, which player will score against particular défenses etc.

That is why good coaches are consistent, they know all about that.
Sure, the distro is plays run for a player, but more distro equals more shots (relatively speaking). If it didn't, it wouldn't serve much purpose.

When I give a guy a lot of distro, I expect him to shoot more than guys with less distro. 

On the question you asked which is more personal than having to do with the game itself:

If it was easy, would we play? I don't know about you, but yes, I would. I'm not here for the challenge - real life provides enough of those. I'm still here only because I am successful enough to keep me here. If I was terrible or even only decent, I wouldn't keep playing. I'd give up on it because it's a game and if I can't win to at least a minimum level at a game, it's not worth playing (let alone paying to play it). 

If there were no challenge, I might arguably find it to be MORE fun. I know this because I never tire of playing sports video games against a computer and absolutely destroying the computer opponent. That to me is much more fun that barely beating or sometimes losing to the computer opponent.
lol
I know, right?  That last paragraph actually speaks volumes.
How so? Seriously I'd like to know what you think it says.

Then I'll tell you precisely why I feel that way if you'd like.

With making only the least amount of assumptions, I would say it has largely to do with immidiate vs delayed gratification. I used to always (and still sometimes do) fire up Madden and slaughter the sim season after season in dynasty mode. It was gratifying (independant of the difficult setting) because in all reality I was competing with myself...on how much I could beat them by, etc., etc.

This game, both in terms of it's medium and pace(s) of schedule, doesn't offer the immediate visceral feedback that 3 games of Madden can in 20 min, despite roughly the same amount of time being needed to see similar results.

Seems like you may have reached that level were the time you put into it isn't enough to achieve that ultimate payoff of the delayed gratification becaue you eventually have to run into people that are here almost purely for the egoistic intrapersonal competition, and thus are more prepared.

I'm not saying either is better than the other, just throwing this out there based on your posts.

P.S. at least our cav's are still in the mix yo.
What you say does make sense, so I have to give credit for that, but actually, the reason I feel the way I do has NOTHING to do with immediate versus delayed gratification.

I don't care that this game runs slowly compared to a video game dynasty mode. I'm fine with that.

The reason I feel the way I do - the reason I say a game is MORE fun if it's easier - is  because I don't want difficult challenges when I'm playing a game for fun.

I find real life frustrating enough with all of it's myriad challenges. I don't need to simulate a significant challenge in order to have fun. In fact, that takes away from my fun.

To me, the fun of playing a game is the ability to relax and avoid frustration.  If it's a sports game, I don't want to see my players doing things I can't control.  I don't want to spend a long time figuring the game out - I just want to play. And I want to win as much as possible and lose as little as possible - in an ideal situation, my team never loses. Why? Because losing isn't fun, and I'm playing to have fun.

When I play sports video games on the console, I make sure to whatever extent I can that the game is fun for me.

For example, when playing NCAA football dynasty mode, I don't like the "discipline" aspect of the game, as it takes away from my fun whenever I have to deal with it. So I find a workaround, to wit: Unless the week has already advanced, if a guy needs "disciplined," I back out of the game and start again until no one needs "disciplined". I also punish a player very severely early on so it lowers the level of "NCAA interest" way down, thereby allowing me to not punish a player later if I so choose (if the week has already advanced so I can't back out of it).

I also make sure the settings are just strong enough to present a minimal challenge, such that while I may get frustrated on a play or two here and there, I'm never frustrated for very long - and I certainly NEVER lose the game. In fact, I don't ever want it to even be close. A typical score in my NCAA football dynasty is my team 200+ points, the other team somewhere between 0-10 points.

This NEVER gets old and is always fun for me. I enjoy racking up the stats, running up the score, and destroying the computer in every single game, every time.

If there was a way to do that in this game, I'd have as many teams as possible running non-stop. To do it, I'd basically have to be able to play in my own "world" against all SimAI - but if that were possible, I'd absolutely be on board with it, because I'd almost certainly have more fun than playing with people. It's nothing against anyone or people in general - I just enjoy dominating my opposition and winning every time FAR more than facing a challenge and being frustrated.



3/10/2015 6:45 PM
Posted by bistiza on 3/10/2015 6:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by nachopuzzle on 3/9/2015 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 3/9/2015 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 3/9/2015 3:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tkimble on 3/8/2015 8:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 3/8/2015 8:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zorzii on 3/8/2015 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I am thinking this thread is about coaching. And it is not simple. This is what makes this game fun. If it was easy, would we play? The distro is certainly about plays run to a player, not shots taken. Say you run a play for someone, he got doubled up or was not in position or received a bad pass, will he shoot at all cost? I doubt it. The game is simulated and unless we can predict what the other team will do, there is no way the distro ends up being what we decided it would be for our players. The defense that probably disrupt the distro the most is man to man. Sometimes I am scratching my head as why I lost a game, why I shot so bad, why I was unable to score over 50... Sometimes I look at teams, check mine and think : I am winning this and it ends up being a nightmare. Coaching. I guess this is why good coaches specialize in a specific offense and in a specific defense.

I am pretty bad at playing press. My teams (I will drop one) lose most close games. I'm pretty bad with Motion offense. Everytime I add another dimension to my recruiting to suit FLEX or ZONE or MAN TO MAN, sometimes I forget about stuff I already knew that were important and it's back to the drawing board. Should I play UPTEMPO, NORMAL or SLOW, how do I set up my distro, which player will score against particular défenses etc.

