what happened to sable? Topic

zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 12/04/2009To further my point. Many say "the engine is broken". What's broken about it, specifically? And if it was previously broken (around the time of the "coin flip era") but is now fixed, why a complete overhaul. I think the coin flip issue wasn't an engine problem so much as a problem created by the implementation of potential which once it was fixed, we started to see things return to normal
mmt I think it is better then it was 6 months ago but I don't feel like I have as much control over my team as I did when I started.

Also I think you are confusing two things here, the complete overhaul is mostly geared towards rewriting the current code into a new language I don't think they are starting from scratch which is what I feel you are implying.
12/4/2009 2:44 PM
oldave
Posts: 1162 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 302 12
Pro
i guess my problem is im in the middle here.

not so much undecided (though that is a bit of an issue as well) but defending a position that is not at eiether extreme.

i dont think the engine is "broken". but i do think that there are several aspects of it that could be improved. some of which i think would be better accomplished with a more diverse stratification of recruits.


at the core of these improvements, i feel, would be to make gameplanning more meaningful. a slippery slope, to be sure, but i think it needs to be a bit more meaningful ( not in a random way, but in a strategic way)

also, i think most coaches want to see how seble will adress individual mathcups.

plus, i think that most of the veteran coaches think there is too much randomness. i am one of these. but i admit i may be wrong on this account. obviously upsets will occur, how many is too many? not sure, but i knwo that NTs have had farfar fewer upsets in the past 20 seasons than in the first 20 seasons. thats one point i will not budge on. far far fewer.

12/4/2009 2:47 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/04/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 12/04/2009
To further my point. Many say "the engine is broken". What's broken about it, specifically? And if it was previously broken (around the time of the "coin flip era") but is now fixed, why a complete overhaul. I think the coin flip issue wasn't an engine problem so much as a problem created by the implementation of potential which once it was fixed, we started to see things return to normal.
mmt I think it is better then it was 6 months ago but I don't feel like I have as much control over my team as I did when I started.

Also I think you are confusing two things here, the complete overhaul is mostly geared towards rewriting the current code into a new language I don't think they are starting from scratch which is what I feel you are implying.

Control in what sense? Right now you can gameplan offensively atleast for each specific situation including who on your team touches the ball, who plays, tempo, offensive style, tempo at all game stages, half time adjustments, three point frequency.

Defensively, pretty much the same.

Things, where more control would be useful is defensive individual matchup, late game lineup, more control over player development which was actually one of the cooler aspects prepotential and playergeneration/recruiting.

However, if you want to see a fine example of simply the engine working do one of two things. Dont set anything during your first exhibition game, or design an all interior gameplan v. one team and all all permiter 3 point shooting barage v. another and youll see how the engine simulates what you select. I think people often times get frustrated because they put together what they feel is a perfect gameplan and still lose. However, at the end of the day the perfect gameplan will not always trump talent.

I'm a football guy so will draw these three examples in Superbowls. Giants/Bills - Bills far superior team and double digit favorite. Giants put together the perfect gameplan and execute it to perfection. Giants barely win. If the kick is made at the end the perfect gameplan still wouldnt have worked. Dolphins/Colts this season. Dolphins had perfect gameplan ate up the clock controlled the game but still lost to a more talented team.
12/4/2009 2:59 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Oh, and my point was. From the developmental blog, it seems as though the way the game is simulated is part of the rewrite and thats the part which horrifies me.
12/4/2009 3:00 PM
mullycj
Posts: 2737 (0)
Hall of Famer
214 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 12/04/2009To further my point. Many say "the engine is broken". What's broken about it, specifically? And if it was previously broken (around the time of the "coin flip era") but is now fixed, why a complete overhaul. I think the coin flip issue wasn't an engine problem so much as a problem created by the implementation of potential which once it was fixed, we started to see things return to normal
1) Slow down tempo is not realistic. Rarely does a team kill off 25 seconds on every possession.

2) Engine does not adequately account for individual matchups.
12/4/2009 3:02 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
mmt I am in no way saying that an upset shouldn't happen, They do happen IRL and should happen in HD. A good game plan, rightfully so, should give an underdog a chance to keep it close and come out ahead. But it should be the gameplan not the rng that does so and in HD the rng is the driving factor behind a majority of upsets.

I can't really put a finger on it but I just feel that my choices in game planning (or lack thereof) have, maybe, 25% the power that the rng has and I don't think that is good for the game.
12/4/2009 3:09 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By mullycj on 12/04/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 12/04/2009
To further my point. Many say "the engine is broken". What's broken about it, specifically? And if it was previously broken (around the time of the "coin flip era") but is now fixed, why a complete overhaul. I think the coin flip issue wasn't an engine problem so much as a problem created by the implementation of potential which once it was fixed, we started to see things return to normal.
1) Slow down tempo is not realistic. Rarely does a team kill off 25 seconds on every possession. You ever watch Princeton play basketball? Or Kentucky (when it comes to the Fastbreak) OR Arkansas (40 minutes of hell). The only difference is in HD coaches play these styles more frequently than you see in real life. Sometimes to their own detriment. Here is an example, my team might suck, so I decide when Im playing Uconn Im going to run slowdown. Does this really improve my chances of winning? 99.9% of the time no. All it does is keep the game closer. So yeah if Uconn has a great D which if both teams were playing at normal tempo would hold me to the low 50s in scoring. Of course when I take 25 second off the clock I subject myself to potentially scoring in the upper 30s. Its not the anomoly people usually presume, rather its the coach playing into the system. I dont think you see as many examples of these freakish box scores with the more experienced coaches because they play more ABC style basketball because of their understanding for the game.

