Quote: Originally posted by mlatsko1 on 5/04/2010I'm not as much worried about running into a 1 PG, 4 PF/C team, as I am a 5 guard lineup. I didn't look at the recruit gen as frequently as most in the beta. What do you think about that being successful?

Wouldn't that all depend on how high guard rebounding gets? If they max out at 60 or 70, you're probably not going to see many 5 guard lineups.

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

Based on the current crop of PG/SGs generated the best you're going to have is guards with 60-70 rebounding. Which would probably get pounded on the boards by a team with a real setup. Even the best rebounding SFs don't project over 90.

Also remember that just because these guys are good rebounders doesn't mean they have the talents to play farther up. None of them have shotblocking over 50.

It'll be interesting.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 5/04/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tannermcc on 5/04/2010
Just so you guys know

In the recruit process no players listed as Cs were generated with more than 52 speed and wouldn't get over 65 by the end of their career based on potential.

No PFs over 63, none projected to max out over 75.

From that alone if the best of the best would be very SLOW sgs to begin with. Thats a deterrent to go to far away from their natural listed position.

Still, like Mlatsko (I believe) brought up in the chat...will a 6-2 guy with a 99 DEF rating be able to lockdown a 7 foot guy....Seble's response was that they're looking into fixing that...uhhh...isn't the obvious answer a position penalty? I mean don't go looking for some ridiculously intricate solution when there's one simple, logical one staring you right in the face. I also like how seble said that he thought this release wasn't "boom or bust"....O RLY? We'll see because if this thing flops, its going to be like the NBA sim here

Actually the simple fix is to break up defense into Per D and LP D. Of course this may not be as simple as it sounds, but I think that's a better solution then an artificial position penalty.

As I mentioned in another thread, that could actually be very difficult. Although I guess you could simplify it now that LP matters for guards. Any shot for which the LP score is the deciding factor on its success is affected by the defender's interior defense. Any shot for which perimeter is the key is outside defense. Which I think is what your wording suggested (Per D and LP D). That still gets messy on help D and double teams, though.

For example, when Lebron sprints down the court and swats a fastbreak layup, is that LP d? He can defend in the low post, but the ability to make that particular block is really more dependent on his speed than his strength, making it more akin to perimeter D than LP d.

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 5/04/2010For example, when Lebron sprints down the court and swats a fastbreak layup, is that LP d? He can defend in the low post, but the ability to make that particular block is really more dependent on his speed than his strength, making it more akin to perimeter D than LP d

And, of course, his SB rating.

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

Will the new update include the potential for Carmeloesque players. Say 5 star recruits with the ability to single handedly take a team deep in a tourney? (deaconsport3 - Pro - 2:59 PM)

That's the idea, we'll see how it plays out.

______________________________________________

With the decreased shooting ability with a dominant player and no change in incoming IQ, I don't see how this is remotely possible.

How many players really take over 50% of their team's shots? I really think that's being blown out of proportion. I don't want to go back and look, but how many times did Anthony take over 50% of Syracuse's shots? Probably not many, if any. Maybe Durant did, but when a player is rated 100 at pretty much everything, and only a couple other guys are too, how much do you think the penalty will really hurt? Maybe it will make him slightly closer to even, but he'll probably still be the best player on the floor.

Realistically, as seble said, if you're taking 60 shots a night as a team, you're going to need the guy taking over 30 to see a penalty. I just don't see the big problem with that.

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 5/04/2010Will the new update include the potential for Carmeloesque players. Say 5 star recruits with the ability to single handedly take a team deep in a tourney? (deaconsport3 - Pro - 2:59 PM)

That's the idea, we'll see how it plays out.

______________________________________________

With the decreased shooting ability with a dominant player and no change in incoming IQ, I don't see how this is remotely possible.

I mean if there are legitmate stars, I can see it. Right now every title contender has at least two guards with 95+ath/95+sp now if instead of the norm that becomes a rarity and now a title contender can be that with guards with 75ath/90sp but you still get a small percentage of guards that are 99ath/99sp he would seem to have a huge advantage.

Good Ole COlonels. Always the conspiracy theorist.

Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 5/04/2010How many players really take over 50% of their team's shots?  I really think that's being blown out of proportion.  I don't want to go back and look, but how many times did Anthony take over 50% of Syracuse's shots?  Probably not many, if any.  Maybe Durant did, but when a player is rated 100 at pretty much everything, and only a couple other guys are too, how much do you think the penalty will really hurt?  Maybe it will make him slightly closer to even, but he'll probably still be the best player on the floor.  Realistically, as seble said, if you're taking 60 shots a night as a team, you're going to need the guy taking over 30 to see a penalty.  I just don't see the big problem with that.