That is why good coaches are consistent, they know all about that.
Sure, the distro is plays run for a player, but more distro equals more shots (relatively speaking). If it didn't, it wouldn't serve much purpose.

When I give a guy a lot of distro, I expect him to shoot more than guys with less distro. 

On the question you asked which is more personal than having to do with the game itself:

If it was easy, would we play? I don't know about you, but yes, I would. I'm not here for the challenge - real life provides enough of those. I'm still here only because I am successful enough to keep me here. If I was terrible or even only decent, I wouldn't keep playing. I'd give up on it because it's a game and if I can't win to at least a minimum level at a game, it's not worth playing (let alone paying to play it). 

If there were no challenge, I might arguably find it to be MORE fun. I know this because I never tire of playing sports video games against a computer and absolutely destroying the computer opponent. That to me is much more fun that barely beating or sometimes losing to the computer opponent.
lol
I know, right?  That last paragraph actually speaks volumes.
How so? Seriously I'd like to know what you think it says.

Then I'll tell you precisely why I feel that way if you'd like.

With making only the least amount of assumptions, I would say it has largely to do with immidiate vs delayed gratification. I used to always (and still sometimes do) fire up Madden and slaughter the sim season after season in dynasty mode. It was gratifying (independant of the difficult setting) because in all reality I was competing with myself...on how much I could beat them by, etc., etc.

This game, both in terms of it's medium and pace(s) of schedule, doesn't offer the immediate visceral feedback that 3 games of Madden can in 20 min, despite roughly the same amount of time being needed to see similar results.

Seems like you may have reached that level were the time you put into it isn't enough to achieve that ultimate payoff of the delayed gratification becaue you eventually have to run into people that are here almost purely for the egoistic intrapersonal competition, and thus are more prepared.

I'm not saying either is better than the other, just throwing this out there based on your posts.

P.S. at least our cav's are still in the mix yo.
What you say does make sense, so I have to give credit for that, but actually, the reason I feel the way I do has NOTHING to do with immediate versus delayed gratification.

I don't care that this game runs slowly compared to a video game dynasty mode. I'm fine with that.

The reason I feel the way I do - the reason I say a game is MORE fun if it's easier - is  because I don't want difficult challenges when I'm playing a game for fun.

I find real life frustrating enough with all of it's myriad challenges. I don't need to simulate a significant challenge in order to have fun. In fact, that takes away from my fun.

To me, the fun of playing a game is the ability to relax and avoid frustration.  If it's a sports game, I don't want to see my players doing things I can't control.  I don't want to spend a long time figuring the game out - I just want to play. And I want to win as much as possible and lose as little as possible - in an ideal situation, my team never loses. Why? Because losing isn't fun, and I'm playing to have fun.

When I play sports video games on the console, I make sure to whatever extent I can that the game is fun for me.

For example, when playing NCAA football dynasty mode, I don't like the "discipline" aspect of the game, as it takes away from my fun whenever I have to deal with it. So I find a workaround, to wit: Unless the week has already advanced, if a guy needs "disciplined," I back out of the game and start again until no one needs "disciplined". I also punish a player very severely early on so it lowers the level of "NCAA interest" way down, thereby allowing me to not punish a player later if I so choose (if the week has already advanced so I can't back out of it).

I also make sure the settings are just strong enough to present a minimal challenge, such that while I may get frustrated on a play or two here and there, I'm never frustrated for very long - and I certainly NEVER lose the game. In fact, I don't ever want it to even be close. A typical score in my NCAA football dynasty is my team 200+ points, the other team somewhere between 0-10 points.

This NEVER gets old and is always fun for me. I enjoy racking up the stats, running up the score, and destroying the computer in every single game, every time.

If there was a way to do that in this game, I'd have as many teams as possible running non-stop. To do it, I'd basically have to be able to play in my own "world" against all SimAI - but if that were possible, I'd absolutely be on board with it, because I'd almost certainly have more fun than playing with people. It's nothing against anyone or people in general - I just enjoy dominating my opposition and winning every time FAR more than facing a challenge and being frustrated.



That's interesting, thanks for sharing. I guess, looking at it in this way from my own perspective, I would have to say that I don't get "that frustrated" when I lose a game -- and when I do have a bad loss or something, I don't carry it with me that long. And if I wanted to be ultra-honest in applying your perspective to my own involvement with the game, then I would have to say that I still find some level of gratification even in the frustration of bad losses because it is in itself a distraction from the real world...and this distraction happens whether my team wins or loses.

Though, I'm not willing to admit that was anything more than a thought experiment on my part...for the moment.
3/10/2015 8:19 PM
Personally, bistiza ... I wouldn't find that even remotely entertaining in the slightest. If I find myself doing that on something like madden, I INVENT handicaps to make it harder. Use non optimal players and try to figure out how to win. Anything to get rid of the "how is this different from just getting up, pressing an 'I win button' and staring at the screen. I enjoy challenge without significant real world consequence - might cost a bit of money, but it's not losing me my job, effecting my paycheck, giving me or denying me promotions, endangering anyone's life, etcetera. Just challenge, without risk. If I lose its an intellectual exercise to figure out WHY I lost and figure out how to not do it the same way again. And I enjoy that. Just like Id view a game of chess against a two year old not entertaining.
3/10/2015 9:08 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...10 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.