Posted by jkline on 8/28/2010 7:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 8/28/2010 2:10:00 PM (view original):

• New engine version with the following tweaks:
  • reduced single-game variance on rebounding
  • reduced single-game variance on shooting
  • reduced single-game variance on fouls
  • reduced single-game variance on turnovers
  • reduced single-game variance on free throw shooting
  • changed the performance hit from fatigue so that it won't be as linear, but instead performance will decrease more rapidly as a player gets tired
  • reduced offensive rebound odds on free throws
  • various minor logic improvements

  The end result should be that single-game results match more closely to what you would expect and there will be fewer upsets. There will still be upsets though, so don't expect to win every game you're favored to win.

  This will affect all worlds immediately.

I'm curious as to why this was implemented for rebounds, shots, fouls, and turnovers, but not steals, blocks, or assists.

My guess is turnovers should affect steals directly as shooting should affect blocks and assists directly. From my undrestanding of how the engine works is it decides before the possesion whether it's going to end in a turnover, missed shot, points or a foul and then decides how that's going to occur. So by lessening the variance of turnovers you lessen the variance of steals and by lessing the variance of shooting you lessen the variance of assists and blocks. Also blocks, steals and assists are more window dressing and are a product of whether it's been decided if the possession is going to end in a turnover, missed shot or a basket.

unnecessary and possibly nightmarish but should quiet the barking dogs for a little while.

This scares me. Although my teams are always the good teams, so no upsets isn;t going to hurt me much.

OMFG ... the sky is falling.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

Everyone is complaining that it is bad if you win by 20 then lose by 20.  The ONLY way to combat small sample size and reduce variability is to somehow feedback results into the current try.  So there is an adjustment made to do that, and low and behold ... everyone is "concerned" before one game is played.

WTF?

hughes, you should know by now people on this site just love to complain. The only thing that I think needs to be tweaked is rebounding everything is fine in my opinion

If a guy is a 45% shooter, than each shot he takes (not considering all other possible variables -- defense, positioning, type of shot, etc.) should have a 45% shot of going in. Simple as that. If he makes one shot, that shouldn't have a damn thing to do with the next shot. If you are seriously telling us that if a player has a hot 1st half, then the engine will FORCE that player's probability of making a shot to go down in the 2nd half until he reaches a predetermined percentage....than that's just absolutely insane and wrong.

If I am missing something...please correct me..because as I understand it now...this game has just gotten significantly worse (unless it's been this way all the time...in which game this game is unplayable).

Posted by vandydave on 8/28/2010 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seabreeze on 8/28/2010 6:43:00 PM (view original):
I lost a game today where the other team was favored by 11. This is an obvious over-correction. Why can WIS not ever get changes done correctly? We need to go back to the 2007 version, when HD was perfect.

why dont you just post "WIS can do no wrong in HD" for every post, it'd be a lot easier.

Pre-emptive strike, Dave.

Posted by kowboykoop on 8/28/2010 9:22:00 PM (view original):
If a guy is a 45% shooter, than each shot he takes (not considering all other possible variables -- defense, positioning, type of shot, etc.) should have a 45% shot of going in. Simple as that. If he makes one shot, that shouldn't have a damn thing to do with the next shot. If you are seriously telling us that if a player has a hot 1st half, then the engine will FORCE that player's probability of making a shot to go down in the 2nd half until he reaches a predetermined percentage....than that's just absolutely insane and wrong.

If I am missing something...please correct me..because as I understand it now...this game has just gotten significantly worse (unless it's been this way all the time...in which game this game is unplayable).

First off, I do not think there would be any first half and second half arbitrary distinction.

Secondly, it is not as simple as a 45% chance of going in.  There is fatigue, defense, ath/spd of the shooter and defender, +/- rating of the defense, etc.

So, what he is saying he did is put in a "Minimal" feedback so that if a guy misses 10 shots in a row, he will be "Slightly" more likely to hit a shot.  If he makes 10 in a row, he is "Slightly" more likely to miss one.

This should prevent a team shooting 0-20 from 3 or shooting 18-20 from 3 ... we should have more 30%-50% and less 10% and 90% from 3 .etc.

Again ,,, if there is currently too much variability in the current game, then the only way to combat variability is to feedback previous results into the current try.  There is no other way to do it.  Was there too much variability before ... according to everyone and their brother, yes.

