Feedback Topic

ashamael
Posts: 12413 (1)
Hall of Famer
508 19
All Star
Quote: Originally posted by naboimp on 10/21/2009Shap,Ash is an a$$ who contributes nothing except to whine when he doesn't win, and I bet I'm older than he is.  Regardless, it doesn't take a great volume of games to see the issues with the sim.  There are serious issues as I indicated, but "too much randomness" isn't one of them. 

Here's the thing: I do win. I win alot. Obviously more than you, seeing as I have almost as many finals appearances as you have teams. So my complaints aren't about me losing because it doesn't happen all that often. I tried being constructive for a long time, but being ignored for months straight by admin makes you a little bit of an ***. But I guess helping out newbies with explanations as to drafting strategies and coaching strategies is not construtive, nor is analysis of current sim trends and translating them into a discussion with other vets as to how to improve our teams. These posts were all over the forums (back when these forums were more active than 2 or 3 posts in one thread a week), so you're selective generalization shows your narrow view of how you have a giant boner for me.

Congratulations on being a narrow-minded, generalizing wisnba noob (who loves the ****)! But hey, you might be older than me. Congrats on being in your 30s or older.
10/22/2009 3:33 AM
naboimp
Posts: 2 (0)
Pro
11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/21/2009

Shap,

Ash is an a$$ who contributes nothing except to whine when he doesn't win, and I bet I'm older than he is. Regardless, it doesn't take a great volume of games to see the issues with the sim. There are serious issues as I indicated, but "too much randomness" isn't one of them.

Too much randomness and/or pseudo randomness are serious issues. I'll have my example momentarily...and here it is...

Got to love a nice 50 point swing at the same venue....beat 04-05 Heat by 14 a few days ago at my place and then they trounce me by 36 this morning...quite nice.

How do you explain/account for this naboimp? I'll say this, if I thought the randomness worked properly in this sim/on this site, I wouldn't be griping about it. This wasn't the first issue I've had and it certainly won't be the last. The evidence is really on my side as well....where did all the customers go if the game is so fantastic?

Yep - that's an example of randomness. Now explain why that is too much randomness in a two game sample that holds itself out as a game and not a predictive simulation. Real life has such samples as well - just look at the Lakers - Rockets series from this last spring. If we want this to be a playable game, there has to be fluctuation in results, or else there is no point in playing.

The game idea is fantastic, but the latest version of it is broken as I stated in my posts (if you'd bother to read them all the way through). You pointing to the lessening popularity of the game does nothing to support your viewpoint regarding the appropriate levels of randomness because you can't control for any other number of variables.

10/22/2009 9:08 AM
naboimp
Posts: 2 (0)
Pro
11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By chester_o on 10/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/21/2009
 Regardless, it doesn't take a great volume of games to see the issues with the sim. There are serious issues as I indicated, but "too much randomness" isn't one of them.

here is you saying one thing


Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/19/2009




In simulation terms, yes, ten games is too small a sample to suppose that the statistics generated would match the expected averages. But in terms of playing a game, who cares? The stats are as likely to vary positively as negatively.

this is you agreeing that there is too much randomness

No, this is me acknowledging the existence of randomness. I nowhere above suggest there is too much of it.

The sim's regular season does do a sufficient job of removing the weakest teams, and then if you need a little luck to get through the playoffs, then that isn't exactly unprecedented among real life teams.

this is you trying to rationalize it by referencing real life expectations when 1) real life outliers (i.e. 7 game series upsets) occur less frequently IRL than they do in the sim (and the sim upsets should occur less) 2) the factors that go into such real life outcomes are not at play in the sim nor should they be

1) Of course, real life outliers occur less frequently. There is only one season's worth of real games played each year. How many seasons do we have going on at one time on this site? Let alone in the course of a year? So while it may seem like these upsets occur more often on the sim, part of that is just the result of more seasons played.

