Development blog, new - Page 3 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 336 (0)

Hall of Famer

356 4 2

Prospect

You are getting absurdly offended by this for some reason. I said I have a problem with a top 10 team not winning the championship, especially when it is the 2nd season of a new engine. I also have a problem when none of the top teams in a forth of the bracket do not make the Final 4. The last NT in Knight was a random piece of garbage imo and it really makes me dislike a game where a random team just wins the NT. Again, I do not have a problem when any type of upset happens, however as I pointed out to CS that VT upset as many as 5 teams to win the championship.

8/13/2010 3:11 AM

emy1013

Posts: 2731 (0)

Hall of Famer

899

Prospect

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/13/2010 3:11:00 AM (view original):
You are getting absurdly offended by this for some reason. I said I have a problem with a top 10 team not winning the championship, especially when it is the 2nd season of a new engine. I also have a problem when none of the top teams in a forth of the bracket do not make the Final 4. The last NT in Knight was a random piece of garbage imo and it really makes me dislike a game where a random team just wins the NT. Again, I do not have a problem when any type of upset happens, however as I pointed out to CS that VT upset as many as 5 teams to win the championship.

Sorry if I came across as being offended, seriously, not in the least. Just trying to get a feel for exactly where you stand so we can have an open discussion and not have to assume anything, that's all.

8/13/2010 3:16 AM

emy1013

Posts: 2731 (0)

Hall of Famer

899

Prospect

Okay, let's start from scratch and get some basic info out of the way. How would you determine who the top ten teams are (in your opinion)? What criteria would you use to decide that Team A is top 10 material, but team B is only, say, top 25? What factors would you take into consideration when you decided who you thought was a top 10 team that was deserving of a title? Not trying to be a smartass here, I'm really curious as to what you would look at or take into account.

Anyone else following this, how would you as an unbiased observer determine a top 10 if you had to do a coaches poll? I think the answers could be very interesting here........

8/13/2010 3:31 AM

seabreeze

Posts: 59 (0)

Hall of Famer

183 17

Prospect

Posted by emy1013 on 8/12/2010 11:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cbriese on 8/12/2010 9:29:00 PM (view original):
I'm waiting for someone to come in and say how it's a matter of the rich getting richer, and that somehow these changes will mean death to all low-level D1 teams.
Breezy, I gotta ask, what's with all the hate and discontent lately? This isn't the cbriese I remember from earlier days......

I think this game is terrific. The whining about possible deficiencies before anyone can see their effect is what brings everyone down.

8/13/2010 7:24 AM

seabreeze

Posts: 59 (0)

Hall of Famer

183 17

Prospect

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 3:31:00 AM (view original):
Okay, let's start from scratch and get some basic info out of the way. How would you determine who the top ten teams are (in your opinion)? What criteria would you use to decide that Team A is top 10 material, but team B is only, say, top 25? What factors would you take into consideration when you decided who you thought was a top 10 team that was deserving of a title? Not trying to be a smartass here, I'm really curious as to what you would look at or take into account.

Anyone else following this, how would you as an unbiased observer determine a top 10 if you had to do a coaches poll? I think the answers could be very interesting here........

I think it's impossible to say who the top 10 teams in any given tournament are. There are way too many discrepancies in schedule strength, and the fact that my team lost to say, the #1 team during the season by two on the road, and your team lost to the #1 team by 25 at home is not reflected in the rankings (nor should it be). Also, there are also a number of us who don;t figure out how our teams are best optimized until halfway through the season, but of course the early season losses carry the same weight as late season losses. We have a stronger team at the end of the season, but it is not reflected in the rankings.

8/13/2010 7:35 AM

pinkeye

Posts: 310 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 1 68 2

Prospect

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/12/2010 11:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/12/2010 9:36:00 PM (view original):
I really love this. The last few Knight National Tournaments have been way to random (You might have heard me complain about this before). Hopefully NT seeding is next.
As the defending D2 champion in Knight, I thought it worked out just fine!! You don't think it's possible that some of those "random upsets" were simply a matter of the "better" team getting outcoached? That's not even a possibility? And it is kind of disrespectful, if you think about it, to those coaches who did win over the last couple of seasons to say that the reason they won was simply due to the outcomes being too random.

Is there randomness? Of course. But I would submit that it's not nearly as much as you think (and I know you've got CT randomness conspiracy theories also), simply because you see the same coaches making deep runs over and over and over. If it truly was as random as you think, we wouldn't be seeing anything like that. In fact, when that's a coach's sole excuse for poor performance, it comes off sounding petty, and frankly, like a crutch for failures to make adjustments on their part.

was that d2 champion the team that lost as a 68 pt favorite to a sim at home?

interestingly, the word "outcoached" wasn't used when you were whining about that game

8/13/2010 7:39 AM

daalter

Posts: 326 (0)

Hall of Famer

40

Prospect

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 1:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by daalter on 8/13/2010 12:41:00 AM (view original):
Seble, I won't judge the changes until they're implemented and we see what happens.

