Press conference
3.4
Match engine survey and roadmap for the future
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+44
Kitaip sakant problemos nesprendžiamos. Daryk, gal pataikysi į tinkamą tarpą ir tavo žaidėjas bus naudingas (arba ne)
--
91 S
59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
Taigi aiškiai parašė 3 kartus daugiau žmonių kuriem patinka kas vyksta. Mažiau verkim. Administracija tikrai nemeluotų apie apklausos rezultatus :]
--
91 S
59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+11
Kisuke, o ar buvo apklausoje "grąžinkime ankstesnio sezono varikliuką"? Arba "nebenorių daugiau pakeitimų"? Todėl drąsiai galima sakyti, kad 100% pritaria administracijos vykdomai atnaujinimų programai :)
--
91 S
59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
Aha kaip visada daugiausia apklaustųjų teigė. Ir kaip visada argumentas wl1 žaidžia 32komandos wl6 1024 klubai iš kurių didžioji dalis niekada taip ir nepakyla aukščiau 4l nes įsitraukimas ir supratimas atsiprašau jei ką įžeisiu apgailėtini. Tad paimkim wl1-3 kur vyksta rimtos taktinės kovos ir gaunam 224 klubus prieš 1866balsus kurie lyga gali laimėt su bet kuo ir realių taktikos veiksmų nepamato ir jie sugeneruoja atsakymų daugumą.... O statistika tu nuostabi
--
91 S
59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+7
formatas tai sakau čia apklausa kaip vilko zuikiui : kuo nori būti, pietumis, pusryčiais ar vakariene
--
91 S
59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+1
1.1
Dribbling for post players?!?
How about increasing importance of dribbling for guards instead? -- 91 S 59 d.
How about increasing importance of dribbling for guards instead? -- 91 S 59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+14
Čia rimtai visa atliktos apklausos analizė? Ta prasme pateiktas vienintelis skaičius - "3 kartus daugiau vartotojų ME įvertino teigiamai, o ne neigiamai". Vienas žodis - apgailėtina. Jau Šabas užsiminė apie platesnį kontekstą lyginant skirtingas lygas, bet tas kontekstas galėtų būti dar platesnis. Suprantu, kad skirtingų vartotojų atsakymo "svorio" nenustatysi, o ir tai iškreiptų objektyvumą, tačiau ar buvo vertinama tai, kad vartotojas remia/neremia žaidimą savo asmeniniais pinigais, koks vartotojo rangas/turima patirtis žaidime. Klausit, o kam to reikia? Tam, kad įvertinti ar mano minėti aspektai esmingai keičia atsakymo rezultatus. Tiesiog paprasčiausias hipotezės iškėlimas bei jos patvirtinimas/paneigimas. Galų gale kur yra elementari informacija kiek vartotojų atsakė į klausimyną bei kiek tų atsakymų kiekviename divizione... Net patys žaidimo kūrėjai šiuo klausimynu turėjo progą įsivertinti koreliaciją tarp vartotojų, kurie investuoja į žaidimą pinigus bei jų turimos nuomonės, lyginant su tais, kurie neinvestuoja ir tokiu būdu pastrateguoti kaip pritraukti daugiau finansų arba įvertinti galimų pokyčių rizikas, kurios reikš, kad remiantys vartytojai nustos remti žaidimą. Pasikartosiu - apgailėtina.
P.S. tam, kad negalvotumėt, jog kažkoks balvonas iš 5 WL aiškina ką ir kaip galima padaryti, tai prisiduodu, kad šį menedžerį žaidžiau dar prieš 10 ar daugiau metų, kai nebuvo jokių tarptautinių lygų, o nepasitenkinimas varikliuku buvo po kiekvienų varžybų :) -- 91 S 59 d.
