Still is slow to go from 1 to 5.

Example of my PG that started with a 1 in REB.  20 minutes a day practice, started all games for the past season and a half.
from 2 > 3  = 10 practices
from 3 > 4  =  9 practices
from 4 > 5  =  7 practices
offseason stayed at 5
from 6 > 7  =  5 practices
from 7 > 8  =  5 practices
from 8 > 9  =  4 practices 

Probably my last post in this thread (and not sure anybody cares but I'll share anyway).

End of season results for me.

52 work ethic, 22 minutes in conditioning practice: speed of 1 with high potential developed to 3 (hit 3 with 4 practices to go)

86 work ethic, on average approximately 9.5 minutes of practice: ball handing of 1 with high potential developed to 2 (hit 2 a bit after the midpoint in the season).  With the same amount of practice minutes (I adjusted minutes for study hall during the season but kept them balanced in the categories), the 86 work ethic was able to take a 56 rebounding rating and have it at 67 by season's end.

The 86 work ethic player also had a high potential perimeter rating that began at 1.  On balance I gave him about 8 minutes of practice throughout the season and on the very last day of practice, he developed to a 3.

I have to admit I find this pretty discouraging.  86 work ethic is about as good as you can recruit.  And while I didn't give him that many minutes since he has potential in all 8 categories and I put minutes into them all along with study hall, the rebounding growth showed that I gave enough minutes to get growth

By end of season I don't find this too surprising since I did file a ticket and I got the impression from support that the new engine did nothing to change how difficult it is to get 1 to 2 and 2 to 3.  But like I started this thread by saying, there is a big increase of these types of players with the new recruits and I think it is pretty silly to have the growth be like this because I can only assume the introduction of this type of potential was so that we could actually develop it.  And if a 86 work ethic player can't, I'm not sure if anybody can.

Agreed, I saw similar results. Development at the bottom of the curve should be be ramped up a little...good WE, 20 minutes, and high potential should see more than 2-3 pts. of improvement per season.

I brought this up with seble after this thread was started. He acknowledged that there is "room for improvement" in this area, but couldn't commit as to if/when there might be a fix put in.

My feeling is that it would take very, very little time to do. You could simply increase the rate of improvement at very low ratings by a certain percentage.

This is a good example of something very straightforward that's not working as it should and could be easily and quickly fixed.

I don't know who was on the other end of my ticket but in my exchange I was told that to fix this would mean changing the entire model for player improvement.

I thought this wouldn't take much time either, but what do I know.

Posted by kujayhawk on 8/15/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):
I don't know who was on the other end of my ticket but in my exchange I was told that to fix this would mean changing the entire model for player improvement.

I thought this wouldn't take much time either, but what do I know.

That's a bunch of BS.

Posted by dcy0827 on 7/22/2010 3:03:00 AM (view original):
I recuited a SG with a Reb rating of 1, but with high potential.  Halfway through his Junior season, he's up to 15, but it took forever to get him from 1 to about 5 or 6.  He's got a decent Work Ethic (in the 60's) and got/gets decent playing time.  Has been getting approx.  12-14 minutes of rebounding practice for that whole time.  Don't know if this helps at all, just thought I'd throw an example out there.

Update on my guy too.  Starting his senior season, he hit 19 on rebounding and I just got the assistant coach e-mail.  What a waste of minutes.  This really needs to be looked at.

girt, you clearly don't know a lot about programming.  It's not that easy to "adjust by a percentage" if the whole system is built on a bell-curve-based algorithm.  And when it's that low, adjusting by a percentage really wouldn't fix the problem.  You'd have to change to a linear system, which would probably be better but would take some significant work - it would basically involve rewriting the entire improvement logic, in spite of your conviction that it would not.

Yep, that was their initial answer to me, too. And then when I pushed harder, they told me that there are other ways around it that they would consider, but right now their focus is on tweaking the sim engine in the other ways that they've outlined.

Posted by girt25 on 8/15/2010 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kujayhawk on 8/15/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):
I don't know who was on the other end of my ticket but in my exchange I was told that to fix this would mean changing the entire model for player improvement.

I thought this wouldn't take much time either, but what do I know.

That's a bunch of BS.

It is NOT NECESSARILY a bunch of BS.

Unless you know the exact code that is being used and how it is implemented there is absolutely no way to know how hard or easy it would be to change this.

It could be BS and it might be an easy change, it might also take a total redesign of the algorithm.  There is just no way to know unless you have the code to look at.

Posted by hughesjr on 8/15/2010 6:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/15/2010 4:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kujayhawk on 8/15/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):
I don't know who was on the other end of my ticket but in my exchange I was told that to fix this would mean changing the entire model for player improvement.

I thought this wouldn't take much time either, but what do I know.

That's a bunch of BS.

It is NOT NECESSARILY a bunch of BS.

Unless you know the exact code that is being used and how it is implemented there is absolutely no way to know how hard or easy it would be to change this.

It could be BS and it might be an easy change, it might also take a total redesign of the algorithm.  There is just no way to know unless you have the code to look at.

Uh ... look at my post right above yours. I'm going on what they told me themselves.

I was not trying to defend anyone, and like I said ... it might be easy or it might not.

I can tell you from doing things myself to other peoples code (I am a Linux operating system developer) ... You have to do lots of research when you modify code in one area to see where it called from, how it is called, what  are all the ways it can be called, can you easily make it different for low values of WE when you call it, etc.  You have to map out and test all the different possibilities, not just the one you are trying to fix.

It is entirely possible that when you make the to increase REB for practice that you do not necessarily know the exiting value for the players REB, depending on how it is called.

All I am saying is that if they tell you it can be done easily then it can and if they tell you that it can not easily be done, then it can't..  And I am certianly saying that anyone who is not analyzing their specific code can not say it is easy or hard to implement something.  And it is even less credible for someone who has never written or debugged code changes to pass easy or hard labels on something.

I would like to see this changed and I hope they change it, but lets leave the classification of difficulty to the people that have to actually do the work.

I have a DIII PG with high potential in PASS and sky's the limit potential in BH.  The BH started at a 7 and the PASS at a 3.  I have been giving 10-18 minutes in each category and guess what the ratings are after 25 games?

BH = 7 and PASS = 3.  Not a single point of improvement for the entire season.  I'm thinking about dropping this team.

Whats his WE?

77