New release - Page 3 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 893 (0)

Hall of Famer

179 1

Rookie

my thoughts on the 2 things everyone is all worked up about:

1) i thought this could be read as average-high potential as opposed to high-high potential. so you might get a guy with 1 hi-hi but no more 1 med-hi.

no chance?

2) on REB, this worries me-- count me in the jj camp of people who think the REB rating itself has been taken too far out of the equation. If this is going to send more boards away from my high-REB C to you crummy-REB SF or G, I don't like it. but who the hell knows?

EDIT, from seble in other thread re #1:

With regard to the change to low start ratings: I'm not changing the upper limits, just basically bumping up the start rating to the point where improvement will be more reasonable. So for example, instead of a guy with a 2 rating in Defense with a max of 58, now he would be maybe an 11 rating with a max of 58. This is temporary fix until there's time to redo the player improvement logic, which would be a major change.

2/2/2011 3:09 PM (edited)

reinsel

Posts: 927 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 130

Rookie

Yay on #1

2/2/2011 3:14 PM

kmasonbx

Posts: 847 (0)

Hall of Famer

210

Prospect

Posted by wronoj on 2/2/2011 3:09:00 PM (view original):
my thoughts on the 2 things everyone is all worked up about:

1) i thought this could be read as average-high potential as opposed to high-high potential. so you might get a guy with 1 hi-hi but no more 1 med-hi.

no chance?

2) on REB, this worries me-- count me in the jj camp of people who think the REB rating itself has been taken too far out of the equation. If this is going to send more boards away from my high-REB C to you crummy-REB SF or G, I don't like it. but who the hell knows?

EDIT, from seble in other thread re #1:

With regard to the change to low start ratings: I'm not changing the upper limits, just basically bumping up the start rating to the point where improvement will be more reasonable. So for example, instead of a guy with a 2 rating in Defense with a max of 58, now he would be maybe an 11 rating with a max of 58. This is temporary fix until there's time to redo the player improvement logic, which would be a major change.

Glad to see the optimists were right about #1. Don't mind the change at all in that context. As far as #2 goes I'm looking at it as the way things are set up now that if you have two 99 rebounders with the ath/sp and same IQ the guy playing center will get more rebounds on average than the guy playing PF. So now if you have two equally good rebounders playing C/PF then their rebound rate should now be pretty similar.

2/2/2011 3:14 PM

wronoj

Posts: 893 (0)

Hall of Famer

179 1

Rookie

that's fine, but i really don't care who gets that rebound, as long as the right TEAM is getting it. I am sick of having theoretically dominant REB teams get stomped on the boards.

2/2/2011 3:19 PM

utahjazz88

Posts: 44 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 92 1 13

Prospect

Posted by wronoj on 2/2/2011 3:09:00 PM (view original):
my thoughts on the 2 things everyone is all worked up about:

1) i thought this could be read as average-high potential as opposed to high-high potential. so you might get a guy with 1 hi-hi but no more 1 med-hi.

no chance?

2) on REB, this worries me-- count me in the jj camp of people who think the REB rating itself has been taken too far out of the equation. If this is going to send more boards away from my high-REB C to you crummy-REB SF or G, I don't like it. but who the hell knows?

EDIT, from seble in other thread re #1:

With regard to the change to low start ratings: I'm not changing the upper limits, just basically bumping up the start rating to the point where improvement will be more reasonable. So for example, instead of a guy with a 2 rating in Defense with a max of 58, now he would be maybe an 11 rating with a max of 58. This is temporary fix until there's time to redo the player improvement logic, which would be a major change.

wronoj, for #2 that is not how the fix is going to work. What's going to happen now is that the better rebounding player will get more rebounds regardless of position. (at least between PF and C). Before, the C was getting more rebounds and it had nothing to do with his rebounding skills. It was a built-in advantage in the system to give Cs a better chance to get a rebound. Now, an equally rated rebounding PF and C should get about the same amount of rebounds, instead of the C always getting more rebounds than that PF.