And to think of it another way, to some degree, we are playing the same seasons over and over, especially under the current system when there are acknowledged "cookie cutter" teams. In real life, there is one result from a series, and the odds favor it conforming to expectations or at least being no more than a minor surprise. However, if you played these series several hundred times, odds are that occasionally you would get the big surprises.

Of course, other elements come into play here. In real life, there tends to be more separation in ability for the better teams, making upsets less likely. I think in the sim, that is much less the case since team building is much less restricted. In fact, I would not be surprised at all if the final standings overstate the real difference in ability between teams due to the impact of randomness being diluted over the course of a regular season. Among statistically uniform teams, even a small advantage is likely to lead to a large lead given a large enough sample. However, that same small advantage is much less likely to make a huge impact in a small sample. That's actually a recipe for the type of upsets you are decrying, but what it really means is that these losing teams aren't as much better as you think they are.

2) Aren't they? Of course, they are since the sim is made up of all the actual stats that were impacted by these variations of daily real life. Do you really want a game that averages the actual stats and presents uniform results based upon them? How boring would that be? While the stat tables that form the basis for the players in the sim do not vary like real players, it is the variation in the results of those stat tables that simulates the variations of real people. Without those, there is no game.

"Should" is a misleading term in this context. The team with better rebounders is expected to have more rebounds each game in the statistical sense, but there is no guarantee that they will. In the end, the stat base only represents probabilities.

in terms of competition we pay for that 'should' by concentrating our salary cap resources on those rebounding stats - it is exactly in that context that 'should' holds sway - if we pay for rebounding and our opponent doesnt we 'should' win that battle

How does the fact that your rebounding prowess is variable change what you are trying to accomplish by spending more money on such abilities? Thinking in terms of the "should" just makes you feel robbed if you don't get the result you expect. You are paying for better odds of winning the individual rebound battles, and over the course of a season, I bet you probably do. Within the context of a single game, or even a single series, perhaps that isn't the case, but you still have the same built in odds advantage you paid for - they just didn't come through.

And again, speaking up for randomness, that is how it should be. The game becomes stale if you can always predict the result in advance. It is that staleness that overly infects the sim at present as I indicated above.

false - build a better team and balance the stat conditionals - when there are good owners at work and when all stats are equal and 'equally' priced according to their actual weight in the sim more varied team models will work and there will be more competitive balance game to game

I won't disagree that the game will be better once the salary structure (and perhaps other mechanics) are tweaked to better balance the play. However, I continue to disagree that a lack of variability wouldn't leave the game a boring foregone conclusion after the first handful of games. Sure, with a better balanced version with varied means of building, there would like be some initial uncertainty on who has built the best. But without randomness, after the first few games, it will become obvious who has the best team, and the rest of the season and playoffs would become just a slow march to an inevitable conclusion.

but instituting a false parity by making it more likely that the inferior team will steal a victory simply rewards ignorance and reduces the competitive element of the game - in effect when we are winning or losing by luck we are hardly competing with each other at all - and that is boring

There is plenty of evidence that even under the current system that the best players continue to do well season after season. Obviously, there is a huge skill element to even be in position to win a season. But, yes, there is also a good sized luck element, and I'll continue to argue that the sim desperately needs it, particularly since the greatest portion of the skill element occurs before the first game is played. Without the luck element, there is next to no game once the rosters are set, and the rest of the season is a needlessly drawn out process toward an obvious result.





10/22/2009 9:56 AM
longtallbrad
Posts: 4559 (0)
Hall of Famer
408 43
Pro
Quote: Originally posted by naboimp on 10/22/2009
If we want this to be a playable game, there has to be fluctuation in results, or else there is no point in playing.

I happen to agree with this. In general, the degree of randomness doesn't bother me. It does cause outliers that don't reflect real-life probabilities (most notably with PF disparities), but to my mind that just compensates for real-life variables that the sim doesn't take into account. I think of it as a proxy for factors that do have an effect in the real NBA on whether the "best" team wins a playoff series - things like injuries (you basically have be either a complete noob or inattentive to suffer a player injury here), illness, suspensions, etc.

