Posted by seble on 7/22/2010 11:17:00 AM (view original):
The explanation I posted was not in direct response to whether positioning effects are obvious in every game.  Just a little background on how things have changed.  Single game outcomes being unexpected is a slightly different issue, one that I'm working on now.  Details are in the Dev Blog thread.

Posted by daalter on 7/22/2010 7:15:00 AM (view original):
In the old engine, you could count on defensive positioning to (generally) have in impact on your opponents' shooting. Not every game, of course, but overall it was very clear. If you played, say, a +2 all the time, you would defend the 3pt shot extremely well.

In the new engine, I see example after example of teams playing significant + defenses and still getting lit up from 3pt range. I see it on a nightly basis. I had a game last night where I played a +2/+4 and the other (significantly inferior) team shot 11-17 from 3p range.

Again, I'm seeing this frequently.

It's disappointing because it's part of an overall trend I've seen where gameplanning (other than distro, which does work better than before imo) has less and less of an effect on game results. (Same thing with practice plan, because so many players have low potentials, etc.) With gameplanning effectiveness limited and the new recruits not set to improve as much, we're looking at Recruiting Dynasty (ahem, OR). And I'm a good recruiter, but that's not the game that I signed up for, and it's not a game that's interesting.

I would put defensive positioning up there with rebounding and the foul issues as items that are quite simply not functioning properly in the new engine.

Posted by grecianfox on 7/22/2010 12:12:00 PM (view original):
I think the old defensive positioning formula was better.

Posted by daalter on 7/22/2010 7:15:00 AM (view original):
In the old engine, you could count on defensive positioning to (generally) have in impact on your opponents' shooting. Not every game, of course, but overall it was very clear. If you played, say, a +2 all the time, you would defend the 3pt shot extremely well.

In the new engine, I see example after example of teams playing significant + defenses and still getting lit up from 3pt range. I see it on a nightly basis. I had a game last night where I played a +2/+4 and the other (significantly inferior) team shot 11-17 from 3p range.

Again, I'm seeing this frequently.

It's disappointing because it's part of an overall trend I've seen where gameplanning (other than distro, which does work better than before imo) has less and less of an effect on game results. (Same thing with practice plan, because so many players have low potentials, etc.) With gameplanning effectiveness limited and the new recruits not set to improve as much, we're looking at Recruiting Dynasty (ahem, OR). And I'm a good recruiter, but that's not the game that I signed up for, and it's not a game that's interesting.

I would put defensive positioning up there with rebounding and the foul issues as items that are quite simply not functioning properly in the new engine.

Agreed.  What's funny about this to me is that I posted the very same thing when the engine had just come out and was told by many long time coaches that it was too small of a sample size, it was a one game aberration, give it some time, etc.  Fellas, sometimes you don't have to give it time, sometimes you can just tell.........

Posted by emy1013 on 7/22/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 7/22/2010 7:15:00 AM (view original):
In the old engine, you could count on defensive positioning to (generally) have in impact on your opponents' shooting. Not every game, of course, but overall it was very clear. If you played, say, a +2 all the time, you would defend the 3pt shot extremely well.

In the new engine, I see example after example of teams playing significant + defenses and still getting lit up from 3pt range. I see it on a nightly basis. I had a game last night where I played a +2/+4 and the other (significantly inferior) team shot 11-17 from 3p range.

Again, I'm seeing this frequently.

It's disappointing because it's part of an overall trend I've seen where gameplanning (other than distro, which does work better than before imo) has less and less of an effect on game results. (Same thing with practice plan, because so many players have low potentials, etc.) With gameplanning effectiveness limited and the new recruits not set to improve as much, we're looking at Recruiting Dynasty (ahem, OR). And I'm a good recruiter, but that's not the game that I signed up for, and it's not a game that's interesting.

I would put defensive positioning up there with rebounding and the foul issues as items that are quite simply not functioning properly in the new engine.

Agreed.  What's funny about this to me is that I posted the very same thing when the engine had just come out and was told by many long time coaches that it was too small of a sample size, it was a one game aberration, give it some time, etc.  Fellas, sometimes you don't have to give it time, sometimes you can just tell.........

Posted by dcy0827 on 7/22/2010 12:44:00 PM (view original):
Summerteeth, is Haasdr an alias of yours?  Because if it is, I distinctly remember you mentioning the same things as I was (this is emy, by the way).

Posted by mullycj on 7/22/2010 12:55:00 PM (view original):
I think the most troubling thing to me is we had a BETA test to specifically test out changes to the engine and stuff like this was never even mentioned.

It should have been communicated then.
"hey guys, I am changing the logic on defensive positioning. Please look at this when reviewing your box scores."

Posted by aporter on 7/23/2010 8:20:00 PM (view original):
I played +1 and +3 last night and held the other team to only 10-16 from 3 with their only having 1 guy with 90 PER.  Meanwhile their -5 held me to only three 3pt. attempts, our lowest attempt total in a game on the season.