August 28 release - engine changes Topic

jkline
Posts: 195 (0)
Rookie
9
Prospect
Posted by kmasonbx on 8/28/2010 7:52:00 PM (view original):
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.
Ah, OK, that makes sense.  Thanks for the answer.
8/30/2010 11:44 AM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
hmm, not sure how i feel about the change to make different events dependent. i do like the general idea - reduce variation from the mean - however when i made the suggestion, i was thinking the current variation was more than simple random events would provide, and thus that variation could be removed without artificially doing so.

to those asking about how defense fits in and all that, for example a 45% shooter against a crappy player, will he go 0-6 after going 7-9? i am pretty sure you are thinking about it the wrong way. a 45% shooter is just a generalization you are imposing on that player. what i suspect seble is doing is, for example using shooting, is this: player Bob goes up for his first shot. the engine computes he has a 60% chance of making it, as he is fairly open. he makes it. now, his expected made shot total is .6, and his made shot total is 1. a few minutes later, bob goes up for his next shot. its a long 3, 25% chance of making it. the engine detects he is shooting better than expected, and thus does the randomization at 24% chance of making it. but, .25 is added to his expected shot total for consistency.

now, the above is a simplification - maybe the engine doesn't start putting in feedback until a certain number of shots, or maybe it only makes adjustments when there is a significant deviation from mean. but still, in essence, i would bet strongly that is the approach seble took.
8/30/2010 1:17 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by hughesjr on 8/30/2010 9:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by hitman1979 on 8/30/2010 9:19:00 AM (view original):
Very concerning that seble refused to answer a simple question that OR posed on multiple occasions, an important one for this and possibly other changes.

And hughes, I appreciate your excitement for HD, but enough with the apples/oranges arguments, alright?
hitman, I do not actually have much excitement for HD ... it is a game that I play for entertainment.

What I am trying to point out is that WIS does not owe anyone the explanations that some people are asking for.  I am further showing examples of how ludicrous these questions are.

People act like because they pay a subscription price of $10-$15to play a game that they think they should have complete control of the servers, the code (and any changes), the timing of when things run on the servers, etc.

I am giving examples of other games and/or software in an attempt to show people that there is not any legal obligation for WIS to provide that information, nor is it even the normal for any software company to provide that information.

What is apples to apples is that people pay to play the simulation, not design the simulation.  If you want to program game code, take a computer class or two in college and then apply to a software company for a job ... or join an open source project.  If you want to play a college basketball simulation game, then this is your place.
the fact that you mention WIS's legal obligation to explain their changes shows just how out of touch you are with the issue you are bringing up. it has nothing to do with that, in the slightest. its about customer service, plain and simple.

that said, i think seble has done MUCH better at explaining what prompts him to make these changes, and the rationale he uses in making them. but i do think a company like WIS with a product like HD does have some obligation to explain what is changing to their users. this is a subscription game - the common business logic behind any subscription model is that the subscribers are paying for continuous improvement. i think we are entitled to *some* explanation of is going on.
8/30/2010 1:36 PM
dal8847
Posts: 40 (0)
Hall of Famer
144 9 1 9
Prospect
Does anyone think that this may have any impact on gameplanning (i.e. trying to exploit a matchup you feel may be to your benefit, yet the engine may decide your player is performing above his average and then tries to pull his performance back towards that average)?  Sorry if that's poorly worded
8/30/2010 1:40 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
All this is a more of the same direction the big upgrade did.

From now on the team with the better ratings will almost always win.

There is no reason to adjust from game to game, as strategy is now gone. A hand full of whiners who are great at recruiting have won and now will be dominate.

This is a turn away from reality! A turn away from what the game should be!
8/30/2010 1:44 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by oldresorter on 8/30/2010 10:53:00 AM (view original):
by the way, anton and I traded a couple of sitemails, turns out I probably agree more with him than not on most things HD, he asked me a great ?, are you mad at me or mad in general, to wit I replied, I am mad in general toward the attitude toward discussion and debate on these boards, he just happened to get caught in the crossfire.  Like many of you, he does not like the complaining about every change, almost identical to how I don't like the complaining about the complaining.

Sort of a conundrum the game finds itself in - would not some of you on both sides of this little debate agree?


What he said.

I play the turd-flinging monkey role about as well as anyone, but only because I know you expect it of me. I'm just playing the part you've created for me. In real life I'm probably the most amazingly nice, kind, charitable, charming, handsome, modest person you'll ever meet, but on these boards I got off on the wrong foot and became trapped in a villain role. I'm fine with it, and will play the game as long as you want to play it, but it's up to you to decide when the game ends, not me.

/colonels

Seriously though, I'd be perfectly happy declaring a moratorium on all forms of overheated rhetoric around here. It can be fun, but it's getting pretty stale.

Changes to the game are not the end of HD as we know it. Criticisms of HD are not uniformly examples of Chicken Little-ism.

If we can stick within those goal posts, I think we'll all get along just fine.
8/30/2010 1:48 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/30/2010 1:44:00 PM (view original):
All this is a more of the same direction the big upgrade did.

From now on the team with the better ratings will almost always win.

There is no reason to adjust from game to game, as strategy is now gone. A hand full of whiners who are great at recruiting have won and now will be dominate.

This is a turn away from reality! A turn away from what the game should be!
You're right.  In reality, the less-talented team often wins the game.
8/30/2010 1:51 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by dal8847 on 8/30/2010 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Does anyone think that this may have any impact on gameplanning (i.e. trying to exploit a matchup you feel may be to your benefit, yet the engine may decide your player is performing above his average and then tries to pull his performance back towards that average)?  Sorry if that's poorly worded
i know what you mean, but i think the answer is no. a guy's average is not based on his season long performance, its based on his expected outcome at the time the outcome is determined. i explained what i meant by that a couple posts above yours, so i don't want to rehash the whole thing, but in summary, no i don't think it effects game planning.
8/30/2010 2:58 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 836 2
Pro

A somewhat different direction, suggested by some of the recent discussion - put aside whether this change is good, bad, heretical or something

Can folks think of any ways in which this should lead one to game plan differently?  I'm hard pressed to think of any - since the change purports to keep a guy closer to his own natural level - narrowing the distribution of his results.