The randomness bug isn't a very good approximation of those factors, and I'm sure that's not its intended role, but it helps keep the workings of the sim from being too predictable.

Having said that, it would be nice if WIS could be responsive enough to put up guardrails against some things that should never happen (like Wilt fouling out). But my gripes about the sim, when I care to express them, have more to do with player position effectiveness, the evident disconnect between the effect of certain player functions and how they are valued in the salary structure (see: defense), and the murky effects of defensive positioning.

My biggest pet peeve - which I've mentioned before and no one else seems to care about, but I'll say it again anyway - is the lack of some kind of player rating for different offensive schemes. Guys like Bob Cousy, Jason Kidd, Magic Johnson and Steve Nash should have an advantage in fast break mode over guys like Terrell Brandon and Mark Jackson. Same with Bill Walton and Bill Russell over Dikembe Mutombo and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. It's an important real-life variable that doesn't seem to be reflected in any algorithm, but the answer I've gotten from other owners (I haven't heard WIS staff comment on this) is that it would have to be a qualitative judgment so it'll never happen. Still, it is worked into other simulation programs, and I'll keep my fingers crossed here.
10/22/2009 9:58 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4398 (0)
Hall of Famer
54 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/22/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/21/2009

Shap,

Ash is an a$$ who contributes nothing except to whine when he doesn't win, and I bet I'm older than he is. Regardless, it doesn't take a great volume of games to see the issues with the sim. There are serious issues as I indicated, but "too much randomness" isn't one of them.

Too much randomness and/or pseudo randomness are serious issues. I'll have my example momentarily...and here it is...

Got to love a nice 50 point swing at the same venue....beat 04-05 Heat by 14 a few days ago at my place and then they trounce me by 36 this morning...quite nice.

How do you explain/account for this naboimp? I'll say this, if I thought the randomness worked properly in this sim/on this site, I wouldn't be griping about it. This wasn't the first issue I've had and it certainly won't be the last. The evidence is really on my side as well....where did all the customers go if the game is so fantastic?

Yep - that's an example of randomness. Now explain why that is too much randomness in a two game sample that holds itself out as a game and not a predictive simulation. Real life has such samples as well - just look at the Lakers - Rockets series from this last spring. If we want this to be a playable game, there has to be fluctuation in results, or else there is no point in playing.

This isn't real life and yes this matters because humans are a lot more random and emotional than clearly defined and concrete stat tables are, thus a 50 point swing in real life is/should be a ton more likely than a 50 point swing in this sim. Like I said, if I thought the randomness worked properly on this website, I wouldn't be crusading against it. If the randomness worked properly, results would still vary from game to game...I obviously don't want repeat results like guys like you who don't understand the randomness argument suggest.

The game idea is fantastic never argued against this...again more trailing off on your part, but the latest version of it is broken as I stated in my posts (if you'd bother to read them all the way through). You pointing to the lessening popularity of the game does nothing to support your viewpoint regarding the appropriate levels of randomness because you can't control for any other number of variables. Sure it does, the game has gotten progressively worse, many have cited bizarre/unjust results and that is due to extreme randomness, among other arguments and reasons to leave.



10/22/2009 11:17 AM
naboimp
Posts: 2 (0)
Pro
11
Prospect
Trevor,

If you think I am misunderstanding your argument, than make your argument clearly and concisely. As far as I can tell from some of your prior postings, you seem to think there is something wrong in the way the sim generates the random numbers moreso than the fact that they are generated, which is really an entirely different issue altogether (technique v. theory). That certainly isn't the issue that others are raising or that I am defending. Maybe you are right about your allegations, but given that you are complaining about methods that are behind the scenes and you don't have access to, I'm yet to be convinced that you really even know what you are talking about, let alone that you are right.

