Posted by jetwildcat on 2/2/2011 12:58:00 PM (view original):
EVERYBODY CHILL OUT A SECOND YOURE LOOKING AT IT BACKWARDS

i bet that this is the change: players who previously would have started at 1 with a cap at X will now start at, say, 10 with a cap at X. the cap isnt dropping, the starting rating is INCREASING.

i'm not sure which comes first in recruit generation (the cap or the start rating) but it just might be the cap, which is probably staying the same.

That was my read on it as well. But it's vaguely worded.

I bet we'll find out exactly what it means during the Dev Chat.  But hey, don't let that stop all the worried speculation.  Carry on.

We'll find out for sure in a couple of days when new recruits are generated in Tark.

Posted by jetwildcat on 2/2/2011 12:58:00 PM (view original):
EVERYBODY CHILL OUT A SECOND YOURE LOOKING AT IT BACKWARDS

i bet that this is the change: players who previously would have started at 1 with a cap at X will now start at, say, 10 with a cap at X. the cap isnt dropping, the starting rating is INCREASING.

i'm not sure which comes first in recruit generation (the cap or the start rating) but it just might be the cap, which is probably staying the same.

If that's the case, not sure why he wouldn't have explained it as such.

I still think it would be stupid and a waste if single-digit ratings were all low potential.

Posted by jbasnight on 2/2/2011 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 2/2/2011 12:58:00 PM (view original):
EVERYBODY CHILL OUT A SECOND YOURE LOOKING AT IT BACKWARDS

i bet that this is the change: players who previously would have started at 1 with a cap at X will now start at, say, 10 with a cap at X. the cap isnt dropping, the starting rating is INCREASING.

i'm not sure which comes first in recruit generation (the cap or the start rating) but it just might be the cap, which is probably staying the same.

That was my read on it as well. But it's vaguely worded.

that is terribly optimistic and not in line with past events...
the way I read it is that those abilities that start at 1 will never be high potential. not an improvement.

Posted by dacj501 on 2/2/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jbasnight on 2/2/2011 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 2/2/2011 12:58:00 PM (view original):
EVERYBODY CHILL OUT A SECOND YOURE LOOKING AT IT BACKWARDS

i bet that this is the change: players who previously would have started at 1 with a cap at X will now start at, say, 10 with a cap at X. the cap isnt dropping, the starting rating is INCREASING.

i'm not sure which comes first in recruit generation (the cap or the start rating) but it just might be the cap, which is probably staying the same.

That was my read on it as well. But it's vaguely worded.

that is terribly optimistic and not in line with past events...
the way I read it is that those abilities that start at 1 will never be high potential. not an improvement.

+1

Posted by hitman1979 on 2/2/2011 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 2/2/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jbasnight on 2/2/2011 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 2/2/2011 12:58:00 PM (view original):
EVERYBODY CHILL OUT A SECOND YOURE LOOKING AT IT BACKWARDS

i bet that this is the change: players who previously would have started at 1 with a cap at X will now start at, say, 10 with a cap at X. the cap isnt dropping, the starting rating is INCREASING.

i'm not sure which comes first in recruit generation (the cap or the start rating) but it just might be the cap, which is probably staying the same.

That was my read on it as well. But it's vaguely worded.

that is terribly optimistic and not in line with past events...
the way I read it is that those abilities that start at 1 will never be high potential. not an improvement.

+1

I have a tough time, even in this global climate of idiocy, to intepret ambiguous statements as effecting the most ludicrous result.

I have to believe jet is right.

Not that I expect folks to be interested, but I noted my initial thoughts on the new changes below in bold. 

Full list of changes:

• On the Conference tab of Player and Team stat Leaders "Only Conference Stats" now defaults to off instead of on - ok, I guess, no big deal.
• Reduced average FT grade for new recruits - not a huge fan
• For new recruits, increased averages for most other individual ratings across the board to raise the overall average - only a specific range of recruits needed this IMHO. If it is across the board it may be overcorrection and unbalance  D  II...
• Added a fix so that recruits won't be generated with very low start rating and average/high potential - I'm guessing here, admittedly, but I doubt recruits will suddenly stop having a 1 rating in things, so now those with that 1 rating will have no hope of improvement? Not a fan. Wasn't crazy about all the centers with HH potential in their 1 PER, but I'm not sure this is the answer.
• Fixed a display bug where a player on the wrong team is listed as running out the clock - Never seen it, but sounds good.
• Minor improvements to some last second logic - no way to evaluate
• Improved logic on outcomes of last second possessions, to include fewer turnovers/fouls - unable to evaluate without observation
• Slightly lowered FG% on last-second shots - unable to evaluate without observation
• Increased steals -  no real opinion until observation in game
• Fixed a bug where in certain situations centers were being incorrectly favored to get rebounds - ok
• Lowered 2-point and 3-point FG% - initially not a fan, but many will be. I recognize % are higher than RL, but I was ok with it, obviously that will change...
• Small reduction to fatigue rate - again not a huge fan (will need to see what kind of impact the "small" reduction makes. With this and the change in steals is there a worry that FCP will become unbalanced again? Also diminishes the advantages of recruiting a strong 10-12 man team and using all the players interchangeably (bench depth) and favors those with a shallow bench.
• Improved timeout logic -  unable to evaluate until observed
• Double teams are now re-evaluated each possession instead of only on lineup changes to account for the leading scorer changing -  should have been all along
• Assists raised significantly -  cosmetic
• Adjusted distribution of assists by position -  cosmetic
• fixed a bug where tempo was not reverting back to normal settings at the start of OT if the engine had adjusted it late in regulation -  good fix