Why don't we play a couple of games and see what happens before we declare that the change has made the game unplayable, shall we?

seble,  I'll try again, maybe rewording it slightly will help, are these changes to make variation in game results resemble real life variation, do you monitor real life variation, and how far off was the old engine in delivering real life variation?

If you just swagged it is ok, just answer "OR - I swagged it because I got some complaints there was too much variation" - no big deal - just want an honest answer?

The guy tries to listen to people's suggestion (too much variability).  He tries to devise something to fix the issue.  He tries to roll it in when NONE of the worlds are in the middle of a national or conference tournament. And before we play one game, the guys who were the biggest voices complaining about variability are now worried that he has ruined the game. 

Before one game has been played ... REALLY!!!

So, let me ask you.  How can he freaking begin to win here?

He can't, there will always be detractors, and in most cases the loudest voices are the detractors.

Posted by professor17 on 8/28/2010 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 8/28/2010 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 8/28/2010 3:30:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure I like the idea of having separate game results not be calculated independently.

We're talking about events within a single game, not completely separate games.  In other words, if John Smith has shooting odds of 45% normally, but is 0/6 in the game, his odds going forward will increase above 45% until he reaches that 45% for the game.  The same would happen the other direction if he were 5/6.

I don't like this at all. Each event should be independent, not based on the outcome of prior events. You are forcing outcomes. Isn't there some other way to decrease standard deviations without artificially forcing a reversion to the mean? 

i was thinking something like that.

the guy that shoots 45% normally should just end up being 0/6 less often.

maybe this actually is realistic, as in if a guy on the other team is hot, the defense will pay more attention to him etc.

OR - I think it is obvious that when you have several D-I games in the big east with a 50 or more point variance that there is a problem.

You pointed out a problem with too big a variance in this thread:

HCA was blamed and is likely part of the problem, but so is this.

I have no issue with asking the question if real life is being looked at.  But a 50,60,70 point MOV between to ranked teams consistently happening ... or a top team getting beat by 25 by a clearly inferior team (all things we have seen), need to be addressed.  Users have posted throughout the forums comparing them to real life.

My issue is not with your question at all, but with the doom and gloom predictions before a game has been played.

In fact, I like the question ... the game should be compared to real life (imho).

Posted by hughesjr on 8/28/2010 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kowboykoop on 8/28/2010 9:22:00 PM (view original):
If a guy is a 45% shooter, than each shot he takes (not considering all other possible variables -- defense, positioning, type of shot, etc.) should have a 45% shot of going in. Simple as that. If he makes one shot, that shouldn't have a damn thing to do with the next shot. If you are seriously telling us that if a player has a hot 1st half, then the engine will FORCE that player's probability of making a shot to go down in the 2nd half until he reaches a predetermined percentage....than that's just absolutely insane and wrong.

If I am missing something...please correct me..because as I understand it now...this game has just gotten significantly worse (unless it's been this way all the time...in which game this game is unplayable).

First off, I do not think there would be any first half and second half arbitrary distinction.

Secondly, it is not as simple as a 45% chance of going in.  There is fatigue, defense, ath/spd of the shooter and defender, +/- rating of the defense, etc.

So, what he is saying he did is put in a "Minimal" feedback so that if a guy misses 10 shots in a row, he will be "Slightly" more likely to hit a shot.  If he makes 10 in a row, he is "Slightly" more likely to miss one.

This should prevent a team shooting 0-20 from 3 or shooting 18-20 from 3 ... we should have more 30%-50% and less 10% and 90% from 3 .etc.

Again ,,, if there is currently too much variability in the current game, then the only way to combat variability is to feedback previous results into the current try.  There is no other way to do it.  Was there too much variability before ... according to everyone and their brother, yes.

Why don't we play a couple of games and see what happens before we declare that the change has made the game unplayable, shall we?

I already said that in my example I was not considering all other factors....but anything that makes a guy a better shooter magically on one shot just because he missed some shots in the beginning of the game is BS. If a guy is a 45% shooter on a wide-open, standard 15 foot jump shot, then every wide-open, standard 15 foot jump shot should have a 45% chance of going in, regardless of previous shots made or missed.