That said, I'm not really of the opinion that the current problems have to do with too much game-to-game variance. I haven't really heard anyone make that argument.

It seems to me that there are simply a few inherent, wholesale problems in the engine (such as rebounding and fouls). The problem is not that a team or player will be great at (for example) rebounding one night and terrible the next; the problem is that there is an inherent issue with how the engine handles rebounding all of the time.

Seble, would really love to hear your thoughts on this.
Ahh, Daalter, your mind is slipping in your old age. Coaches have been asking for, nay begging, for less variance/randomness all the way back to when TK was still running the show and Davis was posting statistical analyses for all of us to wrap our minds around. It's been a semi-hot topic since I started, still is to a degree, and probably always will be. It just might not be what everyone is shouting about right now, that's all.

Switching gears, one thing I would like to see in regards to rebounding is the +/- setting play a slightly larger role in a team's rebounding proficiency. Not a whole lot, mind you, but enough to be able to tell a difference between teams that sag and teams that get out on the perimeter.

Also, since Seble seems to be more willing to work with us, and certainly has a more open mind than TK ever did, it might be interesting to see what the results would be if he ran the -5/0/+5 test with the new engine. And, you know, actually provided some meaningful data to go along with the results. Not like the very vague stuff we got with TK. Maybe ratings of the teams involved, or at the very least some raw numbers to look at instead of a few generic percentages that told us basically nothing. I don't know, just rambling at this point.........

Yes, absolutely, back in the day lots of people used to ***** about too much game-to-game randomness, myself included.

But we're dealing with this engine and its current set of pluses and minuses, and that's really not an issue I've heard anything about. There are several significant issues within the sim that a lot of people have been making noise about, but it's not that.

8/13/2010 7:48 AM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

Posted by seabreeze on 8/13/2010 7:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 8/12/2010 11:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cbriese on 8/12/2010 9:29:00 PM (view original):
I'm waiting for someone to come in and say how it's a matter of the rich getting richer, and that somehow these changes will mean death to all low-level D1 teams.
Breezy, I gotta ask, what's with all the hate and discontent lately? This isn't the cbriese I remember from earlier days......
I think this game is terrific. The whining about possible deficiencies before anyone can see their effect is what brings everyone down.

cb - you have this issue all wrong - it is the whining about those who are trying to help the game that is bringing this game down - your type of self rightous blind banter has always harmed this game the most - it is the trap tarek fell into & probably cost him his job, and is what seble is starting to become susceptible to - discourse cannot bring any entity down, but censorship can

8/13/2010 8:40 AM

vandydave

Posts: 2124 (0)

Hall of Famer

28 1 1 843 273

Prospect

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 1:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by daalter on 8/13/2010 12:41:00 AM (view original):
Seble, I won't judge the changes until they're implemented and we see what happens.

That said, I'm not really of the opinion that the current problems have to do with too much game-to-game variance. I haven't really heard anyone make that argument.

It seems to me that there are simply a few inherent, wholesale problems in the engine (such as rebounding and fouls). The problem is not that a team or player will be great at (for example) rebounding one night and terrible the next; the problem is that there is an inherent issue with how the engine handles rebounding all of the time.

Seble, would really love to hear your thoughts on this.
Ahh, Daalter, your mind is slipping in your old age. Coaches have been asking for, nay begging, for less variance/randomness all the way back to when TK was still running the show and Davis was posting statistical analyses for all of us to wrap our minds around. It's been a semi-hot topic since I started, still is to a degree, and probably always will be. It just might not be what everyone is shouting about right now, that's all.

Switching gears, one thing I would like to see in regards to rebounding is the +/- setting play a slightly larger role in a team's rebounding proficiency. Not a whole lot, mind you, but enough to be able to tell a difference between teams that sag and teams that get out on the perimeter.

Also, since Seble seems to be more willing to work with us, and certainly has a more open mind than TK ever did, it might be interesting to see what the results would be if he ran the -5/0/+5 test with the new engine. And, you know, actually provided some meaningful data to go along with the results. Not like the very vague stuff we got with TK. Maybe ratings of the teams involved, or at the very least some raw numbers to look at instead of a few generic percentages that told us basically nothing. I don't know, just rambling at this point.........

hard to know exactly what to make of this. according to sources TK admitted once there was an "upset" factor if you will somehow built into the engine. while im not a stat guy, i understand that statistical outcomes on their own will turn out differently within a certain range, but never liked the idea that wis had somehow added its own variance factor just to make the game more interesting. if this change in any way limits artificially inflated variance im for it.