1. Here is the quote "There will be a reduction in offensive efficiency for a player who has taken more than 50% of the shots of the players on the floor at that time." That's 50% from the players on the floor at the time. That is a much easier number to achieve.

2. I'm not sure which version of HD you play, where you get 60 shots a game, but my top notch UNC team has topped the 60 shot threshold just 6 times in 17 games. We hover around 50 shots. Assuming 70% of my scoring from my starting lineup and about 1/3 shots from 3pt range, that's about 30 effective FGA. Obviously all of those players wouldn't be on the court at the same time, because it's likely that less frequent shooters are subbing in... but just using this logic, my star player is now going to be the focal point if he's likely to get 15 shots per game. That's pretty weak imo.

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 5/04/2010

Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 5/04/2010
How many players really take over 50% of their team's shots? I really think that's being blown out of proportion. I don't want to go back and look, but how many times did Anthony take over 50% of Syracuse's shots? Probably not many, if any. Maybe Durant did, but when a player is rated 100 at pretty much everything, and only a couple other guys are too, how much do you think the penalty will really hurt? Maybe it will make him slightly closer to even, but he'll probably still be the best player on the floor.

Realistically, as seble said, if you're taking 60 shots a night as a team, you're going to need the guy taking over 30 to see a penalty. I just don't see the big problem with that.

1. Here is the quote "There will be a reduction in offensive efficiency for a player who has taken more than 50% of the shots of the players on the floor at that time." That's 50% from the players on the floor at the time. That is a much easier number to achieve.

2. I'm not sure which version of HD you play, where you get 60 shots a game, but my top notch UNC team has topped the 60 shot threshold just 6 times in 17 games. We hover around 50 shots. Assuming 70% of my scoring from my starting lineup and about 1/3 shots from 3pt range, that's about 30 effective FGA. Obviously all of those players wouldn't be on the court at the same time, because it's likely that less frequent shooters are subbing in... but just using this logic, my star player is now going to be the focal point if he's likely to get 15 shots per game. That's pretty weak imo.

Considering the fact that starters will play more minutes under the "new HD" doesn't this mean there will be an increase of shots from your starters which would lead to a higher # of shots being taken by your star player to achieve that 50% mark. So let's say your star player needs to take 18 shots a game to be over 50%, that would seem like a nice cushion because how many guys take 18 shots per game? I have 2 guys set to 40 distro on a team under my other ID and neither shoots more than 15 times per game.

Quote: Originally Posted By mlatsko1 on 5/04/2010

Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 5/04/2010
How many players really take over 50% of their team's shots? I really think that's being blown out of proportion. I don't want to go back and look, but how many times did Anthony take over 50% of Syracuse's shots? Probably not many, if any. Maybe Durant did, but when a player is rated 100 at pretty much everything, and only a couple other guys are too, how much do you think the penalty will really hurt? Maybe it will make him slightly closer to even, but he'll probably still be the best player on the floor.

Realistically, as seble said, if you're taking 60 shots a night as a team, you're going to need the guy taking over 30 to see a penalty. I just don't see the big problem with that.

1. Here is the quote "There will be a reduction in offensive efficiency for a player who has taken more than 50% of the shots of the players on the floor at that time." That's 50% from the players on the floor at the time. That is a much easier number to achieve.

2. I'm not sure which version of HD you play, where you get 60 shots a game, but my top notch UNC team has topped the 60 shot threshold just 6 times in 17 games. We hover around 50 shots. Assuming 70% of my scoring from my starting lineup and about 1/3 shots from 3pt range, that's about 30 effective FGA. Obviously all of those players wouldn't be on the court at the same time, because it's likely that less frequent shooters are subbing in... but just using this logic, my star player is now going to be the focal point if he's likely to get 15 shots per game. That's pretty weak imo.

Fair enough, say 50.

So you think that 15 among your starters will be 50% of your players on the court? I doubt it.

Regardless, we failed to ask the better question: when does this kick in? It can't be the first two minutes, right? So we're assuming it's later in the game, at which point it will be tougher to get to that number.

Even with it being 50% of the players on the floor, how often was Anthony taking 50% of all shots when he was on the floor (I know that's not the exact standard, but it's close enough)?

The point is, we aren't able to adjust during the game because it's a sim, so when one player is taking an abnormally high number of shots (and that is abnormally high), this is something that helps us adjust for that when we can't. If I could, I would watch the game and double, trap, etc., when one player has a huge distro, but I can't do that. I shouldn't have to guess at the beginning of the game if you're going to give a ludicrous distro to one guy.

And again, if one player is so much better than the guy guarding him, then the penalty probably won't make it so that the guys are even (at least I assume not).