Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 2/11/2009I did not play college basketball, but I've played my entire life including organized high school ball. I'm pretty sure that I could spent 10 hours a day practicing my ballhandling and I'll never be as good as Chris Paul. There are physical limitations. For ball handling, hand/eye coordination, size and strength of hands, body balance, etc. will determine your ultimate potential.

I would also argue that any improvement is still part of your potential, so there's no reason not to have a hard cap.

I agree with your analogy Seble, but to use your same analogy: If you practiced 10 hours a day, you WOULD still improve.....albeit at a slower rate.

But Im isolating one skill (i.e. BH). To be as good as Chris Paul, you would have to have great speed and quickness. Those are skills that should NEVER improve at a fast rate.

I have a SG for SMU (Tark) that has improved 7 points in Speed and 1 in BH. Seems backwards to me.

Quote: Originally Posted By bradshaw3001 on 2/11/2009

Quote: Originally posted by itsjimmy on 2/11/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By bradshaw3001 on 2/11/2009One big thing about players reaching their potential cap in real life... most basketball players don't reach their full potential until their late 20's... well after they've graduated college. So what are we supposed to understand about the "real life" example of you being a 70 BH and being unable to improve once you reach that cap? Is every HD player just going to reach their physical prime at age 22?

This is why caps are not only completely impractical, but also unrealistic. Potential should be more of a rate of improvement than a total maximum placed upon abilities

In HD though, there is no game beyond college. If they don't hit their potential now, they really never will. I think of it more like a college potential, and not a potential for their skills throughout their life. Their ratings are based upon a college scale.

Explain this to the guys at D1 schools who lose players early to the NBA

Doesn't make a difference. They reached their max "college" potential.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 2/11/2009

Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 2/11/2009
. . . but after two years you'd end up at 74 to 76 sure not much if any growth in two years time but it gives us something to use practice minutes on otherwise once its capped we are stuck keeping 8 lousy minutes in it hoping it doesn't decrease.

But if I were able to exceed 70, then that means my potential was higher than 70 to begin with.

I think there's some confusion because under the current rate of improvement, it's hard not to hit potential in every category. Once we slow down the rate of improvement, you won't necessarily be maxing everything out, even after 4 years.

seble also wrote:

"I did not play college basketball, but I've played my entire life including organized high school ball. I'm pretty sure that I could spent 10 hours a day practicing my ballhandling and I'll never be as good as Chris Paul. There are physical limitations. For ball handling, hand/eye coordination, size and strength of hands, body balance, etc. will determine your ultimate potential.

I would also argue that any improvement is still part of your potential, so there's no reason not to have a hard cap. "

my thought is this: what is chris paul's BH rating? since we now know HD ratings can get above 100, isn't he like a 120? and i think the idea would be that you, say a bad d3 talent, would have a BH potential around 40 or 50... but when you concentrated on it in practice, wouldn't you always improve at least a little (given enough minutes)? so you might slow down a ton at 45, then over a season, with 20 minutes a day, gain 2-3-4 points?

i don't think the issue is even the hard caps, but their levels-- I have a SF at NC State who was average potential for rebounding, but low to start with (25 or 26 i think). He is now at 31 and capped out at the beginning of his soph season. It seems that if I wanted to practice him a ton in REB (maybe even to the detriment of other skills), I would be able to improve him somewhat in the next 3 seasons...

(how in the world was this average potential to begin with is a whole 'nother question)

All im saying Jimmy is their is possibility to program a random factor type equation. We don't think every players has to hit their potential, but the ones who do, it seems a little risiculous that a guy stops completley in his 50's. I also liked the idea of "bust" players. They don't have to be horrible bust to completly annoy coaches, but just the thought that not every player will hit his potential is another random factor. At this point WE should be a determining factor if a player can or can't exceed his potential considering it seems almost useless under the current system.

seble i enjoy the priviliage of being able to discuss the games development here and get feedback. thank you

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 2/11/2009seble i enjoy the priviliage of being able to discuss the games development here and get feedback. thank yo

agreed. cheers.

Whether this tweak is successful or not. The important part, Seble, is that you are active and conversing with the players and trying to improve the game. That is the important thing. All of us will be understanding to the extreme so long as we feel like there is someone behind the curtain who cares. And you seem to care alot.

Thank You

I have to agree with all the above messages that there is someone to acknowledge the the users.

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

yes this makes me feel much better about my purchase of a ten pack the other day . . . lol - on to another note seble i would really appreciate your thoughts on my idea that many have agreed with.

College basketball abilities should not have caps. Players are already only there for a finite amount of time (4 years), so the only cap should be time. A guy can only improve a certain amount because he only has 4 years to do so. If you want to imagine HD in a vacuum, and have every player exist only for 4 years, then this ceases to be a COLLEGE basketball simulation. In real life college sports are played by young men and women who have not reached their physical peak, and won't do so until after college (in most cases). And I'm not just talking about guys who go pro and turn into stars after a few years (like the way Danny Granger has blossomed in his 4th year in the NBA)

My friend played college hockey but was never even close to NHL material. Since graduation he has played in adult leagues (as have I, but he plays at a much higher level). Last month we were talking about recent games, and we both commented about how much better we were as players now, and joked about how we could've gone back to college (and high school for me) and just pummeled the opposition.

I also would like to thank Seble for being open to hearing our thoughts on this or any matter.

ok i didn't even read your entire post but we aren't discussing whether we are going to have caps or not. caps are here and are used to create different caliber of players. they aren't going away.

When players graduate college they are still improving. It's not like Darren Collison has a limit to how good he can be this year, because the great thing about college sports is: the players are ever-evolving. Theoretically, the highest level you can reach in college is your last game... because you're still growing and maturing.

Bradshaw,

Like zhawks just said, there are caps and they aren't going anywhere. I'm not saying there is no life after college basketball, but you have to look at it from an HD perspective. The rating system is built upon the college game, and the college game only. An 80 in HD might turn to a 50 in the NBA, but that doesn't really matter because this game is just college basketball and nothing more.

So yes, in a way, you have to look at HD in a vacuum. The caps are staying, which makes the ratings system college based, and nothing more.