10/23/2009 7:57 PM
If WIS uses pseudo randomness, I am right, period. If you aren't using true randomness, there's no telling the nonsense that can and does happen.
10/23/2009 8:04 PM
Are you dumb enough to park in handicap spots?
10/23/2009 10:02 PM
I love this thread.
10/23/2009 10:30 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009
Are you dumb enough to park in handicap spots?
If you're suggesting that WIS' randomness can't be anything but true, I think you're the one being closed-minded and ignorant. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF RNG THEY USE, thus how can you be credible? Talk about not understanding and digesting what someone is saying/suggesting...my goodness...

Since you think that the WIS RNG produces true randomness, then prove that it is so...you're so damned sure of yourself, then let's see your proof. And just so you don't try to pass the buck here, I'm not saying that the randomness is pseudo, however I'm suggesting that it might be and that I won't believe otherwise until I'm proven otherwise. Fly this plane in, gin.
10/23/2009 10:48 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By tnbishop on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally posted by monkee on 10/23/2009

you dont get it - real life doesnt form a good basis for discussion of behaviors in the sim

there are myriad reasons for real life variance having to do with subjective factors that are not accounted for in the sim

the sim is simply stat tables plus chance - there are no factors for emotional intensity, illness, feeling the flow etc etc in the sim

and there shouldnt be because the number one element that maintains competitive balance in this game is the salary valuation of the stats we draft -we pay for 3000 minutes and 30% drb and 90 d and 50% shooting (and we pay a little less for 311 tos or 323 pfs) and if we get 3500 minutes instead of 3000 the competitive balance gets jacked up and if we get 20% drb instead of 30% the competitive balance gets jacked up etc etc

the sim works opposite of real life where stats are simply a descriptor of past outcomes

in the sim stats are suppsed to be the determining basis for those results - sim outcomes should vary less than real life does


No, you don't get it.. or perhaps don't have any understanding of variance or randomness. A game like poker would drive you nuts.

I don't see how real life is any different. You can average Jordan's 1990 season and show he had say 27 FGAs a game. You know for a fact he shot that number per game. Then look back and see a bunch of 37s and 15s. Would that surprise you?

Ok, look at it this way... You're not buying 30% of all defensive rebounds with Dennis Rodman. You're buying a 30% chance for each rebound. (assuming everyone else is average). Some games you'll pull down 17, others 8. That's just how math works.

I think he understands how the game works and how it should work, he just told you how and why. You're less prone to see outliers in this sim (or you should be) because the stat tables dictate how the stats will shake how through normal randomness. If MJ averaged 20 FGA per game IRL, he's not getting shock therapy on the court to limit the number of shots he takes, his usage% isn't making him pass the ball...theoretically humans have no limits, guidelines, etc. on the basketball court, in this sim, there's CONCRETE information/variables that control how the game shakes out, thus real human randomness, ebbs and flows, hot and cold games are unnecessary because the game already has all the information it needs to CORRECTLY and ACCURATELY play out teams of concrete stat tables, grossed over the course of an entire season.

Now who am I/we more prone to listen to here....the guy that has 4 career teams, or the guy that has 177 on this one username, which he has 2 others with significant NBA team numbers as well.....
10/23/2009 11:45 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009
Are you dumb enough to park in handicap spots?
If you're suggesting that WIS' randomness can't be anything but true, I think you're the one being closed-minded and ignorant. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF RNG THEY USE, thus how can you be credible? Talk about not understanding and digesting what someone is saying/suggesting...my goodness...

Since you think that the WIS RNG produces true randomness, then prove that it is so...you're so damned sure of yourself, then let's see your proof. And just so you don't try to pass the buck here, I'm not saying that the randomness is pseudo, however I'm suggesting that it might be and that I won't believe otherwise until I'm proven otherwise. Fly this plane in, gin.

I'm going to try to break this down despite being moderately drunk and hunting an insect...

1 - Your example sucks. It's a crappy function, in a language that we can say is without a doubt not being used by WIS. If that weren't enough to render it irrelevant for you, it's a bad implementation. He's using Rand(0,1) to determine the possible values instead of the bitwise operator that should be used to generate a 0 or 1. In other words he's scuttling the power of Rand(). There's your ****** output. Do it correctly and you won't see a pattern at all.