P.S. tam, kad negalvotumėt, jog kažkoks balvonas iš 5 WL aiškina ką ir kaip galima padaryti, tai prisiduodu, kad šį menedžerį žaidžiau dar prieš 10 ar daugiau metų, kai nebuvo jokių tarptautinių lygų, o nepasitenkinimas varikliuku buvo po kiekvienų varžybų :) -- 91 S 59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+9
Primena Donecką, Luhanską… Ten irgi pritaria vatai virš 80% liaudies.
--
91 S
59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+1
qupvvv o kam kvaršinti galvà ir domėtis kas ta “imtis” statistikoje?! Statistika yra baisiai paprastas dalykas: 1. reikia rasti bent viena atsakymà, kuris tau tinka; 2. tà atsakymà pateikti kaip daugumos nuomone. O tu čia apie imtį, išimtis ir pan. :D
--
91 S
59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+4
Could you use english please?
--
91 S
59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+4
Long story short, we complain that this is bullshit :)
--
91 S
59 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
2.1
1.1
Perfect, now we know something, inner -50 and dribbling, we have already made some progress. The inner thing is already being seen in matches, because players convert where their skills are worse. The Oiq thing is not like that, I have a C, Pacheco with 11 in Oiq and it doesn't make a difference at all; adding that he measures 222 cm and 12 of experience. We await more details about which skills would be most necessary for each position and time to be able to train them and be able to compete accordingly.
--
91 S
60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+4
The information is more often now than it was before. And there are options given. I think the results should be provided broken down into WL as mentioned above. But at least more information should be on the horizon on how skills effect performance in matches. This would be very helpful.
--
91 S
60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
2.1
We will face an epic problem.
1. Player's skills cannot have short board
2. Players need to play together for a long time to get "chemical reaction"
3. The renewal cost of players is unacceptable.
4. The renewal quota of draft players and foreign players will never be enough.
I have to say that these options are mutually exclusive. The skills of players cannot be short, and they need long-term training. However, the results of long-term training are likely to be easily taken away by other teams, so chemical reactions cannot be obtained. This is a dead cycle.
Therefore, the purchase of 1.29 million euros per season is the prerequisite for you to get everything.
Of course, it may be possible for elite clubs to think of some ways to make some compromises, but for players who have just entered the game or who have entered the game for a short time, they have neither training system nor corresponding funds. If they have also won an excellent young player, they can only face the result of the jungle. I believe this is the biggest blow to a new manager, because he can only watch his team's only talent taken away. -- 91 S 60 d.
1. Player's skills cannot have short board
2. Players need to play together for a long time to get "chemical reaction"
3. The renewal cost of players is unacceptable.
4. The renewal quota of draft players and foreign players will never be enough.
I have to say that these options are mutually exclusive. The skills of players cannot be short, and they need long-term training. However, the results of long-term training are likely to be easily taken away by other teams, so chemical reactions cannot be obtained. This is a dead cycle.
Therefore, the purchase of 1.29 million euros per season is the prerequisite for you to get everything.
Of course, it may be possible for elite clubs to think of some ways to make some compromises, but for players who have just entered the game or who have entered the game for a short time, they have neither training system nor corresponding funds. If they have also won an excellent young player, they can only face the result of the jungle. I believe this is the biggest blow to a new manager, because he can only watch his team's only talent taken away. -- 91 S 60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+10
agree, with Jautrais now its seems that engine was created and it's working almost randomly and GM not fixing the problems but trying to cool down the situation and thinking about excuses and by the same time trying to understand himself what is going on. Yes there is some part of community that is happy now ,because they wining more often then before /because it's not depending on them. In previous they were loosing cause they did not understood how tactic was working, and instead of willing to learn and understand was complaining, and instead of ways to teach them was created engine with the chance to win close to 50/50. Of course it's not 50/50 i hyperbolized and there is small things you can adjust but it has only about 10 or 20 percent's to result . It's not ok . as for the players , all skills ...ok but what can you do when you have dribbling -50 or 60 for sg . as for the C its not so bad i agree instead of athleticism 12 8 12 and offensive 4 4 10 you can do 10 9 10 and 5 5 8 and by the time etalon will change but what to to with sg ?So in conclusion by my opinion first you have to think then to do , not to do and then think how to re do
--
91 S
60 d.
