All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Good way to separate playing time?
3/24/2013 2:33 PM
Posted by graff on 3/24/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Ok now we're getting somewhere.

What about being able to recruit those 1-2 studs better than other people? Better use of recruiting money/recruiting strategy or even sustained success to build your schools prestige to make those stud recruits want to come play for you instead of somebody else? That's not something that coaches can "control" here?

And what about setting your shot distribution? What about coaches gearing up specific defensive alignments to stop your 1 or 2 studs, and the good coaches having enough foresight to build a game strategy that would allow for 2nd and 3rd best players to "step up" in those games? That's not something we can control?

I feel like a lot of people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by just shrugging your shoulders and accepting things that are just wildly inaccurate just "because it's a sim".
those are things we can already do now.

your suggestion just makes the rich get richer, especially at D1. 

the fact is if you want to play an 8 man rotation with guys playing 35 mins each, you can.  play zone, use all your money to get 8 guys with good stamina, slow it down, and have a blast.
3/24/2013 3:38 PM
Posted by graff on 3/24/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 3/24/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by graff on 3/23/2013 11:31:00 PM (view original):
I'm just coming back to HD for my 3rd go around. One of the things that just absolutely irritates me to no end is the limited amount of minutes it allows guys to play, thus forcing big minutes for all your bench guys (and a much larger rotation). 

In reality, most teams play 7-8 guys and beyond that it's only for a couple spot minutes or mop-up time. Of those 7-8 guys, it's really common to have 3-4 guys playing 30ish minutes and if you have 1 or 2 "studs" then they play 34-36 minutes and only come out for a quick blow each half. 

If you even attempt to go with an 8 man rotation and keeping your starters in for 30 minutes in HD, you're going to get killed because they'll all either foul out (due to fatigue) or simply play like crap late in the game with turnovers and missed shots (again due to fatigue). 

It would be nice if guys with good conditioning (stamina) could play 36-38 minutes regularly without much drop-off. It would be MUCH more realistic instead of this forced 10 man rotation where starters play 22-24 minutes and bench guys play 16-18 minutes and there's very little distinction between starter vs. bench minutes (and production).
Would it be more realistic to play shorter rotations? Yes, that would mimic more real life teams.

But what you're giving up to do that is, in my opinion, a pretty massive negative. The way things are set up now, things like depth, strategy and team building really matter. They're important parts of the game. And in DI, it also allows lesser teams that are veteran laden and/or deep to compete with some of the big boys. If the big boys only needed to go seven deep, it would just be the rich getting richer.

So while it would be more realistic, it would also be much worse for the game, and make HD way less interesting and strategic.

See I don't get that line of thinking at all, but maybe I'm in the minority?

I think the draw/interest in this game is to be as real of a "simulator" as possible. If that's true then I WANT it to be as realistic as possible. There should be "stud" freshman at D1 who are better than Seniors and leave for the NBA after 1 year. For that matter, the lack of underclassmen being good/better than some upper classmen in general is another huge gripe I have. Sure guys improve some over time, thus IN GENERAL seniors will be better than freshman, but in reality you can't just say Team A has 8 seniors vs. Team B has 3 seniors...okay Team A is obviously better. Here you can. If I recruit a "stud" frosh he should realistically be good enough to be a starter/top 2-4 type player from day 1, not be just "good for a freshman".

There should be guys who can play 36+ minutes (not a lot, but 1 or 2 per team maybe) without any drop off. So that coaches can use realistic 7-8 man rotations and strategies.

I don't think it takes away from the strategy of the game it all, it just CHANGES it. Of course it also puts a lot more emphasis on recruiting.....which is also realistic!

To me, this game just feels way too "gimmicky". It plays like a big random number generator more than a basketball simulator, where the only thing that matters is figuring out the best probabilities instead of doing things that might be unconventional but actually work. 

Anyway, we'll see if it's any more fun this time for me. Hopefully it is because I think the IDEA behind this is really neat. 
graff, this game certainly does not exist just to copy real life. It is actually chock full of concessions that are simply acknowledged to be better for game play despite not mirroring real life. There are a ton of them at every level. Just blindly mirroring real life does not result in the best, richest, most interesting and multi-faceted game. And the minutes played thing is one of the very best examples of this.
3/24/2013 4:30 PM
Posted by bow2dacowz on 3/24/2013 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by graff on 3/24/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Ok now we're getting somewhere.

What about being able to recruit those 1-2 studs better than other people? Better use of recruiting money/recruiting strategy or even sustained success to build your schools prestige to make those stud recruits want to come play for you instead of somebody else? That's not something that coaches can "control" here?

And what about setting your shot distribution? What about coaches gearing up specific defensive alignments to stop your 1 or 2 studs, and the good coaches having enough foresight to build a game strategy that would allow for 2nd and 3rd best players to "step up" in those games? That's not something we can control?