I doubt that this changes the effect, for example, of doubleteams or matchups etc etc....right?

8/30/2010 3:12 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro
Posted by oldresorter on 8/30/2010 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 8/30/2010 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Here's the million dollar question for those people who are freaking the f*** out: have you seen anything to make you think this was a noticeable change?

the use of freaking out is an attempt to marginalize honest discussion - do you guys want to trade quips?  or do you want to talk about the engine?

back to discussion - if anything the engine seems more, not less unstable since the change, that is based on 11 or 12 games the last 2 days of my own, which is hardly a sample size to worry about

a funny math problem for all you guys in love with the recent changes - first we change ratings to make ratings more variable so we have bigger differences in performance, then we make the engine less sensative to variation so we have less variation in performance?  Sort of a +1 + (-1) = zero sort of deal isn't it?  I probably could argue against my own comment and call the two compatible for some reason or another, we all make up this stuff all the time anyhow, but you have to admit, it is sort of a funny pair of changes when viewed in a certain light, is it not?

Is some people calling others 'WIS apologists' an attempt to marginalize honest discussion as well? Good for the goose, good for the gander. 

(And no, I'm not talking about you specifically, I am just applying the general principle)



 

 

8/30/2010 3:14 PM
wronoj
Posts: 893 (0)
Hall of Famer
179 1
Rookie
ars, yes, calling people apologists is the same level of marginalizing as calling people chick little.

mets, off the top of my head i think it might diminish the odds of some more extreme D setups-- if you're playing -5 in the hopes of the one game where the other team cannot hit from outside, doesn't this increase their odds of hitting a "normal" amount of 3s vs this setup? 
8/30/2010 3:26 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by metsmax on 8/30/2010 3:12:00 PM (view original):

A somewhat different direction, suggested by some of the recent discussion - put aside whether this change is good, bad, heretical or something

Can folks think of any ways in which this should lead one to game plan differently?  I'm hard pressed to think of any - since the change purports to keep a guy closer to his own natural level - narrowing the distribution of his results.

I doubt that this changes the effect, for example, of doubleteams or matchups etc etc....right?

I can see it maybe making people more reluctant to use extreme (+5/-5) defenses, on the assumption that you're less likely to 'get away' with abandoning the perimeter and still having your opponent shoot .200 from three point range.
8/30/2010 3:37 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Heh, wronoj beat me to it.
8/30/2010 3:38 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
interesting... i agree it can effect the viability of certain gimmick game plans or whatever you want to call them... maybe extreme game plans is a better name for them. but at the same time, it decreases your chance of winning the game from a normal game plan, assuming this is one of those cases when you are pretty likely to lose, which is generally when those extreme game plans are played. im not sure if that makes the extreme game plans more or less attractive?

If you are say 10% to win with a normal game plan, and 10.1% with a gimmick (before the change), and that was based on the gimmick having an advantage in all the categories over the other (like chance of winning the shooting battle, the rebounding battle, etc), I would say the gimmick was still always better. But, gimmicks generally benefit in one area. So you might be 10% to win with a normal game plan, with 25% of winning the shooting battle. But with a gimmick, you might be 11%, with 45% of winning the shooting battle and less chance of winning other stuff. Then, the negative effect of the engine change... would um, i dont know, maybe impact the shooting of the gimmick more than the other? Not really sure why but I guess its possible. On the whole, I would guess it mostly all evens out though. Largely I would expect the farther you get from 50%, the more this change matters (it should matter none at 50%, and a lot at say 1%), but that is as a % relative to the starting amount, not as an absolute. So a gimmick might actually be better off because the areas you are more likely to win, are effected by less, and the areas you are less likely to win, are effected more??
8/30/2010 4:02 PM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
Posted by arssanguinus on 8/30/2010 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 8/30/2010 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 8/30/2010 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Here's the million dollar question for those people who are freaking the f*** out: have you seen anything to make you think this was a noticeable change?

the use of freaking out is an attempt to marginalize honest discussion - do you guys want to trade quips?  or do you want to talk about the engine?

back to discussion - if anything the engine seems more, not less unstable since the change, that is based on 11 or 12 games the last 2 days of my own, which is hardly a sample size to worry about

a funny math problem for all you guys in love with the recent changes - first we change ratings to make ratings more variable so we have bigger differences in performance, then we make the engine less sensative to variation so we have less variation in performance?  Sort of a +1 + (-1) = zero sort of deal isn't it?  I probably could argue against my own comment and call the two compatible for some reason or another, we all make up this stuff all the time anyhow, but you have to admit, it is sort of a funny pair of changes when viewed in a certain light, is it not?

Is some people calling others 'WIS apologists' an attempt to marginalize honest discussion as well? Good for the goose, good for the gander. 

(And no, I'm not talking about you specifically, I am just applying the general principle)



 

 

ars - you won't like the answer - but here goes - start a thread yourself on some issue of interest to you - see if anyone calls you an apologist, or if theycomment on your issue

it is all a matter of timing - comment - get flamed - fight back is the dance I now play -  this gander is not taking crap any longer from the flaming gooses to follow your quip, biblical proportions is another of your fav's, has the sky been falling lately in ars land?
8/30/2010 4:04 PM
◂ Prev 1...6|7|8|9|10|11 Next ▸
August 28 release - engine changes Topic
△Top△Bottom

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.