In the old engine, you could count on defensive positioning to (generally) have in impact on your opponents' shooting. Not every game, of course, but overall it was very clear. If you played, say, a +2 all the time, you would defend the 3pt shot extremely well.

In the new engine, I see example after example of teams playing significant + defenses and still getting lit up from 3pt range. I see it on a nightly basis. I had a game last night where I played a +2/+4 and the other (significantly inferior) team shot 11-17 from 3p range.

Again, I'm seeing this frequently.

It's disappointing because it's part of an overall trend I've seen where gameplanning (other than distro, which does work better than before imo) has less and less of an effect on game results. (Same thing with practice plan, because so many players have low potentials, etc.) With gameplanning effectiveness limited and the new recruits not set to improve as much, we're looking at Recruiting Dynasty (ahem, OR). And I'm a good recruiter, but that's not the game that I signed up for, and it's not a game that's interesting.

I would put defensive positioning up there with rebounding and the foul issues as items that are quite simply not functioning properly in the new engine.

Posted by daalter on 7/22/2010 7:15:00 AM (view original):
In the old engine, you could count on defensive positioning to (generally) have in impact on your opponents' shooting. Not every game, of course, but overall it was very clear. If you played, say, a +2 all the time, you would defend the 3pt shot extremely well.

In the new engine, I see example after example of teams playing significant + defenses and still getting lit up from 3pt range. I see it on a nightly basis. I had a game last night where I played a +2/+4 and the other (significantly inferior) team shot 11-17 from 3p range.

Again, I'm seeing this frequently.

It's disappointing because it's part of an overall trend I've seen where gameplanning (other than distro, which does work better than before imo) has less and less of an effect on game results. (Same thing with practice plan, because so many players have low potentials, etc.) With gameplanning effectiveness limited and the new recruits not set to improve as much, we're looking at Recruiting Dynasty (ahem, OR). And I'm a good recruiter, but that's not the game that I signed up for, and it's not a game that's interesting.

I would put defensive positioning up there with rebounding and the foul issues as items that are quite simply not functioning properly in the new engine.

+1

Posted by daalter on 7/22/2010 7:15:00 AM (view original):
In the old engine, you could count on defensive positioning to (generally) have in impact on your opponents' shooting. Not every game, of course, but overall it was very clear. If you played, say, a +2 all the time, you would defend the 3pt shot extremely well.

In the new engine, I see example after example of teams playing significant + defenses and still getting lit up from 3pt range. I see it on a nightly basis. I had a game last night where I played a +2/+4 and the other (significantly inferior) team shot 11-17 from 3p range.

Again, I'm seeing this frequently.

It's disappointing because it's part of an overall trend I've seen where gameplanning (other than distro, which does work better than before imo) has less and less of an effect on game results. (Same thing with practice plan, because so many players have low potentials, etc.) With gameplanning effectiveness limited and the new recruits not set to improve as much, we're looking at Recruiting Dynasty (ahem, OR). And I'm a good recruiter, but that's not the game that I signed up for, and it's not a game that's interesting.

I would put defensive positioning up there with rebounding and the foul issues as items that are quite simply not functioning properly in the new engine.

+1

Quick question,

If an inferior team is able to shoot like that from 3, wouldn't you rather call it "3 point shooitng dynasty" since ratings dont seem to matter

One change from the old engine to the new is that positioning basically multiplies the defensive affect, but how much that effect is depends on the quality of your defense.  In other words, if you play a +4, that will decrease your opponent's 3pt FG%, but if your defensive ratings/IQ are poor to start with then it won't have nearly the same effect as if you have a very strong defense.  What that means is that you can't use that gameplan strategy to overcome a poor defensive team.

"What that means is that you can't use that gameplan strategy to overcome a poor defensive team."

This has to be one of the most ruhtarded gameplay change decisions I've seen in my 4 years at WIS. Are you trying to tell me a coach can't go up to his poor defensive team and say "Ok guys, we suck but if we focus on stopping the three and rebound their misses we should have a chance. They're weak on the inside and rarely take a shot from down low so give the inside away in order to improve our perimeter defense significantly."