2) Engine does not adequately account for individual matchups. Agreed.

12/4/2009 3:15 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/04/2009
mmt I am in no way saying that an upset shouldn't happen, They do happen IRL and should happen in HD. A good game plan, rightfully so, should give an underdog a chance to keep it close and come out ahead. But it should be the gameplan not the rng that does so and in HD the rng is the driving factor behind a majority of upsets.

I can't really put a finger on it but I just feel that my choices in game planning (or lack thereof) have, maybe, 25% the power that the rng has and I don't think that is good for the game.



I dont know how you can prove this either way. I will say this though. During the season, I spend maybe 2-3 minutes at most on a given games particular gameplan, because I have a certain team philosophy I want to employ for the season based on my roster and I want to dictate how the games going to go. If I see its not working I will try anything until its fixed. However, once the CT starts I'll spend a good 10 minutes analyzing every aspect of the other team and set my gameplan accordingly. Let me tell you that there are few instances now when I'm like WTF win or lose. I can usually look at a team and say if they do "this and that" I'm going to win or I'm going to lose. Other times I'll play a team I'm almost evenly matched against the game plays out as expected but my team simply won't shoot well (RNG). But for the most part we have much more control IMO then youre giving it credit for.
12/4/2009 3:20 PM
damon_h1992
Posts: 12 (0)
All Star
1 27 9
Prospect
"Sorta reminds me of this years election, sometimes people want "change" to such a degree, you potentially can destroy a good thing" (naive, most likely bigoted republican, 2009)


12/4/2009 3:31 PM
cmthieme
Posts: 28 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 61
Prospect
In my mind control isn't the problem as much as results. I can get my nearly perfectly rated guy to put up a lot of shots against inferior defenders, but he still shoots 40% on the season. I can play a +3 man defense against inferior competition and get lit up on the perimeter. I can play a sagging D against a team of great shooters and still shut them down. These things simply happen way too often. The engine is not sensitive enough to get things "right" over a sample size as small as a game (and sometimes, for individual players, a season or even career).

My biggest complaint is not that we don't have "control", it's that the "control" we can exercise doesn't impact the end result enough. I want to be able to look at game plans, players, etc. and be able to make some sense out of the results. Sometimes that happens, but not enough IMO.

My biggest desire in regards to this game/engine change/etc. is that they are able to make things more logical and less dependent on the RNG. It's a simulation, so there will always be randomness/luck, but it's too much of a factor right now IMO. I don't really care right now what control they give us, because I feel it has minimal impact on results. As is, I can basically recruit, set a practice plan, set a depth chart, set a player game plan, and then let the season run without touching anything. The difference between that and actively playing the game every day will have minimal impact on results, IMO. That's what I would like to see change. Once that happens, I will start worrying about more control.

Right now, this game is about recruiting and team building and very little about game coaching. I'd like to see it be more about all 3.

Disclaimer: I'm talking about high-level D1. This may or may not be the case at other levels of the game. I wouldn't know.
12/4/2009 3:35 PM
aporter
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
319
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/4/2009 3:37 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Talent will always trump all, thats the same in actual basketball. You cannot expect that simply because you know another team is going to fire 20+ 3s so you therefore play a +3 or 4 or 5 that you'll automatically stop them from making them. You might slow them down, you might not because talent again trumps all. What I would say however, is if this team that fires 20+ threes a game shot at a 40% rate over the course of the season playing various defenses. But that same schedule was replayed v. each opponent playing a +3, 4 or 5 regardless of defensive style, the % would certainly drop as Admin has show us in the past.
12/4/2009 3:41 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/4/2009 3:44 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Aporter, You saw first hand what happened several seasons ago when I completely changed everything at NC State midseason. We went from close to 180 RPI to win something like 11 of 12 and ultimately win the PI.

For one stretch of games, I understood what the consistent winners get. And its why with all the individual specific examples on a single game basis that some might point out, in the grand scheme of things the guys who are consistantly winning are all the same. Its not a case of them not getting RNGed, its they have a better understanding then the rest of us.

I dont think some of you realize what a huge sample of games we see in HD compared to real life. Which means we will eventually see everything.

I mean Aporter youve coached over 5000 career games, same for Davey and Hawks and most guys posting in here. That doesnt even include all the other box scores weve seen from other coaches. In our lifetimes we wont see that many real games and weve still all seen crazy things happen. I think sample size really does apply to some of the crazy things we see.
12/4/2009 3:50 PM
mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Anyhow, have a good weekend. We can pick this up on Monday.
12/4/2009 3:51 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
what happened to sable? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 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.