I feel like a lot of people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by just shrugging your shoulders and accepting things that are just wildly inaccurate just "because it's a sim".
those are things we can already do now.

your suggestion just makes the rich get richer, especially at D1. 

the fact is if you want to play an 8 man rotation with guys playing 35 mins each, you can.  play zone, use all your money to get 8 guys with good stamina, slow it down, and have a blast.
What is this "the rich get richer" garbage? You mean the teams with the best players, most wins and best coaches who recruited those players and came up with winning strategies SHOULDN'T be rewarded? And further, that we should skew the entire game illogically just to make it "fair" for more people?

If you coach a team which isn't a "big boy" then figure out a way to get a stud or two to come to your school in recruiting and then build a strategy based around their skills/strenghts (oh except you CAN'T do that right now because even if he's the best player on the court he can only play 24 minutes a game before he turns into a walk-on who is so exhausted he can't run anymore, thus you're left trying to win with sub-par players getting extended minutes even though as a coach it's the last thing you want). 

If that's the case maybe we should just turn the sim into a coin flip generator. Everybody gets a 50/50 shot and we just let randomness rule the day.

Also, why should I be FORCED to play zone/slowdown just to be able to play realistic rotations? Talk about tying a coaches hands and limiting "possibilities". 

All I'm really asking for here is the stamina to be looked at to allow players to play realistic minutes before they're exhausted and useless. I have yet to hear why this change toward realism is a bad thing.
3/24/2013 4:35 PM
Posted by girt25 on 3/24/2013 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by graff on 3/24/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 3/24/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by graff on 3/23/2013 11:31:00 PM (view original):
I'm just coming back to HD for my 3rd go around. One of the things that just absolutely irritates me to no end is the limited amount of minutes it allows guys to play, thus forcing big minutes for all your bench guys (and a much larger rotation). 

In reality, most teams play 7-8 guys and beyond that it's only for a couple spot minutes or mop-up time. Of those 7-8 guys, it's really common to have 3-4 guys playing 30ish minutes and if you have 1 or 2 "studs" then they play 34-36 minutes and only come out for a quick blow each half. 

If you even attempt to go with an 8 man rotation and keeping your starters in for 30 minutes in HD, you're going to get killed because they'll all either foul out (due to fatigue) or simply play like crap late in the game with turnovers and missed shots (again due to fatigue). 

It would be nice if guys with good conditioning (stamina) could play 36-38 minutes regularly without much drop-off. It would be MUCH more realistic instead of this forced 10 man rotation where starters play 22-24 minutes and bench guys play 16-18 minutes and there's very little distinction between starter vs. bench minutes (and production).
Would it be more realistic to play shorter rotations? Yes, that would mimic more real life teams.

But what you're giving up to do that is, in my opinion, a pretty massive negative. The way things are set up now, things like depth, strategy and team building really matter. They're important parts of the game. And in DI, it also allows lesser teams that are veteran laden and/or deep to compete with some of the big boys. If the big boys only needed to go seven deep, it would just be the rich getting richer.

So while it would be more realistic, it would also be much worse for the game, and make HD way less interesting and strategic.

See I don't get that line of thinking at all, but maybe I'm in the minority?

I think the draw/interest in this game is to be as real of a "simulator" as possible. If that's true then I WANT it to be as realistic as possible. There should be "stud" freshman at D1 who are better than Seniors and leave for the NBA after 1 year. For that matter, the lack of underclassmen being good/better than some upper classmen in general is another huge gripe I have. Sure guys improve some over time, thus IN GENERAL seniors will be better than freshman, but in reality you can't just say Team A has 8 seniors vs. Team B has 3 seniors...okay Team A is obviously better. Here you can. If I recruit a "stud" frosh he should realistically be good enough to be a starter/top 2-4 type player from day 1, not be just "good for a freshman".

There should be guys who can play 36+ minutes (not a lot, but 1 or 2 per team maybe) without any drop off. So that coaches can use realistic 7-8 man rotations and strategies.

I don't think it takes away from the strategy of the game it all, it just CHANGES it. Of course it also puts a lot more emphasis on recruiting.....which is also realistic!

To me, this game just feels way too "gimmicky". It plays like a big random number generator more than a basketball simulator, where the only thing that matters is figuring out the best probabilities instead of doing things that might be unconventional but actually work. 

Anyway, we'll see if it's any more fun this time for me. Hopefully it is because I think the IDEA behind this is really neat. 
graff, this game certainly does not exist just to copy real life. It is actually chock full of concessions that are simply acknowledged to be better for game play despite not mirroring real life. There are a ton of them at every level. Just blindly mirroring real life does not result in the best, richest, most interesting and multi-faceted game. And the minutes played thing is one of the very best examples of this.
girt, I understand it's now how it IS. I'm just asking WHY? And why can't this be looked at to be improved/changed? 

