Posted by npb7768 on 10/1/2018 2:44:00 AM (view original):
I'm in agreement with Shoe on both counts-- recruiting and simulations.

With the simulations, i do remember a thread with Seble or maybe a chat with Seble, and from what i remember he described a sim adjustment to account for one team getting red-hot. I remember getting aggravated that my mediocre teams would in a sense have to beat an opponent twice. The thread or chat would have been sometime in 2014, when i was still in Div-3 or maybe just promoted to Div-2. I started HD in September of 2013. I'll try to find it.

I have the same recollection. I think it was during a dev chat, not a thread. All of the dev chats are inaccessible, at least for me, since migration over to the sportshub platform.

Posted by buddhagamer on 10/1/2018 12:13:00 AM (view original):
Just to be clear, 15 of those 61 points is due to your setting of intentionally fouling beginning with 2 minutes remaining (of which your opponent went 15 for 20 from the line).

And why didn't you post about this supposed issue when you scored 19 points vs. Piedmont in the first half, then scored 48 in the 2nd half to win (or do you think you should of lost that game).

My aggressive foul setting in this instance may have added 5 points to his total, over what a less aggressive setting would have produced. Maybe, that’s being liberal. 16 to 56 is still ridiculous.

You got me, I don’t complain (on the forums) about every instance I see, and since my teams are generally a little above average I suppose, I “benefit” more than it hurts me. Be that as it may, I have brought it up before. I talk about the ugly stick quite a bit in conference chat, and I referenced forced regression in a thread mully started on “NBA Jam”. I don’t want a game that I win all the time. I want a game where the process is reasonable.

Posted by shoe3 on 9/30/2018 10:23:00 PM (view original):
Observationally, I don’t think it’s just a halftime adjustment, either. I suspect it can be triggered at any point where a team outperforms expectations by x amount.

I am almost positive it doesn't start until half time. It would be a good question to ask Seble in a ticket. Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal and the theory behind it is at least reasonable.

I don't think it's super powerful because I have had tons of guys shoot 3-14 from the FT line and as a team I have shot under 50% a number of times.

Wayback Machine might have the old dev chats. I'll look later today.

I'm with Trenton. I'm willing to concede the effect probably exists, and I think the game is better off for it. Is there an example of this effect producing an unreasonble final score?

Sure, anyone can just *ask seble*, but forum speculation is more fun!

You may be right, my suspicion is just suspicion. But I’ve seen so many 12-0, 20-5, 33-31 halves. It was a running joke in an old conference of mine about trying not to start hot, adding a setting called “do not go up by more than 10 points”.

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/1/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Wayback Machine might have the old dev chats. I'll look later today.

I'm with Trenton. I'm willing to concede the effect probably exists, and I think the game is better off for it. Is there an example of this effect producing an unreasonble final score?

The final score should be the net result after the entire series of possessions has played out, according to the parameters set at the beginning of the match. That’s reasonable. Stacking the deck to achieve a “reasonable” outcome is not, in fact, reasonable.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/1/2018 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/1/2018 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Wayback Machine might have the old dev chats. I'll look later today.

I'm with Trenton. I'm willing to concede the effect probably exists, and I think the game is better off for it. Is there an example of this effect producing an unreasonble final score?

The final score should be the net result after the entire series of possessions has played out, according to the parameters set at the beginning of the match. That’s reasonable. Stacking the deck to achieve a “reasonable” outcome is not, in fact, reasonable.

I will take that as a "no."

I know it isn’t the main subject of this thread, but I don’t think anyone can argue that a D1 prospect signing with a D2 over a D1 is ridiculous. A high school basketball player from the state of Michigan, who is aspiring to play D1 ball, is going to sign with Eastern/Western/Central Michigan over Ferris State 100 times out of 100 if they showed even slight interest and offered a scholarship. They won’t care that Ferris State is an “A+” D2 team (they just won the D2 title this year, which is why I used them as an example).

Posted by MWalpole on 10/1/2018 1:34:00 PM (view original):
I know it isn’t the main subject of this thread, but I don’t think anyone can argue that a D1 prospect signing with a D2 over a D1 is ridiculous. A high school basketball player from the state of Michigan, who is aspiring to play D1 ball, is going to sign with Eastern/Western/Central Michigan over Ferris State 100 times out of 100 if they showed even slight interest and offered a scholarship. They won’t care that Ferris State is an “A+” D2 team (they just won the D2 title this year, which is why I used them as an example).

That is a different topic and while I think many people agree with you many people don't.

Shoe -
1) yes it is happening and
2) yes I am fine with it.

One of the complaints from tarek's game engine was the unpredictability. Don't know how much you remember but we all called the game "coin flip dynasty" because ratings mattered little due to the random nature of each game. This particularly ****** off users in the post season and is one of the reasons you would see crap teams make big post season runs.

