http://whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=5766383

I gave Wilson 1 distro and nobody else anything just to see the affects of the new shoot too much and lose effectiveness change. Anyone else see a problem with the actual distro in relation to how I set things?

Wilson was only in for twenty one minutes, so for the rest of the time, the computer was completely determining the shots. Add in the effects of points off of steals, fastbreaks, orebounds etcetera. . .and no, I don't. For half the game it was solelly the computer setting shot distribution. Now if you had set everyone else to one and him to twenty, or somesuch? Or if he had played nearly thirty minutes. . . .

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

The only question that I have is: are you sure that was how your distro was set up? If so, then YES, I do see a problem.

To answer a_in_the_b's reasoning, just take a quick look, for example at the first 3 minutes (he came out of the game for the first time then). There were 5 shots taken by the team, not one of them was Wilson. Also, none of them were off O-rebounds or steals.

So, either (1) the distro was not set that way, (2) giving a 1 to one player and 0 to everyone else does not work like we would expect, or (3) the engine did not follow the distro.

Well, my other theory, remember that Seeble essentially said there is the equivilant of a 'minimum' distribution? Perhaps the difference between THAT and 1 is no longer high enough to produce that amount of shots in oen player. I woudl probably experiment again running it with something like 10 on one player and zero on all else. . or even 100 and zero, just to see.

Quote: Originally posted by a_in_the_b on 5/27/2010Well, my other theory, remember that Seeble essentially said there is the equivilant of a 'minimum' distribution? Perhaps the difference between THAT and 1 is no longer high enough to produce that amount of shots in oen player. I woudl probably experiment again running it with something like 10 on one player and zero on all else. . or even 100 and zero, just to see.

Agreed. Use a higher number to test.

Quote: Originally posted by a_in_the_b on 5/27/2010Well, my other theory, remember that Seeble essentially said there is the equivilant of a 'minimum' distribution? Perhaps the difference between THAT and 1 is no longer high enough to produce that amount of shots in oen player. I woudl probably experiment again running it with something like 10 on one player and zero on all else. . or even 100 and zero, just to see.

Yeah, I'm going to do that in the following games. I think the team will suck this year anyway, so I might as well.

I apparently missed the minimum distro. What's the point of having zero then? If I don't want to include Ben Wallace in my offense, I shouldn't be forced to by the engine. Let him get his points on o-rebounds like the beast he is.

Quote: Originally posted by udm_mike on 5/27/2010I apparently missed the minimum distro. What's the point of having zero then? If I don't want to include Ben Wallace in my offense, I shouldn't be forced to by the engine. Let him get his points on o-rebounds like the beast he is.

The point of 0 is that if everyone has 0, you want the computer to select.

I think the issue is that no one REALLY has zero plays run for them. If they are playing it is unrealistic to think they game plan has them NEVER shoot. So, everybody gets at least a 1.

Just try setting everyone to one and one player to 89. Of course, given the "Bing ball brakes" that play probably wouldn't DO all that well.

If you want to talk NBA players, I watched the Hawks when they had Jon Koncak. .and even HE had the occasional play drawn up for him. Heck, even Rodman probably woudl not have been a Zero.

Oh, I know all about having everyone at zero, hughes. I actually won my only NT (LL316) doing that with Ark. But I've also quite often, when playing against the press, used 1 guy with 1 and everyone else with zero and he gets almost every shot other than breakaways and rebounds. I was just trying to see how much this effectiveness was decreased by the new changes. I guess by a lot, considering he didn't take any more shots than anyone else.

Quote: Originally Posted By hughesjr on 5/27/2010

Quote: Originally posted by udm_mike on 5/27/2010 I apparently missed the minimum distro. What's the point of having zero then? If I don't want to include Ben Wallace in my offense, I shouldn't be forced to by the engine. Let him get his points on o-rebounds like the beast he is.

The point of 0 is that if everyone has 0, you want the computer to select.

I think the issue is that no one REALLY has zero plays run for them. If they are playing it is unrealistic to think they game plan has them NEVER shoot. So, everybody gets at least a 1.

This just isn't true. You think when DJ Mbenga is in the game, the Lakers actually have any plays that are run for him to shoot? There are definitely plenty of guys that have literally no plays called for them, they are just out there to set picks, grab offensive rebounds and when a teammats gets double teamed to make an open layup.

Quote: Originally posted by a_in_the_b on 5/27/2010Just try setting everyone to one and one player to 89. Of course, given the "Bing ball brakes" that play probably wouldn't DO all that well.

If you want to talk NBA players, I watched the Hawks when they had Jon Koncak. .and even HE had the occasional play drawn up for him. Heck, even Rodman probably woudl not have been a Zero.

Pistons fan here...in your face with that Koncak contract. ;)

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

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