How does having realistic stamina effects and therefore realistic rotations hurt game play, or hinder the "richness" or "interest" or "multi-facetedness" (is that a word? lol) of the sim?

FWIW I'm working on the average playing times for all D1 teams from the NCAA in 2012-13 and comparing that to the results here in WiS. 
3/24/2013 4:44 PM
the other "possibility" since you dislike the game SO much, is that you could leave it for the third and final time?
3/24/2013 5:23 PM
*sighs*. Look I WANT to like this sim. I wouldn't keep coming back if I didn't.

Sad to see that just by trying to start a discussion about some inaccuracies of the sim and trying to think of ways to improve the game results in me being told to "just leave for a final time".

Ignorance is bliss I guess....
3/24/2013 5:31 PM
graff, you can play guys here in the sim for 35 minutes if you like. What you seem to desire (or demand) is the ability to do so at "fresh" levels without any drop in performance.

Guess what? That's not realistic. In real life.

With only a handful of historic exceptions, *most* of the few guys who average 35 minutes per game aren't completely fresh throughout the game (even with things like TV timeouts).

They don't have a blue or orange bar over their heads, so you cannot tell what fatigue level they are, but they are less fresh (and - in the vast majority of cases, less effective) later in games. Not as quick to loose balls, not as aggressive on boxing out, leaving shots short - you see all of these things more often late in the game in RL.

HBD already mirrors that, only with a much more clear delineation of how tired players get. If you want them to play 35 minutes, they won't be fully fresh, just like the guys who play 35 minutes in RL aren't as fresh by the end of the game as they were at the start.
3/24/2013 5:43 PM
Good points zbrent.

I wonder then (and maybe some of you guys more experienced in the sim can help here) if the AMOUNT of drop-off for these fatigue levels is really the issue?

Because it appears to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) that if I attempt to play guys consistently 32/34/36 minutes a game in HD that by the end of the game they are AWFUL. Like forget how to dribble and can't make a layup awful...thus it's much more beneficial to play your sub-par guys more minutes even though they might not be very good.

When in reality, when these guys get fatigued, they might not have legs for a long jumper every time, or the energy to dive for that loose ball...but their overall level of play isn't THAT much worse otherwise coaches wouldn't even consider playing them that much.
3/24/2013 10:14 PM
Posted by graff on 3/24/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
Good points zbrent.

I wonder then (and maybe some of you guys more experienced in the sim can help here) if the AMOUNT of drop-off for these fatigue levels is really the issue?

Because it appears to me (and correct me if I'm wrong) that if I attempt to play guys consistently 32/34/36 minutes a game in HD that by the end of the game they are AWFUL. Like forget how to dribble and can't make a layup awful...thus it's much more beneficial to play your sub-par guys more minutes even though they might not be very good.

When in reality, when these guys get fatigued, they might not have legs for a long jumper every time, or the energy to dive for that loose ball...but their overall level of play isn't THAT much worse otherwise coaches wouldn't even consider playing them that much.
Honestly, in my experience, no, the level of dropoff doesn't really seem overly severe to me in most cases.

Where it is most severe - and, arguably, should be even more severe - is when teams run uptempo and/or press (especially both). Press, in particular, tired guys begin to pick up fouls more quickly, as they should. After all, they are trying to run a full-court press while they are tired, usually against an opponent who has fresh/fairly fresh guys on the court. It's a ridiculous concept that you don't see teams try in RL unless they are desperate, in large part because it has such a low likelihood of success.

I think perhaps you should give zone a try. It has drawbacks, and on a per-play basis it may be the least effective D (most believe it is). But run zone (especially with slow down) and you can have your 7-8 man rotation and mid-to-high stamina players average 30+ without much trouble.
3/24/2013 10:23 PM
Here is an example: http://whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=9272793.

It actually matched up a slowdown/zone and a slowdown/man. I know for Missouri, St. Louis (zone team), no one played below fairly fresh. No one fell below blue fatigue, and the starters went 32 min (87 Sta), 32 min (87 Sta), 32 min (87 Sta), 28 min (71 Sta), 24 min (68 Sta). Had I wanted to push the 85+ guys, 35-38 minutes wouldn't have put them below 'getting tired' I don't think.

Extreme example, of course, with both playing slowdown, but that is the sort of situation where I think it is reasonable to expect the sort of high minutes you want.