I do think you are confusing the issue relating to the real life player versus the stat table. The stat table is made up of the varying performances of the real life player, and these performances should probably be viewed in terms of possessions rather than in terms of games, or even minutes. By necessity, there is variation among possessions (make or miss, rebound or don't, turnover or don't), and these are used to determine various percentages of certain things occurring, which when matched against similar percentages derived from the other players on the court and certain other inputs (tempo, defensive positioning, doubling, etc.) determine the odds of certain things happening in a given possession. Yes, the stat table has a static probability of a certain result given control of all other inputs (which are substantial) while a real player's probability of a certain result would be fluctuating constantly. However, over the period of the stats that the real player generates, he is no more random that the stat table generated because once generated, the stats don't change.

Obviously, it is too complicated to incorporate every variable that impacts a real player so using the actually generated stats incorporates all of those variables in shorthand. No, it isn't exactly the same, but then most of us just want a playable game, not a simulation that is able to faithfully recreate some player's off night on the twenty-third game of the season.

Your last points are rambling. The game has gotten progressively worse? Well, I'd agree that the last major changes were a step in the wrong direction, but that has nothing to do with randomness. Many have cited bizarre/unjust results? Perhaps, but most bizarre results have a limited impact on the results of a season, and "unjust" is a subjective term. That is due to extreme randomness? Sure, some of the complaints are about randomness, and the majority of these come across to me as someone complaining because they didn't win. It isn't that they never win since they win often (as Ash so vehemently points out in his last post), but they didn't win this time so the sim must be broken. Personally, that all comes off to me as "sour grapes". But even you can't pretend that that is the only complaint ever voiced since you back off and admit there are "other arguments and reasons to leave". So much for your proof, let alone speaking for those who don't ever give an indication why they are no longer playing.

10/22/2009 12:33 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4398 (0)
Hall of Famer
54 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/22/2009

Trevor,

If you think I am misunderstanding your argument, than make your argument clearly and concisely. I have and out of the respect for the owners in the NBA sim not named naboimp or pimp or whatever it is, I won't continually repost what I've already posted. As far as I can tell from some of your prior postings, you seem to think there is something wrong in the way the sim generates the random numbers moreso than the fact that they are generated, which is really an entirely different issue altogether (technique v. theory). I have no problem that random numbers are generated...that's plain ridiculous because EVERY simulation game has to have some random number generation....the problem with the numbers that generate is that they seem to/tend to cluster and that's a sign of pseudo randomness which other owners have pointed out...the clustering that is. http://www.boallen.com/random-numbers.html Like I said, if I thought this WIS sim or the other WIS sims generated numbers through true randomness, I would have shut up a long time ago. That certainly isn't the issue that others are raising or that I am defending. Maybe you are right about your allegations, but given that you are complaining about methods that are behind the scenes and you don't have access to, I'm yet to be convinced that you really even know what you are talking about, let alone that you are right. The only thing I can go off of are the results that are produced, and if the results are/look wrong, then perceivably the engine is wrong some how, some way. Clustering seems to be a problem and losing a 7 game lead with 10 to go for the final playoff spot, playing against a division that my team relatively dominated for the entire season is extremely ridiculous and unjustifiable. A team made up 8 games in a 10 game stretch...show me in sports where that's EVER happened.

I do think you are confusing the issue relating to the real life player versus the stat table. The stat table is made up of the varying performances of the real life player, and these performances should probably be viewed in terms of possessions rather than in terms of games, or even minutes. By necessity, there is variation among possessions (make or miss, rebound or don't, turnover or don't), and these are used to determine various percentages of certain things occurring, which when matched against similar percentages derived from the other players on the court and certain other inputs (tempo, defensive positioning, doubling, etc.) determine the odds of certain things happening in a given possession. Yes, the stat table has a static probability of a certain result given control of all other inputs (which are substantial) while a real player's probability of a certain result would be fluctuating constantly. However, over the period of the stats that the real player generates, he is no more random that the stat table generated because once generated, the stats don't change. What an incredible waste of a paragraph...if you can't tell that human beings are and should be more random than the stat tables in this sim, then I'm just banging my head against the wall. You don't know what you'll get out of a human from game to game...you know a lot more what you're getting out of your sim player/stat table...again, I don't see how/why this is so hard to understand.