Jautrais now its seems that engine was created and it's working almost randomly and GM not fixing the problems but trying to cool down the situation and thinking about excuses and by the same time trying to understand himself what is going on. Yes there is some part of community that is happy now ,because they wining more often then before /because it's not depending on them. In previous they were loosing cause they did not understood how tactic was working, and instead of willing to learn and understand was complaining, and instead of ways to teach them was created engine with the chance to win close to 50/50. Of course it's not 50/50 i hyperbolized and there is small things you can adjust but it has only about 10 or 20 percent's to result . It's not ok . as for the players , all skills ...ok but what can you do when you have dribbling -50 or 60 for sg . as for the C its not so bad i agree instead of athleticism 12 8 12 and offensive 4 4 10 you can do 10 9 10 and 5 5 8 and by the time etalon will change but what to to with sg ?So in conclusion by my opinion first you have to think then to do , not to do and then think how to re do
--
91 S
60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+1
In my humble opinion when you start to create new game engine it should be only in testing phase until it is working atleast 90% good as it should. When game admins should give all information about how it is working, what changed, where users should pay more attention and etc... Also before launching new game engine review scouts and draft players and make nesecary changes. Cuz now you telling what universal players will be more and more effective and one dimensial specialist will loose some of their advantages. Now almost all ready to play players in draft is created this way
--
91 S
60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
Wow GMs, you deleted Jautrais comment. Yes, his language was not appropriate, but he wrote facts about the match engine. This is how you deal with criticism? Your engine is far from good. I know you are trying to give your best, and we appreciate it, but start listening to criticism as well!
--
91 S
60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
1.1
For those who said the current engine is bad and old engine is better. I suggest you to list out the things you think how the old engine is better because none of you actually mentioned anything about them. It would help Darius changing his mind. Let me help and start with a few points:
- No one use fastbreak in old engine is so good. People now win games with fastbreak in new engine is just bad
- Low post players dominate in old engine and shooters can hardly get more than 10 pts in WL1 just feels good. People now are able to focus either low post or shooters, it is just bad
- People can dominate low league with 5 players is just good, now we need 10+ players is just bad
- A single player can have 10+ steals in a game is just super realistic in old engine. Now we can only get a few steals a game, just no
- Players with 5 shot quality miss easy shots in old engine is good. It is just bad in current engine
Just feel free to add more, let the ball start rolling -- 91 S 60 d.
- No one use fastbreak in old engine is so good. People now win games with fastbreak in new engine is just bad
- Low post players dominate in old engine and shooters can hardly get more than 10 pts in WL1 just feels good. People now are able to focus either low post or shooters, it is just bad
- People can dominate low league with 5 players is just good, now we need 10+ players is just bad
- A single player can have 10+ steals in a game is just super realistic in old engine. Now we can only get a few steals a game, just no
- Players with 5 shot quality miss easy shots in old engine is good. It is just bad in current engine
Just feel free to add more, let the ball start rolling -- 91 S 60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+10
Please just delete small players from this game, cuz they are so uneficient in this engine... i have PG 179cm classical pg with 12 12 12 offense 12 speed and he in 19.2 minutes making 3.4 assist and 1.7 turnovers. Other player which i play in pg is 201cm with 8 8 10 offense 9 speed, only have better jump skill than classical PG, which should not have much impact to make assist in 22.9 minutes make 3.3 assit and 1.3 turnover
--
91 S
60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3
And clasicall PG set as playmaker and another as shooter...
--
91 S
60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
fanling3
On the problems described by the old game engine, I agree with you very much. You have described these problems in very simple language. Indeed, the old engine has many problems. As you said, the shooter players are not contributing enough, the stealers are too many, the low post players are too strong, and so on. These problems are also faced by the majority of managers.
