testers!! Topic

a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Well, so far I haven't found out anything that Seeble himself hasn't allready posted publicly in this forum, so. . .

12/29/2009 9:03 PM
kneeneighbor
Posts: 3984 (0)
Hall of Famer
105 4 1 22 19 42
Prospect
I was not in knight, i got a team
12/29/2009 9:07 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally posted by mjp8 on 12/29/2009I want to test and see how slow it takes a 99 rating to fall with 0 practice time, I also want to pump a lot of time into a category that is a 1 and see how much it can be approved.

I like the lots of time in IQ to see the speed of improvement as well.


I just want to make sure before posting serious updates, full disclosure from coaches is expected right? There is no need to be keeping the things we do quiet?

The idea is to find bugs in the engine not different coaching strategy's.
12/29/2009 9:13 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By kneeneighbor on 12/29/2009I was not in knight, i got a tea
same
12/29/2009 9:14 PM
metsmaniac2
Posts: 557 (0)
Hall of Famer
43 1 4 113 49 21
Prospect
I think I'm going to try a 2-3 zone with a +5 defense, and a 3-2 zone with a
-5 defense...try to see if it ends up giving crazy results that shouldn't be happening. Going to try guards with good low post at -2 and -1...see how much they go down low. Visa Versa with big men with perimeter, +1, and +2...see how much they go to the perimeter with those settings and the differences.
12/29/2009 9:19 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/29/2009
Quote: Originally posted by mjp8 on 12/29/2009 I want to test and see how slow it takes a 99 rating to fall with 0 practice time, I also want to pump a lot of time into a category that is a 1 and see how much it can be approved.

I like the lots of time in IQ to see the speed of improvement as well.


I just want to make sure before posting serious updates, full disclosure from coaches is expected right? There is no need to be keeping the things we do quiet?

The idea is to find bugs in the engine not different coaching strategy's
I am acutally likely to try some heavy minus defenses, mainly because I am curious how they are going to interact with guards and low post ratings.

12/29/2009 9:21 PM
mjp8
Posts: 274 (0)
Hall of Famer
68 1
Rookie
Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 12/29/2009
Quote: Originally posted by mjp8 on 12/29/2009I want to test and see how slow it takes a 99 rating to fall with 0 practice time, I also want to pump a lot of time into a category that is a 1 and see how much it can be approved.
I like the lots of time in IQ to see the speed of improvement as well.


I just want to make sure before posting serious updates, full disclosure from coaches is expected right? There is no need to be keeping the things we do quiet?
The idea is to find bugs in the engine not different coaching strategy's.

But I would imagine there are more than just bugs to test, if the engine has been redone shouldn't actions have different effects than in the past?

Isn't the point of Beta to also see if there is new point of diminishing returns, or if LP really matters for a guard etc...
12/29/2009 9:27 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
At the very least I woudl think the plus minus settings, both on defense and for individual playuers shoudl be testes with the differences in low post and, perhaps, POsts perimeter meaning more.

12/29/2009 9:31 PM
furry_nipps
Posts: 661 (0)
Hall of Famer
66
Prospect
Another thing I would like would be for seble to post the average stats for guards and bigs (currently), and tell us what the overall average stats should be around with the new update. This would include FG%, 3point%, ast, To, ft shooting. We would then have what a guard etc SHOULD on AVERAGE look like to compare if things are in line or not.



Not everyone should be at the average, but if all the guards are suddenly shooting under 20% from 3 point line, but tearing it up (over 50%) overall then the LP may have messed things up or something. Hopefully that would be something he does so the testers have some sort of data to look at and make sure everything is working as intended, or close enough to it.
12/29/2009 9:39 PM
Weena
Posts: 579 (0)
Hall of Famer
227 1 1 1 531 1 27
Rookie
I am going to use target minutes for a couple of games and set my starters to 40 minutes. I want to see how well or poorly they play with their hands on their knees sucking for air.
12/29/2009 10:00 PM
tmacfan12
Posts: 336 (0)
Hall of Famer
355 4 2
Prospect
Im not trying to sound like a di*k or anything, but how is this gonna work. What is gonna stop me from experimenting to try and get my team to play the best it can so that my real team in turn plays the best it can with the same settings....
12/29/2009 10:05 PM
tannermcc
Posts: 302 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 433 6 48
Prospect
different engine?
12/29/2009 10:09 PM
tmacfan12
Posts: 336 (0)
Hall of Famer
355 4 2
Prospect
Very true.... ok that answers my question thank you.
12/29/2009 10:10 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 12/29/2009Another thing I would like would be for seble to post the average stats for guards and bigs (currently), and tell us what the overall average stats should be around with the new update. This would include FG%, 3point%, ast, To, ft shooting. We would then have what a guard etc SHOULD on AVERAGE look like to compare if things are in line or not.



Not everyone should be at the average, but if all the guards are suddenly shooting under 20% from 3 point line, but tearing it up (over 50%) overall then the LP may have messed things up or something. Hopefully that would be something he does so the testers have some sort of data to look at and make sure everything is working as intended, or close enough to it.


Well> I'd say that for at least the first one or two seasons, we might not be able to entirely see that. Because most of the guards are going to be built using the old expectations, so there is going to be a limited number of guards with a high LP. Actually Ironically, the SIms might be better than usual for just that reason. . .

12/29/2009 11:09 PM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
guys, there are a limited number of guards with decent low post games in real college basketball, and VERY FEW COLLEGE sg/pg's post up, this game is made up of many 1% things coming together, this will not change with the new engine IMO - if indeed guard's low post game becomes anything more than a footnote to this engine change, it failed

by the way, IMO in the current game, if you set distro to zero for a post player PF / C, he can have a LP of zero, and shoot the same as if his low post number was 100, because LP is a measure of how a player shoots when posting his man up in the offense, zero distro, zeor post up opportunities
12/30/2009 7:34 AM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
testers!! Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.