Obviously, it is too complicated to incorporate every variable that impacts a real player so using the actually generated stats incorporates all of those variables in shorthand. No, it isn't exactly the same, but then most of us just want a playable game, not a simulation that is able to faithfully recreate some player's off night on the twenty-third game of the season.*YAWN*...really?

Your last points are rambling. No it isn't...the facts are on my side...customers are virtually non-existant here...that's a fact...where are they? A number of people THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS and LACK OF PAYING/PLAYING have deemed this sim UNPLAYABLE and/or not worth their hard earned money for a variety of reasons, one of which is clustering/bizarre randomness The game has gotten progressively worse? Well, I'd agree that the last major changes were a step in the wrong direction, but that has nothing to do with randomness. Apologize for the game all you want...you see all the trees around you...that's right, you're in the forest... Many have cited bizarre/unjust results? Perhaps, but most bizarre results have a limited impact on the results of a season, and "unjust" is a subjective term. Bizarre is a subjective term, what's your point? It seems that you're suggesting that its ok for the sim to take a **** 1-5 games out of 82 in a season...I disagree and I think many others would as well. My team should execute and play the way that I paid for every game by the coaching strategies that I've set for them to play. The sim overrides that from time to time, and its out and out ridiculous. That is due to extreme randomness? Sure, some of the complaints are about randomness, and the majority of these come across to me as someone complaining because they didn't win. It isn't that they never win since they win often (as Ash so vehemently points out in his last post), but they didn't win this time so the sim must be broken. People that know me and that have been in leagues with me know that winning is secondary to personal enjoyment and a ton of people can back me on this. I'm on season 24 (out of 55 total teams) where I'm only using players from 1972-73 and prior, I've created a 1949 draft class team JUST BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE, I even created a team back in the day with the lowest minute team I could come up with just to see how many times they would forfeit (it never happened) so my proof is in the pudding...winning isn't the #1 priority here, enjoying the game and stats is. Ask anyone here and they'll echo that. Personally, that all comes off to me as "sour grapes". But even you can't pretend that that is the only complaint ever voiced since you back off and admit there are "other arguments and reasons to leave". So much for your proof, let alone speaking for those who don't ever give an indication why they are no longer playing. The fact of the matter is, they're not playing this sim because for various reasons they deemed it unplayable. I'm not pretending to speak for everyone trust me, long before your time I fought everyone here, whether my arguments were popular or not. I don't really care if anyone agrees with me or not, but over time, people usually see my points of view and know that they're valid. If you don't think bizarre randomness is a problem with the game, I'll tell you all day, every day that you're wrong. Why people aren't playing takes a back seat to the fact that people aren't playing, and that is something that you aren't grasping. Before you know it, the only league you'll see here is one filled with 24 naboimp teams because there won't be anyone . You want me to win? I'll just go copy a team and take it to a championship....winning is that easy...I know of the formulas.



10/22/2009 1:17 PM
naboimp
Posts: 2 (0)
Pro
11
Prospect
Easy, Trevor. You got on such a roll there that apparently you didn't even realize that half your shots at me were pretty much missing the mark.

Despite your tendency to cast me as some apologist for the sim, I'm not happy with the sim at present either, and I haven't played in some time. I have been considering playing again, but I strongly dislike the current paradigm that it takes to win, and while I don't need to win it all to enjoy the experience, it does help if my teams are competitive. However, when I see people complaining about randomness as the problem with the sim, I'm going to combat that notion because I strongly disagree. As things stand, the sim is too predictable because there's really only one way to win. Sure, there are occasionally weird game results, but it really isn't that big of a deal, or it wouldn't be if people weren't already looking for something to complain about. The focus on randomness is a red herring that distracts from the real issues with the sim. (As an aside, I allowed for the possibility that you may be right about what I guess you call clustering, but again that's a technique issue rather than a theory issue, and I have no basis to judge it. Of course, neither do you that I can tell, which is why I remain skeptical.)

