FG% still too high, they going to fix this? Topic

isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by metsmax on 10/8/2010 8:55:00 AM (view original):
I worry about the phenomenon of the second best - the most important thing in my view is that the game be playable and resemble real life.  The stats dont have to match.  If one tries to make a particular stat match, one runs the risk of skewing others or reducing game playability.

I dont know where this comes out for FG %, but I hope there is not a shotgun fix in which shooting is just cut back with a cleaver
Agreed.  Besides, I think rebounding is a bigger problem anyway.
10/8/2010 9:59 AM
jayhawks2130
Posts: 60 (0)
All Star
31 5 4
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 10/8/2010 9:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by metsmax on 10/8/2010 8:55:00 AM (view original):
I worry about the phenomenon of the second best - the most important thing in my view is that the game be playable and resemble real life.  The stats dont have to match.  If one tries to make a particular stat match, one runs the risk of skewing others or reducing game playability.

I dont know where this comes out for FG %, but I hope there is not a shotgun fix in which shooting is just cut back with a cleaver
Agreed.  Besides, I think rebounding is a bigger problem anyway.
YES ISACK! Rebounding is so weird now, the reobounding margins are so close now as apposed to the old engine where margins were much bigger and more often. Every game now for me when i check the box scores the rebounding is something like 33-34.....35-32.....32-29.....30-30...  the old engine i remembered being out rebounded by 52! Haha im not saying it should be that high but i liked it when i had a significant advantage on the boards but didnt outrebound the other team by 2.
10/8/2010 10:37 AM
mizzou77
Posts: 333 (0)
Hall of Famer
135 2
Prospect
not sure about the rebounding... but across all worlds in every conference with humans... the FG% records as well as 3pt FG% records are being re-written.

Look at your own teams history for individual FG%.... then look across your entire conference..... after 40+ seasons in every world.... all of a sudden guys are shooting at record clips for their careers and part of their careers were in the old engine.

I'm not saying it's good or bad.... (I just don't care anymore), just saying it's there
10/8/2010 10:47 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
I have some pretty good players, and while my bigs are shooting slightly better, I think my 68 ath/90+ LP D3 post should be shooting 57%-60%.  I'm sure shooting is up slightly, but as metsmax said, artificially lowering it could simply ruin other things.  Personally, I think the actual gameplay engine is the best it has been in a long time, although it's not perfect.

I'll start a new thread for rebounding.
10/8/2010 10:54 AM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
Posted by jayhawks2130 on 10/8/2010 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 10/8/2010 9:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by metsmax on 10/8/2010 8:55:00 AM (view original):
I worry about the phenomenon of the second best - the most important thing in my view is that the game be playable and resemble real life.  The stats dont have to match.  If one tries to make a particular stat match, one runs the risk of skewing others or reducing game playability.