When seble reprogrammed the engine a goal was to tighten the randomness. From my understanding he had two choices ; 1) tighten the standard deviation of results on each possession or 2) tighten the standard deviation on the entire game. (I know I'm not using this term correctly but hopefully you get my drift.) He chose #2. The result is in the 2nd half, the better team would have a better opportunity to come back and win if the underdog was playing beyond the standard deviation. Underdogs still win , just less than before.

I didn’t play HD until 2013, so happily that was not something I experienced.

He should have chosen #1, no doubt. That’s the whole point here. If the system is producing more variability than desired, then you “tighten” up the process within each possession. Engineering the game to skew back towards a favorite when it’s already been weighted to appropriately favor the favorite is stacking the deck. Would you play blackjack at a casino that handed the dealer a deck specifically loaded against you after you win 2 hands in a row?

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/1/2018 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 9/30/2018 10:23:00 PM (view original):
Observationally, I don’t think it’s just a halftime adjustment, either. I suspect it can be triggered at any point where a team outperforms expectations by x amount.

I am almost positive it doesn't start until half time. It would be a good question to ask Seble in a ticket. Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal and the theory behind it is at least reasonable.

I don't think it's super powerful because I have had tons of guys shoot 3-14 from the FT line and as a team I have shot under 50% a number of times.

My distinct recollection is that you are wrong. It was handled based on number of events, not time of the game. So if a player's shooting percentage in the game is significantly off of his expected percentage, the engine starts to "massage" the expected percentage for subsequent shots after a set number of shots taken, not after halftime. And of course the extent of that massage has to do with how many shots have been taken and how far off expectation the percentage is. I think this was also true of rebounds and maybe turnovers? And again, based on number of total rebounds in the game and number of total possessions.

Granted, these effects will get more noticeable as you get deeper into a game. The size of the adjustments is driven by the probability of the current outcome. If you expect a .500 shooting percentage, a .333 after 6 shots is easily within one standard deviation (I would assume - hard to believe one shot out of any sample size is ever going to be greater than a standard deviation). If a guy takes 30 shots and he's still at .333 it's probably multiple standard deviations off. So the adjustment is bigger even though, to your first glance, it looks like the same result. But there's potentially an adjustment to the expected shooting percentage in both cases. It's just that the adjustment gets bigger when outcomes are more unlikely, which is always going to have the potential to be a larger effect later in games.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/1/2018 10:58:00 PM (view original):
I didn’t play HD until 2013, so happily that was not something I experienced.

He should have chosen #1, no doubt. That’s the whole point here. If the system is producing more variability than desired, then you “tighten” up the process within each possession. Engineering the game to skew back towards a favorite when it’s already been weighted to appropriately favor the favorite is stacking the deck. Would you play blackjack at a casino that handed the dealer a deck specifically loaded against you after you win 2 hands in a row?

This isn't possible. Think it through. Most of the decisions in the game are binary. There is no control process for individual events. A .500 shooter has a standard deviation per shot of .5. Period.

Posted by MWalpole on 10/1/2018 1:34:00 PM (view original):
I know it isn’t the main subject of this thread, but I don’t think anyone can argue that a D1 prospect signing with a D2 over a D1 is ridiculous. A high school basketball player from the state of Michigan, who is aspiring to play D1 ball, is going to sign with Eastern/Western/Central Michigan over Ferris State 100 times out of 100 if they showed even slight interest and offered a scholarship. They won’t care that Ferris State is an “A+” D2 team (they just won the D2 title this year, which is why I used them as an example).

A little off topic, but we can go with it, since I did bring up recruiting in OP.

The system stays the same, with the parameters set in place. The system *already* favors the D1 school, though with preferences there are some factors that can mitigate that advantage in specific cases. If prioritization and effort are near equivalent, the D1 school is generally going to blow past the D2. Imagine if the recruiting engine re-stacked the deck. “It appears that this player is leaning toward a D2 school, even though a D1 school is showing some interest. That doesn’t look right. We’re going to reconfigure this players preference profile, so we are more likely to get the result we expect.” That would be a ridiculous way to run a simulation. Of course, some folks do seem to want this. All I can say is those folks don’t really want to play a competitive multi-player college basketball simulation.

There is not this clear definition between a “D2” player and a “D1” player in real life. The best players in D2 can absolutely play for D1 programs, if they really want to (some do, and they transfer, but not all or even most). Nor is there a clear line between a D2 and a D1 program. When teams move up to D1, they don’t necessarily start on the trash heap; some become very competitive for NT berths as soon as they’re qualified (my alma mater, S Dak St, for example).