If I referenced people who win complaining about the times they don't, it was because you were the one referencing such people as evidence that the randomness is a problem. Sorry, but it is hard for me to feel sorry for people winning on a consistent basis because they occasionally don't. If you don't need to win to enjoy the game, good for you, but don't then rely on these people's grumblings as a basis for your arguments.

The basic point that we can agree on is that there are fewer people playing than there used to be. The fact is that we can not accurately allocate the reduction among particular reasons when it is clear there are plenty to choose from. Might some have because of a bad string of random luck? Sure, but I would tend to guess random luck had less to do with their losing streaks than such people might think. In any case, there are any number of reasons why individual people may have , not least of which is that the current paradigm sucks. You can't form a supportable argument for or against any individual aspect based upon just reduction among people playing.

I'll give one last try in trying to explain the difference in randomness from reality to a stat table. Yes, a real person is extremely random. Not only do his results vary from play to play, but his probabilities of getting those results vary from play to play as well. To simplify, let's just take a player shooting 100 free throws. At some points during the process, his shooting form is better than it is at others for the multitude of variables that impact shooting free throws, but in the end, say he makes 72 of them, and we create a very simple stat table out of his 100 attempts.

At this point, the player is done. Whatever variation there was in his 100 attempts was there, and it will no longer change. The stat table has built into it the variation that existed during the player's 100 attempts. If we run the stat table for a series of 100 free throw runs, then it is true that we may not get exactly 72 each time - in fact we surely won't. But the degree of randomness is exactly the same as that exhibited by the player in his initial run because the odds of hitting each individual shot will be the same as the average odds displayed by the player - 72%. What I don't understand is why you have a problem with this?



10/22/2009 3:28 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4398 (0)
Hall of Famer
54 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 10/22/2009
Easy, Trevor. You got on such a roll there that apparently you didn't even realize that half your shots at me were pretty much missing the mark.

Despite your tendency to cast me as some apologist for the sim I think there are a fair amount of people that would say that you are, I'm not happy with the sim at present either, and I haven't played in some time. I have been considering playing again, but I strongly dislike the current paradigm that it takes to win, and while I don't need to win it all to enjoy the experience, it does help if my teams are competitive. However, when I see people complaining about randomness as the problem with the sim, I'm going to combat that notion because I strongly disagree. As things stand, the sim is too predictable because there's really only one way to win. Sure, there are occasionally weird game results and that is one of my personal biggest pet peeves about the game...and you're ok with these occasional occurences, you say so directly after this, and I think that's ridiculous...that makes you an apologist for the sim. To be ok with the sim overriding everything and doing what it wants for +-5 games throughout a given season is rather bizarre to me. And like I said, to have 8 games made up in the final 10 against competition you handled fairly well is nothing short of outrageous., but it really isn't that big of a deal, or it wouldn't be if people weren't already looking for something to complain about. The focus on randomness is a red herring that distracts from the real issues with the sim. If I didn't think it was a real issue, I wouldn't be arguing about it. I understand that I'm probably in the minority in this, but I believe pseudo randomness is a problem, especially when guys foul out in obscenely low amounts of minutes which also ties in to FTA v. PF which I argued about 4-5 years ago when I was told by WIS and some others here that I was wrong then too. Funny how the topic has re-emerged. (As an aside, I allowed for the possibility that you may be right about what I guess you call clustering, but again that's a technique issue rather than a theory issue, and I have no basis to judge it. Of course, neither do you that I can tell, which is why I remain skeptical.) You're right, I have no proof and WIS'll probably never show me or anyone the behind the scenes "random" number generation because A. They don't want to give away their secrets and B. The sim is probably too/overly complex for its own good, which is a whole nother can of worms...which I'll argue every day as well. All I have to go on are the results that I see and the results that I see from time to time show bizarre, unjustifiable randomness and clustering that happens for no other reason than what I like to call "the sim took a **** today". Just because it happens to everybody, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