So, many changes that are hard to evaluate until observation which we'll have to reserve judgement on, and those that I am able to form an opinion on I am either neutral about or not crazy about. Everyone knows the list of things that a lot of folks are looking for, I won't bother to list them here.

Implementing a change like this with so many variables into the game mid season is irresponsible and shows a lack of empathy for the customers IMHO. These changes are during the NT in one world, and in my 2 worlds that are playing games right now we are 5-6 games from NT. Too late in the season IMO to introduce an engine that potentially will alter team's efficiency and effectiveness this close to the post-season without enough time for evaluation...

"Added a fix so that recruits won't be generated with very low start rating and average/high potential"

i don't like this at all. if a coach wants to grab a pf/c with a per of 1 with high potential and dump practice minutes into that category then let it be. why does this have to change? is it a big deal? no, but its just another piece of strategy that has been eliminated to dumb down the game just a bit more.

I'm a little worried about the press with the steals and fatigue.  Right now it seems like the defenses are reasonably balanced.  I don't want to see it go back to where it becomes difficult for non-pressing teams to compete with pressing teams unless they are significantly more talented overall.

Posted by girt25 on 2/2/2011 12:22:00 PM (view original):
The fix in bold is actually not a fix -- it's taking an issue and making it worse.

Right now, there's an issue because those first handful of points of development happen at an absolutely glacial pace that makes no sense. I've spoke w. seble about this before and he has acknowledged this.

So instead of simply speeding up that pace a bit (which is a clear and easy solution) ... they're now going to make it so that all low starting values also have low potential? Seriously?!

They're making the problem worse. I don't get it.

seble has commented before that it is not clear or easy to just speed up the growth at the bottom of the scale.  In fact, he said it would require totally rewriting the attribute growth algorithm as I recall.

it would be nice to let worlds know about these changes a full season in advance of implementing them so coaches could have a season to try and gear their teams towards being able to work under the new changes....instead of 48 hours in advance.

like dahs im worried about possible over-corrections making press a dominant D.....i just spent 22 games changing my defense at a school i just took over to m2m, and based on what im reading now, i'm regretting that decision and had we had some more heads up about the changes that were coming i probably would have gone a different direction.

I'm interested in the numbers, especially those (steals FG%) that have an actual impact on an outcome.  The mistake in looking at universal averages and comparing those to real life is that irl the bottom teams are more competitive than the bottom teams in hd. 

In HD there are 60-70% sims and several human coached teams who don't even log on.  Walk-ons are plenty with many sims and the passive humans taking on 2,3 or even more walk-ons.  That might be the equivalent to 5-6 redshirts irl leaving only 9-10 scholarship players active .  The passive humans also have ineligibles to deal with.  Those factors contribute to (or should contribute to) less competitive lower end teams. 

Hopefully the data used to evaluate these changes compared the Top 100 teams in HD and the Top 100 irl and not overall averages in HD versus rl.

in regards to REB - the C getting all the bulk of rebounds that is - sure i am fine with them being better distributed...my post was in regards to the way REB as a rating is being handled.  IMO it's been diminished to the point of almost being a marginal rating of importance...there are guys with 50-70 REB easily pulling the same boards as the 80-90 guys...i have a SG with a 1 REB with high ATH/SPE who is averaging 1.6 REBs a game.  he's pulled down 5 boards in 2 games and 2-3 boards in several others.  this change sounds like he might actually have a chance at more boards.

Dac, the end game situations are actually really easy to evaluate if you paid attention to how bad the end game logic was before. In a 1 week span I had 3 games end where I was down by 1 possesion with one of my big men double dribbling or carrying with 0 time left, and this is something I have never seen happen in real life. Also had a game end where I was down by 3 my center got a defensive rebound and dribbled to half court and heaved up a shot instead of calling a timeout or passing to a guard. I've had games where my best 3 point shooters were reserves and down by 3 with a minimal amount of time they were not subbed in. Another thing I noticed about end game situations was so often if you got the ball down by 3 points or less with less than 35 seconds left your team would hold for 1 shot more times than not. All these things will be easy to see if they were fixed.