I'll post a survey response by the end of the week.

and btw

distribution of d ratings, and stupid offensive range classifications have nothing to do with 'sample size' (nor does the defrbd% situation with 50s/60s players for that matter)

the fact that Wilt is considered a midrange player has nothing to do with sample size - you dont need any kind of sampling to know that that is stupid

(unless of course you mean to imply that a large sampling would show that defensive setting viz offensive range (et al) has no impact on game play so the range classifications are pointless anyway)

Quote: Originally Posted By monkee on 5/28/2008
and btw

distribution of d ratings, and stupid offensive range classifications have nothing to do with 'sample size' (nor does the defrbd% situation with 50s/60s players for that matter)

the fact that Wilt is considered a midrange player has nothing to do with sample size - you dont need any kind of sampling to know that that is stupid

(unless of course you mean to imply that a large sampling would show that defensive setting viz offensive range (et al) has no impact on game play so the range classifications are pointless anyway)

Amen...bravo!

91-92 Rodman, the one who avg 18+ RPG....................Perimeter! CLASSIC!!

Quote: Originally Posted By hurley711 on 5/28/2008
91-92 Rodman, the one who avg 18+ RPG....................Perimeter! CLASSIC!!

but you only have sample size of one on that - that's insignificant

now if you had like 10,000 1991-92 Dennis Rodmans and they were all listed as perimeter you might have a real finding

Quote: Originally Posted By monkee on 5/28/2008

Quote: Originally Posted By hurley711 on 5/28/2008

91-92 Rodman, the one who avg 18+ RPG....................Perimeter! CLASSIC!!

but you only have sample size of one on that - that's insignificant

now if you had like 10,000 1991-92 Dennis Rodmans and they were all listed as perimeter you might have a real finding

didnt realize all of those off rebs he grabbed came from the 3 pt line! Longgg rebs huh?

Quote: Originally Posted By hurley711 on 5/28/2008

91-92 Rodman, the one who avg 18+ RPG....................Perimeter! CLASSIC!!

I have him on a team that's going to the finals, he's rated midrange. So it means he's been updated to perimeter.

I thouht the O range ratings would be reviewed, but I didn't think it possible that they were gonna get even worst...

Rodman gets most of his baskets on dunks and putbacks, anybody who's ever seen him play knows that. His 53.9% pct and 6.4 off rebounds back it up. I guess the O range formula disregards these because he attempted 101 threes and doesn't go to the FT line a lot. Clearly the formula is flawed and needs to be reconsidered.

The only reason WIS can take such an arrogant tone and not cater to its customers is that there isn't significant competition but I'm sure there will be at some point and it will be interesting to how they react. Its not rocket science to create a sim

Guys, honestly all I can say is some of the attitude here is pretty ridiculous. We've done a lot of work to add new layers to the game and all we get on here is complaints. Is it perfect? Of course not, it never will be. But it's a lot more useful to provide constructive ideas instead of rehashing the same examples over and over.

There are some here (qistat for example) who don't say "these ratings are stupid, you guys suck", but instead look at the whole picture and make useful suggestions about how to improve the system. Creating a sophisticated sim isn't rocket science, but it's also not trivial, especially when there are so many components interacting.

I think we do a tremendous job as a company of listening to user feedback and implementing as many of the suggestions as make sense for the games. But things can't always happen overnight as development is not always a quick process.

Just had to get my 2 cents in there, so you may resume complaining now.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 5/28/2008




Guys, honestly all I can say is some of the attitude here is pretty ridiculous. We've done a lot of work to add new layers to the game and all we get on here is complaints. Is it perfect? Of course not, it never will be. But it's a lot more useful to provide constructive ideas instead of rehashing the same examples over and over.

There are some here (qistat for example) who don't say "these ratings are stupid, you guys suck", but instead look at the whole picture and make useful suggestions about how to improve the system. Creating a sophisticated sim isn't rocket science, but it's also not trivial, especially when there are so many components interacting.

I think we do a tremendous job as a company of listening to user feedback and implementing as many of the suggestions as make sense for the games. But things can't always happen overnight as development is not always a quick process.

Just had to get my 2 cents in there, so you may resume complaining now.

suggestions

1)review the equation that outputs offensive ranges - it is plainly out of whack

2)review the way you assign defensive ratings - as above

3)fix the arbitrary def/off distro or whatever it is that is making the DefRBD% of 50s/60s players so high - I thought the idea was to standardize rebounding across eras you have achieved the opposite

4)be more responsive quicker and criticisms such as above will not devolve into repetitive complaints - you went 6 days without responding to some of the notes above and then when you did respond you and tinmanpb acted defensive and arrogant about it

5)the criticisms above have nothing to do with sampling sizes dont try to throw your customer base off with hoo-ha

6)instead of complaining about your customers try be glad you have an income - when should a customer service representative complain about his customers to their faces? how about never

7)if you are going to bring up qistat it might have been nice to see you respond to his suggestion(s) at any time prior to your little whine-fest (see link below)

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/threads.asp?ForumID=9&TopicID=355391&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=1

dont get me wrong - I like plenty of things that you did with this latest release but the 3 points I mention are central to quality of play and realism and it's not just about getting them wrong it's about how you've handled customer response to getting them wrong which just snowballs on you

Get rid of the O-range, it is an insult to many of the great players of this game who took what the defense gave them. Jordan, Bird, Magic, Oscar, etc etc etc could score from all 3 of your "ranges" yet in your SIM they are limited to 1. They are just a few examples of the players who would breakdown a def and score from multiple places on the floor depending again on what the def gave them. Now with this stupid O-range you have implemented they are limited.

Revisit def #'s they are out of whack as stated in a thread on this forum by many of your users. TO in my newest league using the new SIM are WAY out of whack.

Aren't the O-ranges just there for the defensive settings? Just because a player is listed as in a certain range, he isn't just taking shots in that range as I understand it.

Usmoo, yes. I would guess that in 90%+ of the games played in the sim, the o-ranges have no bearing on anything in the engine because all default settings and all simmatchup games use the defensive positioning of 0. Obviously, that does not mean they are unimportant.

The offensive ranges relate to how a player scored his points in real-life based on our best approximations (every individual explanation can be found in the numbers from the player in that season) and are intended to add another wrinkle to consider when crafting a team. A team where the scoring is highly unbalanced in either the perimeter or paint direction can be significantly affected by defensive positioning.

These factors do not affect from where or when players shoot in the game, just how the defense adjusts their likelihood of making the shot with its positioning relative to that player's o-range.

Balance is a little more important than it was before; coaches have another option they can set against each team; and, there are more tangible variables to use when building a team.

If in 90% of the games it has NO BEARING, your words not mine, than get rid of it. You can't cover your butt and have it both ways in that first line, it's double talk. How can you say it has no bearing 9 times out of 10 and than say that it does not mean they are unimportant??? It's either important or it isn't!