If I referenced people who win complaining about the times they don't, it was because you were the one referencing such people as evidence that the randomness is a problem. I was not speaking for those people, I was attempting to speak for those who are no longer on the site, period, not the ones who are still here and legitimately complaining/raising questions. Where are the people that ? Why aren't they here? Has WIS ever tried to figure out why they ? All pertinent questions here. A ton of people have been wronged by ridiculously bizarre results that tie in to randomness somehow. Sorry, but it is hard for me to feel sorry for people winning on a consistent basis because they occasionally don't. If you don't need to win to enjoy the game, good for you, but don't then rely on these people's grumblings as a basis for your arguments. Don't get me wrong, I want to win and be successful with the teams I create, but I'm not going to go out of my way to create a "cookie-cutter" team just to slam dunk a championship...why do you think there are a lot of guys out here now that will only play theme leagues? Because they don't want the easy win...they want a challenge, they want to use different rosters, etc.

The basic point that we can agree on is that there are fewer people playing than there used to be. The fact is that we can not accurately allocate the reduction among particular reasons when it is clear there are plenty to choose from. Might some have because of a bad string of random luck? Sure, but I would tend to guess random luck had less to do with their losing streaks than such people might think. My point is, it doesn't really matter why they're gone...its the fact that they are gone and what is the company doing/going to do about it? And the answer thus far has been nothing. Point and laugh, that's about it. In any case, there are any number of reasons why individual people may have , not least of which is that the current paradigm sucks. You can't form a supportable argument for or against any individual aspect based upon just reduction among people playing. You can't, but what I'm saying is, is that SOME people have and/or stopped playing this sim for the same reasons I haven't bought a team in 6 months or so, but they're not here and or don't even care to say it. Trust me I know there isn't just one thing wrong with this sim. I had a Jerry Lucas take 3 shots in 40 minutes last night...with no FTA, which I found to be ridiculous.

I'll give one last try in trying to explain the difference in randomness from reality to a stat table. Yes, a real person is extremely random. Not only do his results vary from play to play, but his probabilities of getting those results vary from play to play as well. To simplify, let's just take a player shooting 100 free throws. At some points during the process, his shooting form is better than it is at others for the multitude of variables that impact shooting free throws, but in the end, say he makes 72 of them, and we create a very simple stat table out of his 100 attempts. Right, thus since the game has all the information it needs to run the game, it should run the game perfectly, if not more perfect than how a real/actual game is run. This simulation shouldn't be like real life (and I know I'll get a lot of flak for saying this) because in real life there are so many uncontrollable variables that can't and SHOULDN'T be involved in a game of this nature, period. Sim games eliminate the miniutae of its real life counterparts...I don't want the sim to try to be unnecessarily realistic, it isn't why I play.

At this point, the player is done. Whatever variation there was in his 100 attempts was there, and it will no longer change. The stat table has built into it the variation that existed during the player's 100 attempts. If we run the stat table for a series of 100 free throw runs, then it is true that we may not get exactly 72 each time - in fact we surely won't. But the degree of randomness is exactly the same as that exhibited by the player in his initial run because the odds of hitting each individual shot will be the same as the average odds displayed by the player - 72%. What I don't understand is why you have a problem with this? Apples to oranges here my friend. In real life, the probability of hitting 1 single FTA is 50%...he's either going to make (100%) or miss (0%). In the sim, he has a 72% chance of making any given free throw, which is based on a season's worth of FTA, so theoretically the engine draws a number 1-72 is a MAKE, 73-100 is a MISS.....47 MAKE. I don't think the sim has randomness issues in this phase of the game, however if they're using the pseudo randomness that I linked you to, then the possibility of clustering is more possible, which could and would probably affect FTA as well. Like I said earlier, as far as I'm concerned, I think the sim is too complex for its own good.





