Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 4/12/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 4/12/2010
Whatever Colonels. Lol, tell me something that I said that was wrong. BTW...where's the 176-24 boxscore, I'd love to see it.

I had forgotten why its pointless to even talk about something with you. Because I won't automatically agree with someone that is inevitably pro-HD? You'll have to do better than, everyone else agrees with me thus you're wrong, because that's an incredibly weak argument. It'd be nice to see you be accountable for the things you say and do at least ONCE in your life.

TO go back to yours, both results by Pitino could LOGICALLY happen. In one game he does really well while not having a 'Foot off the gas' feature and rolls up a 40 point win while they other team was doing very badly. In the other his players did very poorly while the other team did very well. One was at home. The other on the road as well. The ratings of the players changed between the two games. (They were seven games apart.) That means individual players changed. The IQ's of the players changed between the two games. Due to increased stamina, different player combinations were on the court for different periods of the game. When in the game fouls occurred means certain players sat when they didn't sit in the previous game. ALso, Buzbee was in foul trouble and played only 24 minutes Again, is all this enough to justify a 44 point swing? The easy and correct answer is no. Take a look at the gross difference between OTRs as well. 7 days of practice isn't much...a player can gain maybe 5-10 points across the board and maybe a third of a letter grade in IQ? Did I mention that he was playing a SIM_AI!? Did I mention that pitino's HCA is a B and Clark-ATL was a C? There are plenty more reasons of why this shouldn't have happened than why it should have. If you could convince me that this happened because of everyday good/great sim engine output with good/great randomness/rng, then I'll shut up....but unfortunately, all the results point to the fact that this probably didn't happen. If I thought the sim, simmed games the same way all the time, I wouldn't be typing right now. And no this wouldn't beget the same results over and over, I'll even use HRD to prove it.

Many, many things were different between game one and game two. You missed the word TOO in there somewhere. The drastic differences between the games were a friggin joke.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 4/12/2010

Do you even listen to yourself? You just pointed out the differance in HCA, do ya think that MIGHT have an impact on how big Lane won at home? D'ya think? Add that to the switch in defensive positioning and you have a "nothing to see here" issue. Could it have gone Lane's way? Yes, but it shouldn't be preordained. Your logic would have no upsets or surpise blowouts Completely false, and by you saying this, you clearly don't understand my argument. (something that happens in real life). You say 1 outlier is too much? It is. I want each game to run the EXACT SAME WAY as the rest, just with a different set of random numbers, and I don't believe and have no reason to believe that this happens....and if it does work this way, then why doesn't WIS just come out and say it? Then you don't know anything about probability my friend. Zero. Again, the question remains...does all of this stuff justify a 44 point swing, especially against a sim team? I think the easy answer here is NO IT DOESN'T. If I thought this result happened because of normal, every day randomness/engine play, then I would have never said a word, period.

I think your problem is that you DO think you've got the inside track on this game, and you just don't. Absolutely not...this has nothing to do with anyone having any kind of advantage in the game, this purely has to do with acceptable and unacceptable results. If there is a problem, most coachs will agree. A lot of coaches (note the spelling) that I've seen here seem to try to defend the sim at all costs...is that objective? Sometimes CS will agree if you ticket things (I sent one in yesterday about a PG with 27 ATH and 17 BLK, blocking a stud C twice and altering two other shots from a SF while playing man; they agree it was an aboration) Yeah, because they want to pacify you...whatever keeps you playing and in good spirits is a win on their end., but in general one bad loss (or win) isn't going to turn anyone's head except yours and some new folks (and you aren't helping by telling them this is a big issue when it's not). I'm not the only person that bizarre randomness bothers...look at pitino27, HE'S READY TO QUIT BECAUSE OF THIS! Ok, so 1 time is "ok" in your book....how many times does this have to happen until I have a legitimate complaint? I've easily been screwed at least 4 or 5 times in HD...just because they're sporadic I should shut my mouth and keep playing? You're insane....again is it so much to f**king ask that the game run the same way every time without extra/bizarre randomness? You just don't get it man...you don't.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 4/12/2010
What kills me is that you just said in another thread that a team that only had 6 conference losses in the last 12 seasons was impressive. Talk about a major outlier, but you are ok with it because it rewarded the "better team". Probably should send a ticket on those 6 losses though. This is a complete apples to oranges comparison. You're looking at accomplishments across 12 seasons and comparing them to screw jobs that happen in individual games....simply incomparable. I don't see how a team being great for 12 seasons is an "outlier" especially if they have the talent....I mean really, what a pathetic argument.