2/2/2011 3:20 PM

utahjazz88

Posts: 44 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 92 1 13

Prospect

Posted by wronoj on 2/2/2011 3:19:00 PM (view original):
that's fine, but i really don't care who gets that rebound, as long as the right TEAM is getting it. I am sick of having theoretically dominant REB teams get stomped on the boards.

The right team wasn't always getting the rebound. Now it will be more accurate. If your team had a 99 rated REB at PF and the other team had a 99 rated REB at C, in the old engine, the C would be getting an unfair advantage over the PF. That C would get more rebounds just because he was playing the C position. Now, the actual rebounding stats should be more reflective of the actual ratings.

2/2/2011 3:24 PM

dacj501

Posts: 4779 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 305

Pro

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 2/2/2011 2:49:00 PM (view original):
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.

km, I agree, I just mean that I couldn't have any opinion on the change until we see it applied, and on some other changes I was able to have a (sometimes inaccurate as seble's update indicates on the 1 rating/HH thing) opinion based on what was provided...

2/2/2011 3:39 PM

wronoj

Posts: 893 (0)

Hall of Famer

179 1

Rookie

Posted by utahjazz88 on 2/2/2011 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wronoj on 2/2/2011 3:19:00 PM (view original):
that's fine, but i really don't care who gets that rebound, as long as the right TEAM is getting it. I am sick of having theoretically dominant REB teams get stomped on the boards.
The right team wasn't always getting the rebound. Now it will be more accurate. If your team had a 99 rated REB at PF and the other team had a 99 rated REB at C, in the old engine, the C would be getting an unfair advantage over the PF. That C would get more rebounds just because he was playing the C position. Now, the actual rebounding stats should be more reflective of the actual ratings.

utah, i hope you are right, but don't really have a good concept of how rebounds are determined at this point-- I'm not convinced that they don't do a team rating and then dole them out to individual players. I'm not convinced they do, either, but...

what's your idea of the formula that determines who gets a REB?

2/2/2011 3:44 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by Rails on 2/2/2011 2:16:00 PM (view original):
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.

Rails, I don't disagree with your points as statements of fact.

That said, I think the actual talent differential between high-end and low end teams is WAY, WAY more significant in real life, and this balances out (or perhaps more than balances out, imho) the items you brought up.

2/2/2011 4:10 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Posted by utahjazz88 on 2/2/2011 12:41:00 PM (view original):
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.

utah, I didn't say there wasn't a problem with centers getting more rebounds. (I specifically said "it was an issue".)

But imho this isn't even close to the biggest problem effect rebounding, which is that reb rating doesn't have a large enough impact on who gets rebounds. I consistently see teams that should be fantastic on the boards faring no better than teams w. crappy rebounding. Just saying that's the bigger problem right now.

2/2/2011 4:12 PM

jjboogie

Posts: 48 (0)

Hall of Famer

72 6

Prospect

^^^

+++++++++1 big time

what's hard for me to understand is how readily they have avoided this topic. if they want to say, it's working as we want it to work and we're okay with that 1 REB SG getting 5 boards in several games because he has ATH/SPE, that's fine (i'll disagree with the logic of course). however, they continue to just dodge the question (they did in the last chat and it's not addressed in this development release either).

i think the way REB works is so out of whack compared to the old engine it's night and day - i'd like to them to at least admit it and explain their logic on "why" it works they want it to

2/2/2011 5:23 PM (edited)

kmasonbx

Posts: 847 (0)

Hall of Famer

210

Prospect

Posted by girt25 on 2/2/2011 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by utahjazz88 on 2/2/2011 12:41:00 PM (view original):
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.
utah, I didn't say there wasn't a problem with centers getting more rebounds. (I specifically said "it was an issue".)

