Quote: Originally posted by longtallbrad on 1/28/2009If, however, you're aligned with scud's view above that the sim should be 5-6% less random, I'm totally down with that. In my opinion there should be considerable "unpredictability" built into the engine on a game-by-game basis. The episodes that drive me crazy are not when a low PF, high FTA team of mine ends up on the wrong end of a freakishly lopsided single-game FTA disparity, but (for example) when I can't keep Wilt to within 4 mpg of his real-life playing time over the course of a season. Or when a team that's won two-thirds of its games crashes and loses 15 of the last 20 games without any apparent explanation (such as injury). If shaving a bit of randomness out of the algorithms can temper the wildness, I'm all for it. But I wouldn't want the game to become noticeably more predictable.
I have no problems with randomness. I have extreme problems with extreme amounts of randomness. Say I build a team with top rebounding Wilt at C, Russell at PF and Rodman at SF.
I don't expect to out rebound my opponent every single game, but I do expect to out rebound my opponent 75-85% of the time, because most teams aren't going to have a higher cumulative rebound % on the floor with their entire starting five than those three, who'll be in the game for almost the entire game (Wilt almost 48 minutes, Russell 44.5ish, Rodman 42ish).
But when you get out rebounded 40-50% of the time (keep in mind the extreme example I provided), there's too much randomness.
When you draft a team with 1000 total turnovers in 19.6k minutes, you should not commit 1400 turnovers unless every single team you face is full of buse-arobertson pressing... But since everybody's turnovers are jacked, I'm more okay with that.
The pf/fta are the big one, though. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for it.
Mostly, though, it's just disappointing to win 60+ games and get *crushed* by a team in the playoffs that did much poorer than you, and when you line up the numbers (on-floor-percentages of key players) and compare them, you're obviously better than them in almost every single statistical category.
If you are well ahead of someone in fg%, 3pt%, both rbd%, ast%, less tos, less pfs, more fta and close to the same in steals and blocks, you should win a 7-game series with them
more than 44.6% of the time (assuming consistent coaching changes).
Now, I can deal with getting beat when I should. For example, my Ashadelphia Mustangs were a great team... I felt they should have won more than 62 games in the regular season, but whatever. In the playoffs, I go into back-to-back 7 game series with 60 game winner teams. Both of them played me +3, and since I launched almost 30 threes a game with well over 40% accuracy, and my main paint scorer had an 18.8% usage, I deserved to lose that second series. I can dig that. I can't dig the previously mentioned scenario where you're superior in virtually every category and get beat in 5 games.
(I don't have a recent team to compare numbers, or I'd post)