You rail about one big win or one close loss (take your pick), but are fine with 6 losses in over 200 games. LOL. If you have a problem with a fantastic team in a weak conference going 194-6...then you're insane and you don't even understand what the hell you're arguing. Now if there was an anomoly in one of those 200+ games, then you have a case, but comparing 12 seasons to 1 screw job...please.

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 4/13/2010
You keep saying "screw job." I have a suggestion. If you think the site is screwing you, please leave. I enjoy the game, I just hate these 1 game blips every season that cannot be logically justified. Otherwise, stop filling the forums with your ridiculous conspiracy theories. This is no conspiracy theory, I don't think WIS is out to get anyone, I just think that their engine is subpar for one or a variety of reasons, and bizarre results like the one that pitino27 posted back my thinking. I'm not saying 9-11 was an inside job here, that's a ridiculous CT to begin with. There is absolutely no reason for WiS to program extra randomness into the engine UNLESS THEY THOUGHT IT WAS AN ADVANTAGE. I told you why they would allot for extra randomness earlier, and that would be to simulate the "human element" that you all know and love. I would rather all games be based on normal randomness through the player ratings and if I thought that happened, I wouldn't be here griping, for at least the 10th time. You keep asking why they won't tell you that the game works the way you want it to. The answer is because everyone else already knows that it does. I think that anyone that believes this is an ignorant simpleton, and moreover, if every result is justified, then there's no reason to ever fix the game, correct? If the engine/randomness works the same way for every game, every time, then why change/tweak it? They would tell us specifically if it was designed to run in anything other than the intuitive, easiest to program way. No they wouldn't, its all about damage control. Its probably in their CS manual (I doubt they have one) that if a bizarre result happens, trot out that upsets happen in real life and tell them about 82 Chaminade over Virginia and 85 Villanova over Georgetown. If all you ever have are defensive excuses to wisk these bizarre results away that happen time and again, then you'll never acknowledge or check to see if anything is wrong...and I think WIS has gotten comfortable in that sentiment. The engine isn't what it could be, that's for certain. If they had added a little extra randomness into the engine, it would have been done to improve the product (in the programmers minds) and would be advertised as a feature. I completely disagree...again, damage control...they want the most people playing as possible and they're going to trot out all the game's good qualities. People would be thrilled if the game had "extra" randomness....HA! Are you familiar with Occam's razor? Human behavior is generally explained by the simplest solution because most people will do the easiest thing. There is just - I'll say this again - NO REASON for them to program in extra randomness and not tell us about it. DAMAGE CONTROL...what you don't know can't hurt you. What you call a "screw job" is really just some bad luck, an unlucky set of random outcomes. Again, if I thought that was the case, I wouldn't be arguing with you at this moment. If I thought this game was "on the level" I would laud the game, and move along.

You keep talking about your home run game. I think you actually understand that this is a totally unfair comparison. That game involves an exponentially smaller set of variables and, by extension, an exponentially smaller set of possible random outcomes and a smaller deviation in your set of results. Right, my game is simpler and arguably more efficient/effective and I personally think that all of the WIS sims are too complex for their own good, and this is something that I've said for at least 3 years now, probably more. If the game is to the point where its past your control and you don't necessarily know how to fix it, then how good is that complexity if you can't find the problems/errors? Sure these guys are genius programmers and what have you, but people undervalue the power of efficient simplicity, which is what I employ in almost everything that I do. I'm sure if you ran it enough times you'd see a result that you thought was ridiculous, but it would take significantly longer because the game is so much less complex. All results in my game, BIZARRE OR NOT, are COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED because A. Each game is run the exact same way, every single time, just with a different set of random numbers, and B. I use truly random numbers via random.org, thus I don't have the potential clustering and other problems that you MIGHT find with a pseudo-random number generator. That game will NEVER be unjust...NEVER. By the time you add as many different players and plays as there are in this game, as well as the wider array of possibilities resulting from any given play, the effective "normal curve" of game outcomes becomes much broader than for a game basically consisting of one repeated action with a linear set of outcomes. I'm convinced that WIS could have run this game simpler from the get go, and chose not to, thus this is the result of having an overly complex game. I highly doubt/question the quality of the HD engine/randomness given these few bizarre results and until they stop or there's physical proof to the contrary, then I'll always have questions. The likelyhood of me actually finding out what goes on is practically ZERO, but that doesn't mean that I should wonder any less. Again, if I thought that the game operated the same way all the time for each and every game just with a different set of good random numbers, I wouldn't be here right now...that's the bottom line of this entire argument. If it worked right, I wouldn't have said a word....