I can tell you that if you tell someone what the other guy is gonna do it doesn't matter how bad of a defender they are. You're probably going to shut them down.

Posted by tannermcc on 7/22/2010 9:07:00 AM (view original):
"What that means is that you can't use that gameplan strategy to overcome a poor defensive team."

This has to be one of the most ruhtarded gameplay change decisions I've seen in my 4 years at WIS. Are you trying to tell me a coach can't go up to his poor defensive team and say "Ok guys, we suck but if we focus on stopping the three and rebound their misses we should have a chance. They're weak on the inside and rarely take a shot from down low so give the inside away in order to improve our perimeter defense significantly."

I can tell you that if you tell someone what the other guy is gonna do it doesn't matter how bad of a defender they are. You're probably going to shut them down.

I think what he is saying is that you can have the best strategy in the world, but if you do not have the players to execute the plan, it will not be as effective if you had players who were more capable.

To me, that is exactly how I would like it to be.

Posted by seble on 7/22/2010 8:44:00 AM (view original):
One change from the old engine to the new is that positioning basically multiplies the defensive affect, but how much that effect is depends on the quality of your defense.  In other words, if you play a +4, that will decrease your opponent's 3pt FG%, but if your defensive ratings/IQ are poor to start with then it won't have nearly the same effect as if you have a very strong defense.  What that means is that you can't use that gameplan strategy to overcome a poor defensive team.

Uh, right. I understand that. It's a pretty elementary concept.

But that's not what I'm seeing. (For instance, in my example, we are back-to-back defending champs and we were playing an 0-7 team.) I understand if you are weak defensively that will compromise your efforts. That's not what I'm talking about here, and those are not the examples I'm seeing on a nightly basis. In fact, I'm mostly seeing examples of this happening to strong defensive teams.

There is a clear problem with how the +/- settings are working (or more accurately, not working). It's exceedingly common to play a + defense with strong defenders and still get lit up from 3pt range.

Recruiting Dynasty is getting old fast.

Posted by wisefella99 on 7/22/2010 9:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tannermcc on 7/22/2010 9:07:00 AM (view original):
"What that means is that you can't use that gameplan strategy to overcome a poor defensive team."

This has to be one of the most ruhtarded gameplay change decisions I've seen in my 4 years at WIS. Are you trying to tell me a coach can't go up to his poor defensive team and say "Ok guys, we suck but if we focus on stopping the three and rebound their misses we should have a chance. They're weak on the inside and rarely take a shot from down low so give the inside away in order to improve our perimeter defense significantly."

I can tell you that if you tell someone what the other guy is gonna do it doesn't matter how bad of a defender they are. You're probably going to shut them down.

I think what he is saying is that you can have the best strategy in the world, but if you do not have the players to execute the plan, it will not be as effective if you had players who were more capable.

To me, that is exactly how I would like it to be.

I can agree with this to an extent.

A bad defensive team should not be as good as a good one, duh.

But a bad team should be able to be compensated for by a good gameplan that exploits the other team's tendencies. If i play the +4 with **** poor defenders they should be able to, at very least, hold a team below 50%. On the other hand, I should enjoy giving up a nice 70% or better shooting from the inside because my defenders don't have to ability to make up for their positioning and stop anything on the inside.

Maybe I'm just dumb?

I've had the same complaint to Seble as well. Played -4 3 times vs a team who shot almost all their shots from the paint and couldnt stop a sole. We are a sweet 16 team and have average defenders, and honestly it felt like it didnt make a difference if we were playing -4 or a 0.

Felt like the game planning had no effect. Whatever the reasoning for the logic change, I don't like the results that spit out.

I agree I have a top quality rebounding d1 team maybe the best out there and wheni play a +2 I should be at least equal to them in rebounding at a -2 but it isnt the case.

Posted by daalter on 7/22/2010 7:15:00 AM (view original):
In the old engine, you could count on defensive positioning to (generally) have in impact on your opponents' shooting. Not every game, of course, but overall it was very clear. If you played, say, a +2 all the time, you would defend the 3pt shot extremely well.

