Cornfused makes a great point, trouble looms.  What about the stamina point?  Can someone explain what that means?  Why does everything always have to be stated so elliptically?

So does this mean there is almost a single game certainty for performance?  If the results are no longer independent and the in-game results are adjusted to work towards the anticipated average, does that mean a 45% anticpated shooter will only vary between 40-50% on any given night (presuming he shoots, say, at least 8 shoots)?

It could be potentially a bit too calculated this way.  One would expect even a great shooter to have an awful night and extraordinary nights (see Ray Allen in the finals against LA).

This variance change sounds absolutely terrible. Please tell me it's not gonna be as bad as it sounds.

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.

This just seems wrong.  Why should making previous shots impact the next shot in a negative way?  I guess in theory it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it'll make the game work better.  

you guys are ridiculous

if a guy can shoot 2/10 on 45% odds, he can do the same thing on 55% odds

seble didn't say "well anyone that has a bad half is automatic until he's on the right percentage"

We'll see how this works but this looks like it could have big impact on end game situations. Say you are winning by 5 and you have 1 B free throw shooter and everybody else is C- so the B free throw shooter will likely get all of the free throws when being intentionally fouled but he's 6-6 from the line instead of being 75-80% on his free throws he will shoot worse just to get him back to that percentage. On the flip side if a team is down by 8 with 2 minutes left and their 90 per shooter is 1-6 from 3 to that point it would mean he's very likely to get hot and go 4-5 in that span to get his % over 40. Of course it could have the opposite affect and balance things out perfectly and this won't really be a concern.

Don't overreact, you'll still see good games and bad games.  I don't particularly like doing this either, but it's the only way to address sample size issues and produce more expected results.  Like I said, this will not eliminate upsets and will not eliminate the natural ups and downs from game to game.  It should just rein in the extremes.  All I've heard since the May release is complaints about extreme outcomes in games and results not matching expectations, so this is my response to that. 

I do appreciate Seble's continued efforts to improve the game quickly and the good communication lately.

Posted by seble on 8/28/2010 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Don't overreact, you'll still see good games and bad games.  I don't particularly like doing this either, but it's the only way to address sample size issues and produce more expected results.  Like I said, this will not eliminate upsets and will not eliminate the natural ups and downs from game to game.  It should just rein in the extremes.  All I've heard since the May release is complaints about extreme outcomes in games and results not matching expectations, so this is my response to that. 

not exactly all you've heard - you have heard something else at least from one coach - interesting - you still did not answer the questions about do you compare HD variances to real life?  Or did I miss it.  If so, I apologize.

SO performance within a game will tend to regress towards the mean?

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.

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.

im no math guy, but this sounds a little concerning. doing poorly inherently will lead to doing well and vice versa?

No disrespect meant, but please tell us this has thoroughly tested. With 10,000 or 100,000 games played. (Since this is regulaly done for the front page Best of series WIS uses to promote itself) .It has be the history of this game to make major changes without testing. Given that poor record, it would be a travesty to make major changes based on feel. Thanks for the efforts.

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.

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.