Quote: Originally posted by ermackey on 4/29/2010Does "slower improvement" mean that WE will mean less? When they have the chat, I would love to know the answer to this.

Quote: Originally posted by antonsirius on 4/29/2010Hmm... given that a lot of the changes directly address the stuff that caused me to lose interest, I may have to rejoin HD and give it another spin.

Quote: Originally posted by dahsdebater on 4/29/2010The change I really have trouble with is the importance of low post for guards finishing drives.  If you're going to call it "low post" it should be a measure of how good a player's post moves are.  This has absolutely nothing to do with how well a player can finish a drive.  That is based on the players athleticism and "finishing," a rating category that doesn't exist but possibly should.

Quote: Originally posted by achampa1 on 4/29/2010I like 90% of these changes. The one thing I might do, though, is give coaches an option in the practice plan to put minutes into durability practice. As it stands, we have no control over how durability would improve, and if that makes the difference between an impact player being healthy and that same player being injured for big games, that could be an issue.

Other than that, some good changes, especially with rankings. Looking forward to testing it out (I had a team in the BETA world, but I switched computers and lost the link to it in the process).

Quote: Originally posted by arssanguinus on 4/29/2010

Quote: Originally posted by achampa1 on 4/29/2010I like 90% of these changes. The one thing I might do, though, is give coaches an option in the practice plan to put minutes into durability practice. As it stands, we have no control over how durability would improve, and if that makes the difference between an impact player being healthy and that same player being injured for big games, that could be an issue.
Other than that, some good changes, especially with rankings. Looking forward to testing it out (I had a team in the BETA world, but I switched computers and lost the link to it in the process).

Doesn't durability improve as part of conditioning?

* increased focus on individual matchups allowing a coach to exploit mismatches, like a weak defender guarding a great scorer or a poor rebounder battling a great rebounder
* Offensive efficiency improvements. For example, a player's offensive efficiency will decrease when he's getting an unrealistic amount of shots

What if you have a 90+ everything rated player going against a walk-on scrub guarding him in Man. You decide to give him 100% distro since this match-up is so favorable and everywhere else it is not. Will your superstar just be penalized for taking 100% of the shots? I do not like just decreasing offensive efficiency for the sole reason of taking a lot of shots, and I hope it doesn't work that way. I know it doesn't happen a lot, but guys do go off for 30-40 points sometimes, I hope that it doesn't just cap you at 20 points a game and then anything more a guy misses just because he is taking more shots.

There will be a drag, yes. But if he dominates that player by that much, then for the additional shots he'll still be dominating just not by as much. By no means does it cap you at any amount of points.

Right now in the test world, for example, five games in there are twenty players at dI averaging more than 20 points.

It only kicks in when one player is averaging more than fifty percent of all shots when he is on the floor.

See, this is where I see the problem. I don't care if I take 100% of the shots if I am a dominant college player, and I am playing a team of grade schoolers, and all my teammates are gradeschoolers, I don't think my performance would decrease just because I am going to be taking all of the shots. If this is just an automatic thing that kicks in when a player has a high distro and doesn't take into other aspects of the situation then I think it was done in the wrong way.

I actually think this scenario doesn't support your argument at all. If there is no "adjustment factor" then that guy is going to be guarded by a single defender or perhaps doubled sometimes and will shoot 100%. In reality we know eventually all 5 guys on the other team are going to guard this same dude and he'll probably shoot 95%. That's the correction. If one guy starts shooting a huge percentage of his team's shots the players on the other team will figure it out and will multiple cover them

That is what double team should be for, or have an option of "If player takes more than 50% of shots then triple team them". I personally think that to automatically do something negative to a player who takes a lot of shots is the wrong way to handle it. I think improving double team logic or giving us more options to defense would be the way to go. Or actually have a player play to his ratings instead of letting average to bad players score like crazy with good %'s with major distro would be more effective and more like real life. But to have a drag put on a player just because he takes a lot of shots seems wrong to me, because then if a team starts to double or triple team him he would then start to pass to the wide open guys.