New release Topic

kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Full list of changes:
  • On the Conference tab of Player and Team stat Leaders "Only Conference Stats" now defaults to off instead of on
  • Reduced average FT grade for new recruits
  • For new recruits, increased averages for most other individual ratings across the board to raise the overall average
  • Added a fix so that recruits won't be generated with very low start rating and average/high potential
  • Fixed a display bug where a player on the wrong team is listed as running out the clock
  • Minor improvements to some last second logic
  • Improved logic on outcomes of last second possessions, to include fewer turnovers/fouls
  • Slightly lowered FG% on last-second shots
  • Increased steals
  • Fixed a bug where in certain situations centers were being incorrectly favored to get rebounds
  • Lowered 2-point and 3-point FG%
  • Small reduction to fatigue rate
  • Improved timeout logic
  • Double teams are now re-evaluated each possession instead of only on lineup changes to account for the leading scorer changing
  • Assists raised significantly
  • Adjusted distribution of assists by position
  • 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
     

The bolded is the only thing that concerns me. Does this mean for now on guys with ratings of like 10 or lower will always be low potential? I thought it was a good thing that guys could have a 4 rating in pass and end up with 40 if their WE was high enough. Everything else seems good.
2/2/2011 11:48 AM
metsmaniac2
Posts: 557 (0)
Hall of Famer
43 1 4 113 49 21
Prospect
I believe this would only apply to recruits that haven't been generated yet.  Ones that already have, have their potentials assigned.
2/2/2011 11:50 AM
mjp8
Posts: 274 (0)
Hall of Famer
68 1
Rookie
I think it will eliminate things like a SG with a 1 LP rating but High potential that we will never see get high enough.

I like these changes except for the selfish fact that the recruit ratings are going up right after I signed 6 freshmen in the D2 Allen team I just took over.
2/2/2011 11:52 AM
kujayhawk
Posts: 396 (0)
Hall of Famer
203 89
Rookie
I don't like the fix in bold either.

mjp8 is correct that when it starts with 1 it doesn't get high enough.  That said, at the d3 level those lower levels can still be quite valuable.  I'm not pretending he's an amazing player but I'm trying to make this guy into a small forward: www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1685482

The perimeter started at 1 and after a redshirt, it still was only at 8 after the freshman season.  But he still has high potential, it's somewhat starting to take off now and I do think I'll have a decent asset at small forward by the time he's a senior.

I don't think the way the low starting rating, high potential system is working right now but to the extent it does work, it's a nice benefit for a coach willing to put 4/5 years of practice into the category.  I don't think getting rid of the option is at all a preferred choice.
2/2/2011 12:00 PM
jjboogie
Posts: 48 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 6
Prospect
i am amazed there's not some form of at least minor tweak to REB as a whole in regards to the rating versus just the C
2/2/2011 12:13 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
I've had a guy with 1 LP end up with 69. Have another guy on my WVU team that started at 1 and is now up to 55 to begin his senior season. WE was/is really high for both, current guy is at 96 WE and the other was in the high 70s low 80s when he saw the bulk of his improvement. The 69 guy took 2 seasons to get from 1-10 then went from 10-69 over his last 2 seasons. The current guy went from 1-11 over his first two seasons, and saw a 40 improvement last season and 4 more in the offseason.
2/2/2011 12:18 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Posted by jjboogie on 2/2/2011 12:13:00 PM (view original):
i am amazed there's not some form of at least minor tweak to REB as a whole in regards to the rating versus just the C

There is, by tweaking how affective a center rebounds it trickles down to every other position. For example if prior to the release the C was a 50% favorite to get a rebound in a particular situation and is now a 40% favorite it means the other 4 positions have seen the likelihood of them getting rebounds increase.