In the new engine, I see example after example of teams playing significant + defenses and still getting lit up from 3pt range. I see it on a nightly basis. I had a game last night where I played a +2/+4 and the other (significantly inferior) team shot 11-17 from 3p range.

Again, I'm seeing this frequently.

It's disappointing because it's part of an overall trend I've seen where gameplanning (other than distro, which does work better than before imo) has less and less of an effect on game results. (Same thing with practice plan, because so many players have low potentials, etc.) With gameplanning effectiveness limited and the new recruits not set to improve as much, we're looking at Recruiting Dynasty (ahem, OR). And I'm a good recruiter, but that's not the game that I signed up for, and it's not a game that's interesting.

I would put defensive positioning up there with rebounding and the foul issues as items that are quite simply not functioning properly in the new engine.

regarding this being a "Recruiting Dynasty", I made this argument a few weeks ago and a lot of people (not you) said I was crazy and that there was a good balance.  i'm glad some respected coaches are starting to change their tune.

Posted by tannermcc on 7/22/2010 9:07:00 AM (view original):
"What that means is that you can't use that gameplan strategy to overcome a poor defensive team."

This has to be one of the most ruhtarded gameplay change decisions I've seen in my 4 years at WIS. Are you trying to tell me a coach can't go up to his poor defensive team and say "Ok guys, we suck but if we focus on stopping the three and rebound their misses we should have a chance. They're weak on the inside and rarely take a shot from down low so give the inside away in order to improve our perimeter defense significantly."

I can tell you that if you tell someone what the other guy is gonna do it doesn't matter how bad of a defender they are. You're probably going to shut them down.

I agree with everything except the last part. Take Kobe, for example. He will tell you exactly what he's gonna do and only the most elite defenders in the world can even slow him down (but not stop him, obviously)

Posted by tannermcc on 7/22/2010 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wisefella99 on 7/22/2010 9:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tannermcc on 7/22/2010 9:07:00 AM (view original):
"What that means is that you can't use that gameplan strategy to overcome a poor defensive team."

This has to be one of the most ruhtarded gameplay change decisions I've seen in my 4 years at WIS. Are you trying to tell me a coach can't go up to his poor defensive team and say "Ok guys, we suck but if we focus on stopping the three and rebound their misses we should have a chance. They're weak on the inside and rarely take a shot from down low so give the inside away in order to improve our perimeter defense significantly."

I can tell you that if you tell someone what the other guy is gonna do it doesn't matter how bad of a defender they are. You're probably going to shut them down.

I think what he is saying is that you can have the best strategy in the world, but if you do not have the players to execute the plan, it will not be as effective if you had players who were more capable.

To me, that is exactly how I would like it to be.

I can agree with this to an extent.

A bad defensive team should not be as good as a good one, duh.

But a bad team should be able to be compensated for by a good gameplan that exploits the other team's tendencies. If i play the +4 with **** poor defenders they should be able to, at very least, hold a team below 50%. On the other hand, I should enjoy giving up a nice 70% or better shooting from the inside because my defenders don't have to ability to make up for their positioning and stop anything on the inside.

Maybe I'm just dumb?

You just picked 50% as some arbitrary number.  Even if you are focusing on stopping the three, bad defenders will still get caught dipping below screens, being out of position, etc.

All seble is saying is that it's a multiplier.  Good defenses playing a (+) will be exponentially more efficient than bad ones, who may not be able to stop good players from getting shots off if they are running an effective offense.  Do you think teams tried to stop JJ Reddick from shooting 3s in college?  Well, he still got them off, right?

That doesn't apply in dalter's case, who has a good defense (I assume, I didn't look), but that's the intent.  I don't think that's "ruhtarded" at all.

The explanation I posted was not in direct response to whether positioning effects are obvious in every game.  Just a little background on how things have changed.  Single game outcomes being unexpected is a slightly different issue, one that I'm working on now.  Details are in the Dev Blog thread.