But what I want to say is, since the problem is obvious, why don't we try to modify it one by one, but choose a revolution? I have always said that this game needs a long training cycle. If there are some changes in the engine, managers will have enough time to adapt to these changes, and if there is a revolution in the engine, it is basically equivalent to abolishing all existing players. The players described in Darius' grand vision can only be put into use after five seasons at the earliest. Of course, there are still quite a few managers willing to invest time and energy. If they are not willing to continue to try, the time will become longer. Darius said that the outside players who have two shooting abilities and ball control abilities, I have tried as early as 10 seasons ago, and successfully let them enter the game. That was an attempt that I invested a lot of energy and time to try and make mistakes. Of course, I failed. Because the game engine at that time ignored the ability to shoot and control the ball. I didn't mean to complain, although it made me financially childless and close to bankruptcy, which made me have to return to the lower league for a long time. I just want to say that the players you don't like now are actually the most suitable players for the previous version, which have been summed up through trial and error. Although I have invested a lot of energy, I am in the wrong direction.
However, the problems come with it. On the one hand, the current training system cannot support players to stay on the field for a long time, and on the other hand, managers cannot afford to make endless trial and error. Because first of all, there is an upper limit on property. WL1 allows you to have 4 million yuan of capital. If you have more, you need to pay property tax. Renewal of players' contracts is almost priceless. Few people dare to try to get players with such high RT to obtain new contracts in advance. If a manager does that, the next research and development costs will be stretched. This is also my core point.
A normal manager invests energy and money to test the new player attribute model. He certainly hopes that these players can be in his team and lead the team to victory, right? I believe you have the same idea. Then when you lose your money with repeated failures, and build the players you want in a very long time, and are suitable for this new game engine, those clubs that are desperate to save money and are in a precarious situation will rush to take away your achievements. What do you think at this time? Unfortunately, in the foreseeable future, such things will happen soon. So, the wise choice is of course the way I am now. I try my best to save money, hold money and wait until those scientific pioneers get the best results. Perfect logic, right? So, if all club managers hold the same idea to play games, will there be players who can adapt to the game engine?
As new players in the game, they certainly hope that everything will be new and start from scratch. It's like people always want to go back to the past and think about what I would do if I were young again. However, if you put it in this game, it is an act of great disrespect for old players. Remember, most of the players you have now are the results of the old players after repeated failures through trial and error. Kill them all? This is really crazy. -- 91 S 60 d.
On the problems described by the old game engine, I agree with you very much. You have described these problems in very simple language. Indeed, the old engine has many problems. As you said, the shooter players are not contributing enough, the stealers are too many, the low post players are too strong, and so on. These problems are also faced by the majority of managers.
But what I want to say is, since the problem is obvious, why don't we try to modify it one by one, but choose a revolution? I have always said that this game needs a long training cycle. If there are some changes in the engine, managers will have enough time to adapt to these changes, and if there is a revolution in the engine, it is basically equivalent to abolishing all existing players. The players described in Darius' grand vision can only be put into use after five seasons at the earliest. Of course, there are still quite a few managers willing to invest time and energy. If they are not willing to continue to try, the time will become longer. Darius said that the outside players who have two shooting abilities and ball control abilities, I have tried as early as 10 seasons ago, and successfully let them enter the game. That was an attempt that I invested a lot of energy and time to try and make mistakes. Of course, I failed. Because the game engine at that time ignored the ability to shoot and control the ball. I didn't mean to complain, although it made me financially childless and close to bankruptcy, which made me have to return to the lower league for a long time. I just want to say that the players you don't like now are actually the most suitable players for the previous version, which have been summed up through trial and error. Although I have invested a lot of energy, I am in the wrong direction.
However, the problems come with it. On the one hand, the current training system cannot support players to stay on the field for a long time, and on the other hand, managers cannot afford to make endless trial and error. Because first of all, there is an upper limit on property. WL1 allows you to have 4 million yuan of capital. If you have more, you need to pay property tax. Renewal of players' contracts is almost priceless. Few people dare to try to get players with such high RT to obtain new contracts in advance. If a manager does that, the next research and development costs will be stretched. This is also my core point.