2 - It's 2009. They recently rewrote this thing in .NET. Even the most barebones piece of **** noob .NET random implementation repeats after 16-some million values. Since we're working with at worst a chain of 16 million values, you tell me how that's any different for the NBA sim than an infinite amount of values would be? Do you think that it takes 16 million random numbers to process an nba simulation and that is somehow a problem, or are you upset that you get an identical game roughly every 16 million times the same teams play each other?
10/23/2009 11:55 PM
Quote: Originally posted by slymonium on 10/23/2009I love this thread.

I'm finally starting to agree with you.
10/24/2009 1:18 AM
I didn't realize you disagreed with me previously...
10/24/2009 7:18 AM
Quote: Originally posted by naboimp on 10/22/2009It isn't that they never win since they win often (as Ash so vehemently points out in his last post), but they didn't win this time so the sim must be broken.  Personally, that all comes off to me as "sour grapes". 

I think you think that you're too smart for your own good.

You want to know what got me really riled up about the sim? It was a team of someone whom I dislike very much. Going into the season, many of us picked his team to be in the finals. It looked to be a sure fire 60 win team, based on how this sim works. All of us that made said prediction are pretty experienced in the sim. It had no weaknesses and was stronger than almost every opponent in every stat.

It finished the season with positive differentials in every major stat. Instead of 60 wins, it had 60 losses. How could this happen?

One night his team loses by 2.
The next night his team wins by 50.
Then 4 or 5 nights of 1 to 3 point losses.
Then another game where he wins by 40.

On paper, that team should have been a 60 win team. I don't know this for fact, but I sincerely doubt there has been a team in nba history that has outscored, outshot, went to the fta line more (and made more fts), outrebounded and turned the ball over less that lost 60 games.

I don't want complete predictability - never have. I don't think anybody in this thread wants that. But we want things to be a little more consistent. That's all I've asked for. Well, that and wanting some key #s the sim uses to be displayed, searchable and sortable (like tov%). If expressing desire for improvements in the product we pay(id) for is something you disapprove of, well, it tells me what kind of person you are. If you disapprove of people getting tired of being completely ignored (not even a yes, a no, or we're working on it), then again, you're no better than them.

You obviously have a different opinion of the sim than others. A few share your opinion. Congrats. I in no way will ever try to refute your opinion on the sim. I will, however, express my opinion in the thread designated to do just that. And I am of the opinion that the sim is fubar at this time, and it seemed to go from bad to worse when the 08-09 players were released.
10/24/2009 3:28 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009
Are you dumb enough to park in handicap spots?
If you're suggesting that WIS' randomness can't be anything but true, I think you're the one being closed-minded and ignorant. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF RNG THEY USE, thus how can you be credible? Talk about not understanding and digesting what someone is saying/suggesting...my goodness...

Since you think that the WIS RNG produces true randomness, then prove that it is so...you're so damned sure of yourself, then let's see your proof. And just so you don't try to pass the buck here, I'm not saying that the randomness is pseudo, however I'm suggesting that it might be and that I won't believe otherwise until I'm proven otherwise. Fly this plane in, gin.

I'm going to try to break this down despite being moderately drunk and hunting an insect...

1 - Your example sucks. It's a crappy function, in a language that we can say is without a doubt not being used by WIS. If that weren't enough to render it irrelevant for you, it's a bad implementation. He's using Rand(0,1) to determine the possible values instead of the bitwise operator that should be used to generate a 0 or 1. In other words he's scuttling the power of Rand(). There's your ****** output. Do it correctly and you won't see a pattern at all.

2 - It's 2009. They recently rewrote this thing in .NET. Even the most barebones piece of **** noob .NET random implementation repeats after 16-some million values. Since we're working with at worst a chain of 16 million values, you tell me how that's any different for the NBA sim than an infinite amount of values would be? Do you think that it takes 16 million random numbers to process an nba simulation and that is somehow a problem, or are you upset that you get an identical game roughly every 16 million times the same teams play each other? If that were only the case...bottom line is, you can't prove to me that they don't use some sort of pseudo randomness and I can't prove that they do, however the results cluster/take a ****/repeat a lot less than once every 16 million games...I'll tell you that. You have no proof and neither do I, your words mean nothing to me, really...you're just trolling as usual.

