Play-by-Play logic, how did this possibly happen? - Page 2 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 798 (0)

Hall of Famer

727

Pro

Posted by girt25 on 11/21/2010 8:40:00 PM (view original):
ryan, I don't take that to be nearly as egregious as atrain's. On that play I envision a player getting fouled or bumped just before getting a shot off, maybe as he's driving, etc. I agree that it's not great logically, and that that sort of thing happens more than it should in HD, but I don't consider it as truly rotten as atrain's and some of the others I see. Just my opinion though. (I have a feeling if I lost on that play I might not be as generous, lol.)

Again, I strongly encourage both of you to send tickets to bring this to seble's attention, the more he sees that end-of-game logic is bad, the better the chance it will be fixed.

I don't know Dalt, he has to realize by now that the recruit generation isn't quite right, but he doesn't seem to be budging on that. I'm starting to lose faith rather quickly........

11/21/2010 10:43 PM

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.

Show

coach_billyg

Posts: 2072 (0)

Hall of Famer

92

Pro

stamina dynasty? as with most of the coined "dynasty" phrases, i have to disagree. you can have bad stamina and still be a great team. one of my teams only has 2 guys above 84 stamina and 5 under 80, 3 under 66, and they are really good. stamina is more important, but not ridiculously so. well, maybe with the press and fb its pushing it a bit. but i don't see a problem with it anywhere else.

11/22/2010 11:04 AM

Rails

Posts: 263 (0)

Hall of Famer

21 193 13

Prospect

Just got an encouraging response from a end of game logic ticket saying they are going to look at end of game logic...

That's not what I am implying, bg. Just saying that irl two teams that rotate 10 each with comparable minutes between players see virtually the same fatigue "issues" as one another. Whether those are no issues or some issues it's the same for both teams and based on minutes played and number in the rotation. That's just not the case in HD, where it's more about a composite stamina level that cannot be proven irl and where the range of stamina levels is huge. IRL stamina levels don't increase 25-85% from a kid's frosh to senior year. That's absurd. IRL most any 20-year NCAA college basketball player could play big minutes if called or needed to do so and that fatigue wouldn't be an issue. That's all I'm saying.

11/22/2010 1:56 PM

gillispie

Posts: 1766 (0)

Hall of Famer

116

Rookie

Posted by Rails on 11/22/2010 1:56:00 PM (view original):
Just got an encouraging response from a end of game logic ticket saying they are going to look at end of game logic...

That's not what I am implying, bg. Just saying that irl two teams that rotate 10 each with comparable minutes between players see virtually the same fatigue "issues" as one another. Whether those are no issues or some issues it's the same for both teams and based on minutes played and number in the rotation. That's just not the case in HD, where it's more about a composite stamina level that cannot be proven irl and where the range of stamina levels is huge. IRL stamina levels don't increase 25-85% from a kid's frosh to senior year. That's absurd. IRL most any 20-year NCAA college basketball player could play big minutes if called or needed to do so and that fatigue wouldn't be an issue. That's all I'm saying.

ah, ok. that is fair. so you are basically saying fatigue should work like it used to, but with the playing time limitations of the current engine? i.e. low fatigue is much less damaging, and you can actually play upper 20s or low 30s in most cases for most guys? that is pretty reasonable.

i would personally prefer it not to be done that way - just because then you would need fewer players to get significant PT, which IMO would lessen the strategic aspect of recruiting. also, it seems tough to maintain the balance of power today - in which some sets let you play players for more or less time, with lower or higher theoretical maximums on performance. i like how the zone is better with a less deep team, and conversely with a deep team. and how fb is probably the best offense with a really deep team and probably the worst with a team seriously lacking depth. i guess you can throw the press in there too, now that seble has removed the stake from its heart.

i guess its a tough position to defend - i generally feel the sim engine itself should behave as close to real life as possible, and that everything else should be done to make a strategic and enjoyable game. but stamina and fatigue are pretty clearly part of the sim engine, i suppose. so i am pretty much contradicting everything i've ever said about the real life/fun tradeoff. however, i still feel like if you gave schools the ability to play 5 guys for 35 minutes each with little penalty, a significant amount of strategy would be removed, and also it would tip the scales too hard in the favor of senior-laden teams.

11/22/2010 8:12 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

110% agreed with that post, billyg.

11/22/2010 11:21 PM

Rails

Posts: 263 (0)

Hall of Famer

21 193 13

Prospect

Bill, I think you said it more clear than I did for me so thanks. With comparable effectiveness, most guys should be able to play upper 20s, lower 30s in most circumstances (upper 20s for certain but now it's mid to low 20s for most with a few outliers that can play more). FB, Press or 1/2 press would be the execptions as most players in those sets should be in the mid 20s to low 20s regardless because no real stamina level exists irl. 99% of players could do that irl if tapped on the shoulder and asked to do so. This would make it more about the number in your rotation and the skills of those players, not some nonbasketball artificial stamina rating. Still teams running press, FB et al. would need more players in their rotations to achieve similar effectiveness. Firsthand experience tells me that this would be more like rl like you are asking for.

Girt's post has me all confused. 110%? We had a guy on our club that gave 110% and it cost us a title. Playing RF he took out the CF who was camped for a catch and they both went down for the count. The second baseman had to go retrieve the ball while the batter circled the bases for 3-run inside the park HR in the state finals. A tough 5-3 loss! In all seriousness though I don't think it would lessen the need for recruiting, skills and IQs would take on the bulk of importance. Recruiting would be critical just the same. And the press and FB would still be hurt with a shallow bench.