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 4/13/2010
colonels, the problem, in a nutshell, is that you think pitino's example is crazy and should never happen. You're basing that mostly on the fact that his team won the first game by 40, when the reality is that the 40-pt win was really more of the anomaly. It doesn't matter which game the anomaly was, it matters that there was an anomaly. You agree with me that one of the games was/is an anomaly and that points to the problem right there. What game it happened in is irrelevant, but game 2 is always going to get more flak because game 1 will always be the reference point.

So what if his team only won the first game by 15, which would've been the more realistic result? Would his close loss then have been acceptable to you? Well if after closely inspecting both games, you/we determined that game 1 was in fact the anomaly and that he only won by 15 instead of 38...then yes, there would be no real reason to gripe because the game 1 to game 2 results would be more believable than they were prior.

You are looking at things from far too narrow a scope, and basing your conclusions on limited and flawed data points. So it's not surprising that you're often reaching the wrong conclusion. If you could expand on this, I would greatly appreciate it. Like I said, it doesn't matter what game the bizarreness happens in, it matters that it happens.

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 4/13/2010
Once again colonels, Occam's Razor applies here. You responded to me by saying that they added randomness to simulate a "human element." Yes, I said this was why they would/could use extra randomness. In the exact same post you say they have been doing damage control to keep us from knowing about the random element. Either they think we want it or they think we don't. None of us knows if its even there, I was just suggesting the reasoning for using it. And on the whole, I don't think promoting/selling extra randomness in this game is good for business. If they put it in to add a human element "we all know and love," they would tell us about it. As dalter mentioned earlier, not necessarily. Guys in favor of justifying bizarre results embrace the concept, but I don't think everyone would. Regardless, WIS keeps its cards very close to its vest. Since we love it. They wouldn't try to hide that. Sure they would, what you don't know can't hurt you. The fact is there is no reasonable explanation for why they would go to the time and effort to program in extra randomness and then try to cover it up unless they were "out to get us." Which I seriously doubt. I honestly don't know what's particularly wrong with the game, I just know that something is wrong with the game. Extra randomness could or couldn't be there...I don't know. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they said sometime that it was/is there though.

One more tidbit - random.org's random number generator does NOT give "truly random" numbers. It is far from perfect. The best random number generators I know of are the ones employed by the high-end poker sites, but even those aren't perfect. Give me true random over pseudo random all day every day. There's nothing better than true random.

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 4/13/2010
I should rephrase that last bit. The numbers from random.org are "truly random," but not perfectly distributed. ie. if you run the same set of numbers a few billion times you should get very small deviation between the numbers of each outcome. Because of the volume of radio signals broadcast into the atmosphere and predictable environmental effects on those signals certain numbers will actually be favored in very large samples. Thus the randomness is perfect but the distribution is not.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 4/13/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 4/13/2010

colonels, the problem, in a nutshell, is that you think pitino's example is crazy and should never happen. You're basing that mostly on the fact that his team won the first game by 40, when the reality is that the 40-pt win was really more of the anomaly. It doesn't matter which game the anomaly was, it matters that there was an anomaly. You agree with me that one of the games was/is an anomaly and that points to the problem right there. What game it happened in is irrelevant, but game 2 is always going to get more flak because game 1 will always be the reference point.

So what if his team only won the first game by 15, which would've been the more realistic result? Would his close loss then have been acceptable to you? Well if after closely inspecting both games, you/we determined that game 1 was in fact the anomaly and that he only won by 15 instead of 38...then yes, there would be no real reason to gripe because the game 1 to game 2 results would be more believable than they were prior.

You are looking at things from far too narrow a scope, and basing your conclusions on limited and flawed data points. So it's not surprising that you're often reaching the wrong conclusion. If you could expand on this, I would greatly appreciate it. Like I said, it doesn't matter what game the bizarreness happens in, it matters that it happens.