2/2/2011 12:21 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
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.
2/2/2011 12:22 PM
girt25
Posts: 2136 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 122 1 1
Rookie
Posted by kmasonbx on 2/2/2011 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jjboogie on 2/2/2011 12:13:00 PM (view original):
i am amazed there's not some form of at least minor tweak to REB as a whole in regards to the rating versus just the C

There is, by tweaking how affective a center rebounds it trickles down to every other position. For example if prior to the release the C was a 50% favorite to get a rebound in a particular situation and is now a 40% favorite it means the other 4 positions have seen the likelihood of them getting rebounds increase.

True ... but that supposes that was the main problem w. rebounding, which it wasn't. (Though it was an issue.)
2/2/2011 12:23 PM
namshub
Posts: 280 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 3 308 2 37
Rookie
nice, just in time for the Naismith NT.  now everyone has a built in excuse (the new engine) to lose.  can't wait to see the topics about how teams got screwed due to the engine change just before the NT.  should be interesting. 
2/2/2011 12:24 PM
utahjazz88
Posts: 44 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 92 1 13
Prospect
Posted by girt25 on 2/2/2011 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by kmasonbx on 2/2/2011 12:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jjboogie on 2/2/2011 12:13:00 PM (view original):
i am amazed there's not some form of at least minor tweak to REB as a whole in regards to the rating versus just the C

There is, by tweaking how affective a center rebounds it trickles down to every other position. For example if prior to the release the C was a 50% favorite to get a rebound in a particular situation and is now a 40% favorite it means the other 4 positions have seen the likelihood of them getting rebounds increase.

True ... but that supposes that was the main problem w. rebounding, which it wasn't. (Though it was an issue.)
girt, there was a problem with rebounding.  If you look at all the league leaders in RPG, players playing center make up the entire list.  In the current engine, the guy in the PF spot gets significantly fewer rebounds than the C.  Even with equivalent ratings, the guy playing C gets a lot more rebounds.  So this is a good fix. 
2/2/2011 12:41 PM
childplease
Posts: 143 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 71 2
Prospect
so does this take effect with the recruiting now in Tark? Or are the recruits going to stay the same? Otherwise pretty good updates, IMO.
2/2/2011 12:44 PM
utahjazz88
Posts: 44 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 92 1 13
Prospect
Posted by kmasonbx on 2/2/2011 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Full list of changes:
  • On the Conference tab of Player and Team stat Leaders "Only Conference Stats" now defaults to off instead of on
  • Reduced average FT grade for new recruits
  • For new recruits, increased averages for most other individual ratings across the board to raise the overall average
  • Added a fix so that recruits won't be generated with very low start rating and average/high potential
  • Fixed a display bug where a player on the wrong team is listed as running out the clock
  • Minor improvements to some last second logic
  • Improved logic on outcomes of last second possessions, to include fewer turnovers/fouls
  • Slightly lowered FG% on last-second shots
  • Increased steals
  • Fixed a bug where in certain situations centers were being incorrectly favored to get rebounds
  • Lowered 2-point and 3-point FG%
  • Small reduction to fatigue rate
  • Improved timeout logic
  • Double teams are now re-evaluated each possession instead of only on lineup changes to account for the leading scorer changing
  • Assists raised significantly
  • Adjusted distribution of assists by position
  • 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
     

The bolded is the only thing that concerns me. Does this mean for now on guys with ratings of like 10 or lower will always be low potential? I thought it was a good thing that guys could have a 4 rating in pass and end up with 40 if their WE was high enough. Everything else seems good.
I agree with this.  This is definitely a bad move.  It would be better to leave it as it is.  At least with enough practice time you were able to increase that low rating.  I thought this new recruit generation was supposed to have more players with high potential.  I'd rather them change it so those recruits who would have high potential in a rating of "1" to making those ratings start at 15 instead.  But to just make them not able to improve at all is absurd. 
2/2/2011 12:47 PM
rutley01
Posts: 44 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 90
Prospect
"Double teams are now re-evaluated each possession instead of only on lineup changes to account for the leading scorer changing."

I actually thought double-teaming worked like this the whole time...
2/2/2011 12:56 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
1234 Next ▸
New release 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.