11/23/2010 11:21 AM

coach_billyg

Posts: 2072 (0)

Hall of Famer

92

Pro

rails, most of my players are able to hit the high 20s or even low 30s regularly, playing normal tempo triangle/flex/man. their averages aren't that high, because a lot of the games aren't close. but the close games w/ no foul trouble, the majority of my guys are hitting high 20s, and anyone with ~90 stamina can pretty easily hit the low 30s. that is without getting tired enough to have significant troubles due to low fatigue. so i guess to me, the situation is not very different than what you describe - except for the 5-10% of players who are totally unplayable due to ridiculous stamina figures (last season i spotted an otherwise 5 star pf with 32 stamina, or maybe it was 38, and definitely agree those players need to go)

11/23/2010 3:16 PM

Rails

Posts: 263 (0)

Hall of Famer

21 193 13

Prospect

Just as most players with sub stamina levels need to go, since most can go low 30s (that would = 90 stam), most players then should be 90 stam. I think a college frosh and a college senior can play about the same if tapped to do so. I just don't think that irl there is much variance at all in terms of stamina. So most should have staminas in the 90s with very few outliers. But that's not the case now, teams can focus on getting 90+ stamina and be better off than those who focus on recruting kids with real basketball skills with a lower stamina. IRL skills trump stamina for individual players--but if a team has 10 very skilled players and another has only 8, the one with 10 would have an advantage. Depth should be a key part of success, but not at the expense of skills, which is what HD stamina does to a significant degree.

Bill, do you focus on stamina at all in recruiting or just skills? If yes, do you think you could recruit better skilled players if you didn't recruit with stamina in mind. I just noticed that one of your PGs has a stam of 100 and another has one with 80 or so. Regardless of skills, their efficiency is different, but irl it wouldn't be. Their skills would be the determining factor of success, not whether both play 30 minutes or 32 minutes or 28 minutes.

11/23/2010 4:04 PM (edited)

fd343ny

Posts: 2254 (0)

Hall of Famer

7 635 36

Veteran

I'm just not convinced that most DI players can go 25, let alone 30 mins. I watch games and see plenty of guys who can, but also plenty of guys who have their hands on their knees after 12 - 15 mins of hard play - I dont mean walking it up the court - I mean vigorous work at both ends of the floor....

11/23/2010 4:40 PM

gillispie

Posts: 1766 (0)

Hall of Famer

116

Rookie

Posted by Rails on 11/23/2010 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Just as most players with sub stamina levels need to go, since most can go low 30s (that would = 90 stam), most players then should be 90 stam. I think a college frosh and a college senior can play about the same if tapped to do so. I just don't think that irl there is much variance at all in terms of stamina. So most should have staminas in the 90s with very few outliers. But that's not the case now, teams can focus on getting 90+ stamina and be better off than those who focus on recruting kids with real basketball skills with a lower stamina. IRL skills trump stamina for individual players--but if a team has 10 very skilled players and another has only 8, the one with 10 would have an advantage. Depth should be a key part of success, but not at the expense of skills, which is what HD stamina does to a significant degree.

Bill, do you focus on stamina at all in recruiting or just skills? If yes, do you think you could recruit better skilled players if you didn't recruit with stamina in mind. I just noticed that one of your PGs has a stam of 100 and another has one with 80 or so. Regardless of skills, their efficiency is different, but irl it wouldn't be. Their skills would be the determining factor of success, not whether both play 30 minutes or 32 minutes or 28 minutes.

i wouldn't say i focus on stamina, but i wouldn't say i ignore it, either. at times it can be a tie breaker, but that is rare - usually i am just making sure he has competent stamina to play. my feeling on stamina is that it isn't worth anything for a bad player, it isn't worth much for a good player, but it can make a great player even better. its really only a significant factor if its 80 stamina or 100 if this guy is that much better than the rest of the team. but even there, i very rarely find myself choosing 1 elite player over another because of stamina - there just aren't enough players that good, and even when there are, things like, how far they are, who else might be interested, generally trump the stamina thing to me.

so to me, the biggest problem is the sub-usable stamina guys, who are instantly discarded as possibilities. in the 80-100 stamina range, its fine - its almost never a factor and when it is, the two guys are basically a wash everywhere else anyway.

11/24/2010 12:39 PM

daalter

Posts: 326 (0)

Hall of Famer

40

Prospect

Again rails, I don't think we're disagreeing that it would be more like real life if starters were playing more than 30 minutes. It would be. But I think overall it's a detriment to HD for the exact reason that billyg outline above -- it significantly lessens the strategic impact of recruiting and gameplanning. And imo that's a tradeoff that would be horrible to make.

11/25/2010 8:01 AM

Rails

Posts: 263 (0)

Hall of Famer

21 193 13

Prospect

IRL it's one of the main reasons why B, lower budget teams can compete to some degree with A+, high budget teams. As is, the current fatigue system with the players' range of stamina levels caters big time to the A+, high budget teams. That's terrible for the game.

11/26/2010 7:36 PM

Forums

Play-by-Play logic, how did this possibly happen? Topic

Search Criteria