Development blog, new Topic

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):
don't keep us in suspense, who am i?
You're gonna have to do a little better than that.  I mean, I was born at night, just not last night..........
8/13/2010 4:31 PM
Posted by brianp87 on 8/13/2010 4:29:00 PM (view original):

Isnt this were you answer?

He's not gonna answer Brian.  If he does, then he won't be able to hide anymore.  It's alot easy to be an Internet tough guy when you're anonymous..........
8/13/2010 4:32 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):
don't keep us in suspense, who am i?
You're gonna have to do a little better than that.  I mean, I was born at night, just not last night..........
why would posting your guess make a difference?
8/13/2010 4:32 PM

What cant pinky just answer?  is it diablo?

8/13/2010 4:33 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
this is all part of my scheme to scare dcy off the forums before he takes my delusional poster of the year crown
8/13/2010 4:42 PM
I I would have known that I wouldnt give you the time of day what a waste.
8/13/2010 4:42 PM
Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 4:42:00 PM (view original):
this is all part of my scheme to scare dcy off the forums before he takes my delusional poster of the year crown
I haven't gotten it yet?  :^)
8/13/2010 5:03 PM
remember that stalker word you like to use?

Stalker?  Nope.  Just someone who knows how to research the same way you do.  You gave an interview with WIS a few years back and gave away personal info, you moron.  Why would you do that?  Oh yes, because you actually believe that the safe, little world you've created for yourself is unassailable.  It's not stalking, it's researching.  Learn the difference.  And all this time I actually thought you were somewhat intelligent.....couldn't have been more wrong, I guess.  Oh and I can tell you with 100% certainty, the LAST thing I have about ANYTHING is an inferiority complex.  I'm just about the most cocky person you'll ever meet.

lol
8/13/2010 6:32 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Excellent, my guess would have been right on the money!  We'll let everyone else see if they can figure it out for themselves.  By the way, that was specifically why I used the word "stalker" in this thread, because of that thread.  I was just about 100% sure who I was arguing with and I thought you'd find that choice of words a bit amusing.  Your use of the word "delusional" was what sealed the deal though.  Clever, and yes, I picked up on it.  :^)

8/13/2010 8:12 PM (edited)
Posted by vandydave on 8/13/2010 8:46:00 AM (view original):
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.
Agreed...well put.  This is essentially what I've been saying since before the Montevallo incident, but again, most folks here can't separate poster from post, so they saw it was me, and fought AGAINST it just because of that fact.
8/13/2010 7:56 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 8/13/2010 7:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by vandydave on 8/13/2010 8:46:00 AM (view original):
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.
Agreed...well put.  This is essentially what I've been saying since before the Montevallo incident, but again, most folks here can't separate poster from post, so they saw it was me, and fought AGAINST it just because of that fact.
COlonels. .can you ever NOT talk about yourself?  Can you ever just post and NOT make it about yourself?  Perhaps if you made your posts about yourself less then other people would as well, just a thought.

8/13/2010 7:59 PM
Posted by dcy0827 on 8/13/2010 1:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/13/2010 1:08:00 PM (view original):
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 just looked at every team in the NT last season and VT was not one of the top 10 teams rating wise. Im not sure where exactly they fell but i know it wasnt 11 or 12. 
Mike, you've been around long enough to know that ratings aren't the end-all-be-all of how good a team is.  They give a pretty accurate picture, but there are lots of other factors that come into play.  Don't let yourself fall into that trap, my friend.
Just wanted to chime in here...the talent variance amongst the top 100 HD D1 teams or so is a LOT closer than RL top 100 D1 team talent variance, thus if a top 10 team hasn't really succeeded, that doesn't necessarily mean that the sim is, or has been operating poorly...teams are just more equal than IRL...more parity...again, a very simple concept to understand.
8/13/2010 8:04 PM
Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 4:41:00 PM (view original):
fine, i'm colonels
You wish you were me, big boy...I'm insulted that you would even claim to be me.  Pinkeye?  LTM...I would never pick a username that ridiculous.

Also, fwiw, emy/dcy is actually one of my few supporters/confidants, so saying that you're me is even more pathetic.  I'd like to think that him and I have a mutual respect, though I won't speak on his behalf.  He's a cool guy, nonetheless.
8/13/2010 8:10 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...10 Next ▸
Development blog, new Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.