Quote: Originally posted by dcfonzie on 1/06/2010Man, that colonels19 dude complains about a lot of ****!

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/06/2010
it is frankly irrational to pick one game out of 5 thousand a day and claim the engine is broken. this was probably not even the worst example of the day. neither game was even close to the worst of the day on their respective days, i would guess. You're really making my point for me then...you say I'm picking 1 game out of 5000 like this and telling me not to judge the sim on one game, yet you're telling me that this happens more often and worse than said example thus excessive randomness must be a problem. You guys have given reasons attempting to justify said 43 point swing, I've conceded those as making some difference, however I still don't think it would make up 20 buckets, thus still making the situation unjustifiable in my eyes. If there are more unjustifiable situations, then that just further backs my viewpoint.

and you continue to avoid the concrete questions and path. I gave you my answer, just because its not specific to one of your questions/points doesn't make it any less valid. My answer explains perfectly what I want from HD.maybe because you know you recognize you can't dispute those points? The deal isn't that their are outliers, its how and why these outliers happened...if I thought it was do to normal and not extreme randomness, I would have never piped up. you do realize accepting this game does NOT validate your points in anyway does not discount your conclusion? that requires a much, much larger analysis than a single game (similarly, so does supporting it). the sad part is, in a community where (presumably) most people feel there are not additional random factors on top of those required (like, does the shot go in? who gets the rebound?) I urge you to take a look at the OK I GET IT THREAD, you are arguing against one of the few who makes a case for their existence. i am not arguing against your conclusion, but the path you are claiming gets you there is a sham, and its dead obvious to everybody else. There are people in the other thread that carry the same stance as I do. This one game output a bizarre, unjustifiable result and I'm supposed to think that all is well with the game just because this only happens "every once in a while"...please. Like I said, if this kind of thing happens ONCE, its a problem.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/06/2010i think you sum up the entirety of the error in your logic with these two statements:
"You guys have given reasons attempting to justify said 43 point swing, I've conceded those as making some difference, however I still don't think it would make up 20 buckets, thus still making the situation unjustifiable in my eyes." - nobody is saying anything like a 43 point swing would be the average case if you simmed that pair a couple thousand times. but it would definitely happen a number of times. That still doesn't address whether excessive randomness was in effect here or not, and judging by the wild results, it seems to be. And guess what Billy...when we drop $13 down for this game, our games don't get simmed 2000 times and the average gets chosen, it sims ONCE and that's the result that we base our judgments on. The circumstances suggest extreme randomness was at work here.

"Like I said, if this kind of thing happens ONCE, its a problem." - i would go as far as to call that delusional. if something has a 1 in 1,000 or 1 in ten thousand chance, and you sim thousands a day, it is inevitably going to come up eventually. claiming the opposite is denying reality. If things happen under normal, regular randomness, then fine...that doesn't seem to be the case here...thus every time extreme randomness happens where the RNG clusters causing one team to bizarrely out perform another, then you have a problem. I'm not saying you wouldn't see a variety of results if you simmed the same game 1000 times, however that isn't what happens, and that does nothing to prove or disprove extreme/excessive randomness which is on trial here. You saying that there'd be a bunch of different results adds nothing to this argument.

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/06/2010Your the only one who doesn't see it as justifiable I guess. We pointed out multiple points as well as the bell curve that could count up to the 40 points. Also why is it alright in your case but not his then? You both have teams that have your concrete ratings like you say.

You are wrong that the 40 point swing can not be seen as just a big sort of upset and not taking the evidence presented to you. So if your game was not excessive than his is not either. Its one or the other as a 40 point shift is a 40 point shift, and you have ratings that are concrete just like his.

In the end ratings, the IQ/defensive change, match ups, tempo, and just a simple bit of luck made up for it all. Like its been said HCA was a D so that did nothing really at all. You have to accept this. Even if the change in match-ups and IQ/D Change only account for 12 baskets thats 24 of the 40 points. So now there is only a 8 basket variable which is not that large at all.

If you want less randomness than that leave HD and I truly mean that at this point. Wait for the new beta to be completed and come back and try it then. If your in the beta make your voice heard there instead as that is where the improvements will come from

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/06/2010

I don't want less randomness, I want consistent randomness all the time.

consistent randomness

military music

quiet noise

......randomness is consistent ONLY in large aggregations of events

Quote: Originally posted by metsmax on 1/06/2010talk about upsets - Leeds 1, Man United 0....Man United out of the FA cup at the hands of a DIII opponent - Soccer Dynasty is broken!!!  ooops, real life....

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/06/2010I don't want less randomness, I want consistent randomness all the time

Quote: Originally posted by gillispie on 1/06/2010colonels, btown's overall rating was 4 points lower than his opponent. and he lost by 2. according to your earlier arguments, that is essentially exactly what you would expect. what changed to cause such a monumental turn around?