I dont know where this comes out for FG %, but I hope there is not a shotgun fix in which shooting is just cut back with a cleaver
Agreed.  Besides, I think rebounding is a bigger problem anyway.
YES ISACK! Rebounding is so weird now, the reobounding margins are so close now as apposed to the old engine where margins were much bigger and more often. Every game now for me when i check the box scores the rebounding is something like 33-34.....35-32.....32-29.....30-30...  the old engine i remembered being out rebounded by 52! Haha im not saying it should be that high but i liked it when i had a significant advantage on the boards but didnt outrebound the other team by 2.
Agree 100%. Some smarter coaches are going with ridiculously smaller lineups knowing the new engine won't penalize them enough.
10/8/2010 11:05 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Posted by kmasonbx on 10/7/2010 10:36:00 PM (view original):
Again billy, why does it matter that players across the board are shooting better? If everybody is shooting better, then it affects everybody the same and therefore is a wash. In fact IMO the higher shooting % make the game more enjoyable, because when reading a pbp you see your team making more shots, and it makes it possible to have superstar players. As I pointed to above, why complain about the shooting percentages not being like real life but don't complain about the many other things that aren't exaclty real life.
+1
10/8/2010 11:13 AM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
It's funny that people are bringing up rebounding because I kind've just realized this after last night's set of games. It seems nearly impossible to outrebound teams by more than 3 or 4 in the new engine. This is a far bigger problem then fixing FG% which doesn't hurt anybody. The rebounding issue will clearly have negative impact for some coaches and positive impact for others for obvious reasons while this silly FG% debate is just cosmetic. I also find it odd that nobody has stated to them why it matters that FG% matchup with real life while other stats don't even come close.
10/8/2010 11:20 AM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Posted by kmasonbx1 on 10/7/2010 11:12:00 AM (view original):
I honestly don't get why it matters. If it's higher for everybody then nobody has an advantage. Why does it have to be exactly inline with real life, simply because it's based on real life. There is already plenty that doesn't mirror real life, like the impossility (is that a word?) of freshman being dominant, or even sophs. If people are goign to complain about FG% being too high then why is nobody complaining about assists being too low or shot blocks being too low? Has anybody ever averaged 8 assists a game in HD or 4 blocks per? Just about every season there is at least 1 person putting up those kind of #s in real life but I've never seen it in HD.
+1
10/8/2010 12:32 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
I agree mully, if that's the case then something needs to be done. However it seems mostly everybody is just saying FG% needs to be adjusted for the sole purpose that it doesn't match up with real life, which IMO is an absurd reason to "fix" it. I however do think there is a difference between a 50 defender and 80 defender, at least from what I can tell.
10/8/2010 1:00 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 836 2
Pro
I would like to apologize for my mixed metaphor - shotgun and cleaver....
10/8/2010 1:22 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Here goes my attempt to show FG% is fine as long as you have solid defensive players and gameplan well. Here are my 5 teams defensive FG%, I play zone on all of my teams.

California Santa Cruz - 30 games #9 SOS 42.5FG% and 34.4 3pt%
West Virginia - 11 games #14 SOS  44.7FG% and 35.4 3pt%
Truman St. - 11 games #182 SOS 43.4 FG% and 32.7 3pt%
Fitchburg St. - 7 games (no official SOS but it sucks) 40.0FG% and 33.3 3pt%
Bryant - 5 games (same as above but slightly toughter)  43.7% and 38.1 3pt%.

All teams have excellent FG% defense and the only team that is weak in any area is my 3pt% with Bryant.
10/8/2010 1:41 PM
jayhawks2130
Posts: 60 (0)
All Star
31 5 4
Prospect
I think there is an obvious correlation between higher FG% and smaller rebounding differences because with higher shooting %es then theres less to rebound so if both teams shoot high percentages then rebounds will be the same. In the old engine FG% percentages were much lower resulting in larger rebounding margins.
10/8/2010 2:07 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect

While in theory that's true I'm not so sure in practice it is. Reason being in the new engine there are more shots taken so even if teams are shooting a higher percentage there are still a similar amount of rebounding opportunities.

10/8/2010 2:17 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
On a smart phone so I'm not quoting all the replies... Whoever called me on 4-5ppg on 70ppg avg as 15%, yeah I can't imagine what I was thinking. The percentage points make more sense anyway, about a 10% discrepency, which is still pretty large IMO considering that is avg - thus worst case deviation is likely much higher.

Kmason - I am not suggesting the fg gap is unfair to anyone in particular. The issue is a critical part of the success of this game is that the core sim engine feels realistic. I suppose this is an opinion, but I think most people strongly agree. It's almost by definition of a "basketball simulation" that the game simulation itself is, well, simulating real basketball :)

The second issue I raised has nothing to do with the current levels but is more of a general complaint about the numerous issues that have seen radical adjustment - this is not the kind of game to be making radical adjustments like increasing the fg% of bigs by a quarter. I feel a clear pattern has emerged here and that is a bigger concern to me that any single issue. Fatigue at the new engine release was a bombshell - the downside of low fatigue at least changed by a factor of two, and IMO significantly more. You can't take a game that relies on a stable sim engine and take something as core as fatigue and have a several fold increase in penalties! And of course there was the foul increase that radically increased fouls for pressing teams. The biggest complaint today may be d1 recruit generation, which has the exact same issue - overcompensation.

On the positive side, I don't feel any of these radical changes were in the wrong direction (thankfully!) but often the overcorrection leave us worse off than we started.
10/8/2010 6:31 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
FG% still too high, they going to fix this? 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.