Run normal or uptempo, have an opponent who pushes the pace, try to press for 40 minutes - trying to do those sorts of things and still have your starters be productive for 35+ minutes every game would be less realistic than it is now, and would be disastrous for game play, IMO, especially at the D2/D3 levels.
3/25/2013 11:26 AM (edited)
graf, I already explained why it would be bad:

"But what you're giving up to do that is, in my opinion, a pretty massive negative. The way things are set up now, things like depth, strategy and team building really matter. They're important parts of the game. And in DI, it also allows lesser teams that are veteran laden and/or deep to compete with some of the big boys. If the big boys only needed to go seven deep, it would just be the rich getting richer."

Again, mostly you lose the emphasis on strategy, depth and team building. Those are big parts of the game. They require more skill beyond just signing a few good players and rolling the ball out there, which is what your "fix" would result in. I could go into significantly more detail, but anyone who really understands the game gets this. It would make the game much worse.

3/25/2013 10:03 AM
I could go into significantly more detail, but anyway who really understands the game gets this. It would make the game much worse.
Agreed 100%.

I like recruiting well for depth and using a 10-man rotation and being able to upend someone who thinks their more talented starters can last 35+ mpg when those guys are dragging and my fresh but less talented guys come in and spark my team to a win.
?
3/25/2013 4:19 PM (edited)
I agree with the current setup with 10 man rotations being the norm. However, when I have to recruit 5-6 players, I usually can set a rotation of my current starters to slowdown and have them play 30-35 minutes in basically a 6-7 man rotation, while the rookies get their IQ to C or C+ or so. Once the IQ's get up, then I go back to regular 10 man rotations. Which brings me to the following quote:
 
"To me, this game just feels way too "gimmicky". It plays like a big random number generator more than a basketball simulator, where the only thing that matters is figuring out the best probabilities instead of doing things that might be unconventional but actually work."

Well, it IS a random number generated game and should "feel" like it. And although it tries to mimic real life, it also wants to make a "game" of it. It IS a game of probabilities and if it didnt play like a game, nobody would spend any money on it. I sure wouldn't if I didnt have much say in my team.

Being a programmer IRL, I always look at this game as programming functions instead of basketball plays, etc.. What would a program function do in certain cases. Usually, I dont even think in basketball terms, just Functions, SubRoutines, while-do loops, switch case statements, etc...
3/25/2013 6:03 PM
But girt, depth doesn't HAVE to be the only successful strategy. It should be an OPTION, just like in real life IMO. Team A goes 10 deep and presses the whole game and has a bunch of upperclassmen who have developed vs. Team B who only goes 7 deep and has NBA prospect freshman and sophomores with insane talent but low IQ. It creates more viable strategies for coaches to implement.

Right now both teams are forced to play 10 guys (unless you want to be forced to play zone/slowdown).

In addition, I think by implementing a more realistic fatigue/stamina parameter that it would actually REWARD coaches of less prestigious programs. They may not be able to land any top recruits as good as the big boys, but you can make up for it by having more upperclassmen and a deeper bench. Now that's the ONLY way to be good. 

So again I ask, if it's more realistic AND gives coaches more options, why would this make the game "much worse"?? To me it would make the game much more variable and less static as well as added realism. The strategy portion of the game is still very much intact as it would pertain to recruiting, game by game matchup decisions and now you ADD more variance in distribution of minutes!


3/25/2013 6:09 PM
Posted by paland on 3/25/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
I agree with the current setup with 10 man rotations being the norm. However, when I have to recruit 5-6 players, I usually can set a rotation of my current starters to slowdown and have them play 30-35 minutes in basically a 6-7 man rotation, while the rookies get their IQ to C or C+ or so. Once the IQ's get up, then I go back to regular 10 man rotations. Which brings me to the following quote:
 
"To me, this game just feels way too "gimmicky". It plays like a big random number generator more than a basketball simulator, where the only thing that matters is figuring out the best probabilities instead of doing things that might be unconventional but actually work."

Well, it IS a random number generated game and should "feel" like it. And although it tries to mimic real life, it also wants to make a "game" of it. It IS a game of probabilities and if it didnt play like a game, nobody would spend any money on it. I sure wouldn't if I didnt have much say in my team.

Being a programmer IRL, I always look at this game as programming functions instead of basketball plays, etc.. What would a program function do in certain cases. Usually, I dont even think in basketball terms, just Functions, SubRoutines, while-do loops, switch case statements, etc...
Of course it USES functions and probabilistic models to determine outcomes....no other way to "simulate" the events. But what's the point if those events it's trying to simulate aren't rooted in something realistic from the real world?

It's not a probability game for the sake of crunching numbers. It's USING probability to "attempt" to mimic a real basketball game down to each individual play and situation.

And again, the whole point of this discussion isn't to trash/complain about the entire logic behind the simulation. It's just that this is one of the "bugs" that I think could be easily "fixed" to be more in line with real life and would in turn make the game play that  much better.
of 3
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Good way to separate playing time?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.