This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Agreed. Just recruit the players, then we assign the positions.

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 5/04/2010Agreed. Just recruit the players, then we assign the positions

How do you account for height differences on O and D? If I'm playing a 6'0 player at C, the other team has a 7'0, then there should be a huge advantage. Is this accounted for?

the current game doesnt take height and weight into account, its all about the player ratings

It should be handled in the recruit generation.

If we run into PGs with 90 Reb / 90 D / 90 Blk, then I'll worry about it. I'd hope that the generation process is solid enough that something like that doesn't occur.

It sounds to me like we might need to venture into 2 separate defensive ratings. Low Post D and Per D.

Quote: Originally posted by kmasonbx on 5/03/2010FSS has been 100% necessary for a while now, this doesn't change anything in that regard.

I disagree. By just looking at a players position and their current ratings, you can guess what their final ratings will be 90% of the time in upper level D1. I have been doing this with int'l recruits with great success. That will no longer be the case. Are you in the test world, kmason? What are your thoughts on what these changes will affect?

Quote: Originally posted by vandydave on 5/03/2010you mistyped "Run the press"

You are incorrect as usual. People are having success running the press because it is easier to recruit players who have high SPD/ATH with current recruit generization. With this change that may not be the case. No longer will you see every top 10 recruit max out in SPD/ATH. You will still be able to run the press effectively, but it will be more difficult finding recruits to fit the mold.

And it has been confirmed right from sebles mouth that the position penalty has been eliminated with this engine release.

You guys are thinking about height the wrong way. It has always been merely window dressing like a HS players ppg. Height plays a factor in what ratings a recruit starts out with. In HD a 7'0 C with 90 SB is just as effective as a 6'9 C with 90 SB. Height does not play in factor in determining effectiveness. Several players in the NBA are better shotblockers at 6'9 then some who are 7'0.

When looking at the RL rankings of BPG, you would not say that Chris Bosh is better at blocking shots because he is 6'10 and D Wade is only 6'4. As it turns out, Wade has a higher BPG then Bosh. In HD Wade might have a 80 in SB while Bosh has a 75. Height is not a determining factor in skill set. Hope that made sense lol

My point is that you should not be able to play a 6'0 at C and be effective against a 7'0 player. If a guard has 80 SB, that should be different if he is playing against a guard or a center. Even D. Wade is not going to have an easy time blocking a shot from a 7'0 player.

Edit: It is easier for Wade to block a shot from behind or rotating off his player. Guarding a C straight up, he is not going to block many shots. If we are getting rid of the position penalty, then height/weight need to have a larger effect.

The point that sully is getting at is that this is system that is driven to produce a result, based on a numeric input (ex. D. Wade gets 1.2 blocks because he has 80 SB). But the result that CAN happen, because the SB value is specific and there is NO penalty, is HOW he would get those blocks. A coach would put him @ PF/C, exploit the SB value of a 6'4 guard against 7' players. When we all know that D. Wade isn't handling D. Howard in the post. He's swatting JJ Reddick's weak drives. :-)

For those that have been around for a long time, when Scoring was split into LP and Per was more practice time given? Just curious with all the splitting defense into 2 categories talk.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 5/04/2010For those that have been around for a long time, when Scoring was split into LP and Per was more practice time given? Just curious with all the splitting defense into 2 categories talk.

No more time was given, but before scoring (or shooting - whatever the rating was called) required the 7+ minutes to maintain, whereas now you can maintain LP/PE with 3-4 minutes.

this is very interesting. I agree with sully. I think the postion penalty needs to be reinstated or height needs to become a factor outside of the effect it has on ratings

I mentioned this to Seble in the test site. He said he is not against having height/weight mean something. What is the consensus on this? It seems to me that it is kinda obvious that if position penalty is removed we should have height/weight mean something but I dont want to have a change made if I'm in the minority.

Edit: Let me just reiterate that I am not asking for the positional penalty to be re-instated. Just want to close any loopholes that could exist.

Definitely height and weight should mean something. Or at the very least add a strength rating.