10/24/2009 3:40 PM
Due to the NBA season starting, odds for an October and November update/upgrade have changed!

OCT 30,000 to 1
NOV 10 to 1

But December is now 500,000,000,000,000 to 1.
10/24/2009 4:00 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/24/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By gin_caesar on 10/23/2009
Are you dumb enough to park in handicap spots?
If you're suggesting that WIS' randomness can't be anything but true, I think you're the one being closed-minded and ignorant. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT KIND OF RNG THEY USE, thus how can you be credible? Talk about not understanding and digesting what someone is saying/suggesting...my goodness...

Since you think that the WIS RNG produces true randomness, then prove that it is so...you're so damned sure of yourself, then let's see your proof. And just so you don't try to pass the buck here, I'm not saying that the randomness is pseudo, however I'm suggesting that it might be and that I won't believe otherwise until I'm proven otherwise. Fly this plane in, gin.

I'm going to try to break this down despite being moderately drunk and hunting an insect...

1 - Your example sucks. It's a crappy function, in a language that we can say is without a doubt not being used by WIS. If that weren't enough to render it irrelevant for you, it's a bad implementation. He's using Rand(0,1) to determine the possible values instead of the bitwise operator that should be used to generate a 0 or 1. In other words he's scuttling the power of Rand(). There's your ****** output. Do it correctly and you won't see a pattern at all.

2 - It's 2009. They recently rewrote this thing in .NET. Even the most barebones piece of **** noob .NET random implementation repeats after 16-some million values. Since we're working with at worst a chain of 16 million values, you tell me how that's any different for the NBA sim than an infinite amount of values would be? Do you think that it takes 16 million random numbers to process an nba simulation and that is somehow a problem, or are you upset that you get an identical game roughly every 16 million times the same teams play each other? If that were only the case...bottom line is, you can't prove to me that they don't use some sort of pseudo randomness and I can't prove that they do, however the results cluster/take a ****/repeat a lot less than once every 16 million games...I'll tell you that. You have no proof and neither do I, your words mean nothing to me, really...you're just trolling as usual.

Jesus. If my words mean nothing to you, have you considered that it may be because you're not qualified to comment on the subject of random number generators? But yeah, that thoughtful explanation was me trolling...

This is why people don't like you. It's not because you're fat and ugly. It's because you're stupid.
10/24/2009 5:20 PM
I could care less what people think about me, you're trying to paint opinion and assumption as fact, and that just isn't the case. You're saying that WIS doesn't use a pseudo random number generator AND YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, nobody does. If they're using some sort of pseudo rng, clustering can and will happen, period...you don't know how advanced WIS' rng is or isn't, so shut the hell up about it. I completely understand what you're saying, just that your "explanation" has nothing to do with the topic at hand, whether WIS uses TRUE or PSEUDO randomness. You provided NO PROOF to show that they use either or.
10/24/2009 5:47 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/24/2009
I could care less what people think about me, you're trying to paint opinion and assumption as fact, and that just isn't the case. You're saying that WIS doesn't use a pseudo random number generator AND YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, nobody does. If they're using some sort of pseudo rng, clustering can and will happen, period...you don't know how advanced WIS' rng is or isn't, so shut the hell up about it. I completely understand what you're saying, just that your "explanation" has nothing to do with the topic at hand, whether WIS uses TRUE or PSEUDO randomness. You provided NO PROOF to show that they use either or.
You clearly don't understand because nowhere did I assert anything about how the sim gets it's random numbers since it doesn't matter. The language the sim is written in and the worse case prng in the framework is not assumption or opinion, it's fact. 16 million is as bad as it can be, maybe you need to take some time and deal with it...

I know that you like to pretend that since you made a sim with dice and an excel spreadsheet that you can critique code and rant about programming concepts, but you can't. Well I guess you can, but you'll be reduced to this "IT'S PSEUDORANDOMNESS AND IT'S BAD FOR MY GAME SIM!" nonsense.
10/24/2009 6:34 PM
i didnt mean to break up the nerd convention with my question...but it obviously got lost in all this silly talk

so if any of you experts could go back to page 23 and help me out thatd be lovely
of 39

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.