8/13/2010 8:46 AM

vandydave

Posts: 2124 (0)

Hall of Famer

28 1 1 843 273

Prospect

Posted by seabreeze on 8/13/2010 7:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 8/12/2010 11:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cbriese on 8/12/2010 9:29:00 PM (view original):
I'm waiting for someone to come in and say how it's a matter of the rich getting richer, and that somehow these changes will mean death to all low-level D1 teams.
Breezy, I gotta ask, what's with all the hate and discontent lately? This isn't the cbriese I remember from earlier days......
I think this game is terrific. The whining about possible deficiencies before anyone can see their effect is what brings everyone down.

yeah chuck, maybe you should look in the mirror at where the negativity in the forums really originates

8/13/2010 8:48 AM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

emy I think two components would go into trying to pick a top ten list.

First, how good are the player ratings, which may be obvious by looking at the team totals, but is probably somewhat subtle in needing to weigh certain skills.

Second, how well is the team performing? I often wondered if 50 identical teams, identical offense and defense types were handed out to a wide range of coaches who played a 49 game schedule vs one another, how would everything turn out, in other words, how strongly is performance tied to gameplanning / coaching all else being equal? I would guess if done for 8 or 10 seasons some strong linkage would be tied to coaching / gameplanning - but I am pretty sure noone knows exactly how much - would the top coach win 80% of his games over ten seasons, 65%, 55%????

I know in tourny play, I hate playing underperforming highly rated teams, but my gut says lower rated hi performing well coached teams are the harder out?

8/13/2010 8:50 AM

cbriese

Posts: 919 (0)

Hall of Famer

765 102 201

Prospect

Posted by oldresorter on 8/13/2010 8:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seabreeze on 8/13/2010 7:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 8/12/2010 11:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cbriese on 8/12/2010 9:29:00 PM (view original):
I'm waiting for someone to come in and say how it's a matter of the rich getting richer, and that somehow these changes will mean death to all low-level D1 teams.
Breezy, I gotta ask, what's with all the hate and discontent lately? This isn't the cbriese I remember from earlier days......
I think this game is terrific. The whining about possible deficiencies before anyone can see their effect is what brings everyone down.
cb - you have this issue all wrong - it is the whining about those who are trying to help the game that is bringing this game down - your type of self rightous blind banter has always harmed this game the most - it is the trap tarek fell into & probably cost him his job, and is what seble is starting to become susceptible to - discourse cannot bring any entity down, but censorship can

I have to respectfully disagree, or. think there is a difference between discourse and running around telling everyone that the sky is falling.

I think what I am most happy about is that seble has taken the approach to look into details of the code, re-evaluate how this sim works and should be working, and then make appropriate changes. Having that fresh set of eyes questioning what goes on with HD under the covers is terrific. It is apparent that he is using statistical analysis to guide his tweaks. I am confident that he will be doing the same with regard to all issues around HD, and not relying simply upon the anecdotal complaints made by users.

8/13/2010 8:52 AM

cbriese

Posts: 919 (0)

Hall of Famer

765 102 201

Prospect

Posted by vandydave on 8/13/2010 8:48:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seabreeze on 8/13/2010 7:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by emy1013 on 8/12/2010 11:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cbriese on 8/12/2010 9:29:00 PM (view original):
I'm waiting for someone to come in and say how it's a matter of the rich getting richer, and that somehow these changes will mean death to all low-level D1 teams.
Breezy, I gotta ask, what's with all the hate and discontent lately? This isn't the cbriese I remember from earlier days......
I think this game is terrific. The whining about possible deficiencies before anyone can see their effect is what brings everyone down.
yeah chuck, maybe you should look in the mirror at where the negativity in the forums really originates

Heh. I was waiting for the patented whining about whining post. Thanks.

8/13/2010 8:53 AM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

vandy - i did not know or recall an additional upset factor, other than one that could be attributed to random number theory, I thought when tarek was pressed on the issue, he always denied the additional 'upset' factor, but I must admit, I was not that close to either the game or to tarek when he was at his most helpful or vocal point. By the way, am I wrong or right in thinking that at one point early in the game's developement, tarek was far more communicative about the nuts and bolts of the engine that seble has been????

8/13/2010 8:54 AM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

It is not apparent that Seble is using statistical analysis to guide his tweaks any more than tarek did, tarek looked at real life team stats and made sure team stats and HD stats for entire seasons matched. I think tarek also attempted to keep HD std deviation in line with reality. I am pretty sure seble does the same thing????

As far as the changes he has made, I am confident he is relying simply upon the anecdotal complaints made by users as well as his own observation about HD to guide those changes.

I think the player rating scam was due to seble's own evaluation that he needed to create lebron james type players (I am basing that on his words, not making them up), the rest of the recruits sort of fell where they must.

The problem he ran into, when he lowered d1 recruits, he found he could not lower d3 much (do the math sometime, 400 is sort of a low end limit if one wants meaningful differentiation between positions), so except for the premium d1 guys, the other 99.5% of the players just mashed together in the 400-550 range.

8/13/2010 9:12 AM

Forums

Development blog, new Topic

Search Criteria