But imho this isn't even close to the biggest problem effect rebounding, which is that reb rating doesn't have a large enough impact on who gets rebounds. I consistently see teams that should be fantastic on the boards faring no better than teams w. crappy rebounding. Just saying that's the bigger problem right now.

I think you are overstating it a bit. From what I can tell teams with great rebounding will consistently outrebound weaker rebounding teams but never by a huge margin. You used to see teams getting outrebounded by 20+ but I can't remember the last time I saw that happen. A common theme you see is a 50 reb team outrebounds a 35 reb team by 7 whereas in the past it would probably on average be about a 12 rebound disparity.

2/2/2011 5:32 PM

courtmagic

Posts: 483 (0)

Hall of Famer

213 30

Prospect

Posted by girt25 on 2/2/2011 3:26:00 PM (view original):
And seble, the one other question that seems to be prevalent is whether recruit ratings are being raised a bit for DI only, or across the board. Because not only do I think it's not necessary at DII/DIII, I think it would be detrimental.

If you raised the ratings abit for recruits from, say #15 or #20-100 at each position, I think that would be absolutely perfect.

It would address the big issue -- gross inequality between the have and have nots at DI. It would also serve to create more of a divide between low/mid DI recruits and DII recruits, when right now there really isn't one. (It's not uncommon to see a BCS or mid-major take a recruit from a DII school.) And it wouldn't further overinflate the ratings of DII/DIII players.

I posted this in Seble's Thread (Thursday 2/3 Release) and thought I would bring it over hear as well.

In regards to all the changes, I will go over them later, but for now I will address this one. I have to agree with Girt on this, but I will word it differently. My opinion is not neccessarily a complaint one way or the other to the new fixes, but just an observation I have made the last 2 or 3 seasons here in D11 Allen World.

So here goes... One of the 2 or 3 things that has bothered me the most is that there isn't any division between upper level D11 recruits and low level D1 recruits. This last recruiting season (47 in Allen) is a good example. Instead of battling (MPollen at Lander as an example) for a recruit in the 500 to 540 range, we both were constantly battling low level D1 SIM teams with a D/D- prestige. There needs to be a division/gap of say 50 or 100 points between upper D11 and lower D1. I wouldn't change anything in the D111 and D11 recruit generation, just the D1 generation. Before the last change, D111 recruits use to average between 400 & 490 and currently they average between 390 & 480. Both are fine. D11 use to be 450 to 550 and currently they are 440 to 540. This is fine also.

My problem is that D1 recruiting starts at 500 and goes up from there to 800. D1 recruits should start at 600 and go up, not 500. Right now the #261 overall & #45 rated PG has a Overall Player Rating of 541. That's way to low of an Overall Player Rating to be Rated as the #45 PG. #50 is at 541, #73 is 538, #77 is 532, etc. The same holds true for SG's, #30 is 559, #39 is 552, #43 is 539, #48 is 548, etc, etc, etc. The same holds true for all the rest of the positions, SF, PF, and Centers. There's no reason D1 teams (any of them) should be scabbing the upper D11 recruits. If the guys in my examples are rated that high (both the overall rated recruit # as well as position rating), their Overall Player Rating scores should be higher to pull them out of the upper level of D11. There's a huge difference in real life between D11, and both levels of D1 (low to mid D1 and upper D1) and there should be in Hoops Dynasty as well.

2/3/2011 12:06 AM (edited)

coach_billyg

Posts: 2072 (0)

Hall of Famer

92

Pro

i agree that REB is broken, but im not sure its broken enough to ask for a fix from seblezilla. its not *that* broken, is it?

2/3/2011 12:43 PM

wronoj

Posts: 893 (0)

Hall of Famer

179 1

Rookie

I think it is. When good teams and coaches have stopped using it as a recruiting metric, I'd say that's enough. And if we now have more steals, and more teams going back to press, even fewer teams will care about it. And yet, they'll pay little to no price for disregarding it.

2/3/2011 2:11 PM

Forums

New release Topic

Search Criteria