10/22/2009 5:02 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4398 (0)
Hall of Famer
54 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Going to further expand on the Jerry Lucas thing the other night

68-69 Jerry Lucas 16.5 usage% 3 FGA, 0 FTA in 40 minutes

72-73 Dean Meminger 13.8 usage% 5FGA, 3 FTA in 22 minutes

I won the game (103-100) and yes it was only 1 game, but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous that this happened. This is a joke to me, especially when Lucas is averaging over 10 FGA a game and averaged 13.6 FGA/game in his actual 68-69 campaign.
10/22/2009 5:16 PM
RamBeast
Posts: 0 (0)
Rookie
1 3 1
Prospect
holy crap... am I looking at a post that is trying to expand on a point and utilized a 16.5% usage against a 13.8% usage and claiming it's a joke ????? jeesh, my engineering degree might be out of date but my level of intelligence has never changed..... if you consider that to be within even 1% of a USEFUL example, you musta been absolutely frickin STONED !!!! I must be drunk off my 2 beers to actually want to join this particular conversation, but are you really even serious with that example ??? I guarantee if you show me the season's stats when it's over that Jerry will have taken the right number of shots (and I don't mean the tequilas that you apparently are on), compared to the bench player that you actually have the idiocy to bring into the conversation....

You must just want to add that to keep your posts up to date or something... that added absolutely nothing to any conversation that even pretended to include an intelligent thought.........
10/22/2009 9:46 PM
tnbishop
Posts: 0 (0)
Rookie
1 5 1
Prospect
wow, some people here don't understand variance.

Michael Jordan has 32 FGA one game and then 12 the next. No, this isn't the sim, it's the 1990 season. Last year the Hornets beat the Nuggets in game 3 of the playoffs and then lost game 4 by 58 points. I can only imagine the nerd rage if that happened in a sim league.
10/23/2009 5:48 AM
scudmissle
Posts: 3587 (0)
Hall of Famer
483 4
Prospect
lol...

agreeeed!

and naboimp... thanks for the posts. nice linear and vertical thinking there. a matrix. if anyone wants to know how seble's #### tastes, well, they've got issues of their own they need to discuss with someone.

10/23/2009 6:51 AM
longtallbrad
Posts: 4559 (0)
Hall of Famer
408 43
Pro
Nice to have some new voices weighing in on this thread.
10/23/2009 9:35 AM
monkee
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 192 7 7
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tnbishop on 10/23/2009
wow, some people here don't understand variance.

Michael Jordan has 32 FGA one game and then 12 the next. No, this isn't the sim, it's the 1990 season. Last year the Hornets beat the Nuggets in game 3 of the playoffs and then lost game 4 by 58 points. I can only imagine the nerd rage if that happened in a sim league.
you dont get it - real life doesnt form a good basis for discussion of behaviors in the sim

there are myriad reasons for real life variance having to do with subjective factors that are not accounted for in the sim

the sim is simply stat tables plus chance - there are no factors for emotional intensity, illness, feeling the flow etc etc in the sim

and there shouldnt be because the number one element that maintains competitive balance in this game is the salary valuation of the stats we draft -we pay for 3000 minutes and 30% drb and 90 d and 50% shooting (and we pay a little less for 311 tos or 323 pfs) and if we get 3500 minutes instead of 3000 the competitive balance gets jacked up and if we get 20% drb instead of 30% the competitive balance gets jacked up etc etc

the sim works opposite of real life where stats are simply a descriptor of past outcomes

in the sim stats are suppsed to be the determining basis for those results - sim outcomes should vary less than real life does
10/23/2009 9:54 AM
◂ Prev 1...29|30|31|32|33...39 Next ▸
Feedback Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.