A normal manager invests energy and money to test the new player attribute model. He certainly hopes that these players can be in his team and lead the team to victory, right? I believe you have the same idea. Then when you lose your money with repeated failures, and build the players you want in a very long time, and are suitable for this new game engine, those clubs that are desperate to save money and are in a precarious situation will rush to take away your achievements. What do you think at this time? Unfortunately, in the foreseeable future, such things will happen soon. So, the wise choice is of course the way I am now. I try my best to save money, hold money and wait until those scientific pioneers get the best results. Perfect logic, right? So, if all club managers hold the same idea to play games, will there be players who can adapt to the game engine?
As new players in the game, they certainly hope that everything will be new and start from scratch. It's like people always want to go back to the past and think about what I would do if I were young again. However, if you put it in this game, it is an act of great disrespect for old players. Remember, most of the players you have now are the results of the old players after repeated failures through trial and error. Kill them all? This is really crazy. -- 91 S 60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+8
fourkings I do agree there are rooms of improvement for how Darius do engine updates. One suggested by another user is that changes have to be made throughout multiple seasons, given that the target is clearly stated with figures, just like what they did when they changed tiredness recovery diring trainings.Simple examples would be:
- Average number of steals is targeted to be reduced from 10.8 to 3.4 in 10 seasons
- Chance for C or PF to fight for rebounds is targeted to be increased from 25% to 40% in 5 seasons
I think this would fix your concern. But on the other hand, we need to experience 10+ things kept changing at the same time in 10+ seasons. It won’t necessarily make it easier for users to understand the engine. I don’t draw into conclusion which method is better. Darius should have his own judgment. -- 91 S 60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
https://www.basketpulse.com/cn/Team/52707/description I just want to tell you that there are several external problems with the current engine.
1. The financial situation does not allow the current elite clubs to make too much trial and error, that is to say, they do not have the financial resources to do such hopeless scientific experiments. Even if they do, they will be trapped in less total financial resources than predatory teams and lose the players they have trained. Therefore, no club manager will be foolish enough to create wealth for the aggressors.
2. The physical strength of older players restricts the enthusiasm of these clubs in training players, because the players trained for a long time can only play until the age of 30.
3. The huge personnel structure makes it difficult to train the elite, and eventually only some fast-food players can be obtained.
With regard to the currently volatile game engine, I can only take my current playing method. On the one hand, I choose to train players who don't care, wait for the scientific pioneers to find the optimal solution, and then wave the checkbook to let them yield. I will not devote much energy to studying the optimal solution, because Darius's conclusion is nothing more than asking me to train a bucket with no short board and no advantages, which is very boring -- 91 S 60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
fourkings I am definitely not saying you should suffer from engine changes for how hard you have to maintain your team in top league. That's something Darius could learn to minimize the friction when making changes.Regarding the last point, I probably do not agree. Strength and weakness is relative. If your player has 8 in shooting and 8 in defense, while your opponent has 10 in shooting and 6 in defense. Shooting is your strength, defense is your weakness. Having weakness does not mean that a skill should be completely useless. Why would this skill even exist if it is completely useless? It's still far from conclusion that how to train players is optimal. And I don't think it must be very boring. It depends on how the game engine allows users to maximize the strength and minimize the weakness by using different tactics. -- 91 S 60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
So the game engine needs some changes, not a revolution. I always agree with the so-called American Dream, because it expresses the view that people want to make themselves rich through efforts, rather than through policies to attack those who work silently. If you can't win, change the policy. It's only a matter of time before you break the promise.
--
91 S
60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Old engine is like all-stars in the 80is- 90ies
New engine is like all stars 2023...
I insist - how about keeping a league with the old engine for the nostalgics that were having fun with it. So you keep us happy while doing any changes you want. -- 91 S 60 d.
New engine is like all stars 2023...
I insist - how about keeping a league with the old engine for the nostalgics that were having fun with it. So you keep us happy while doing any changes you want. -- 91 S 60 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+4
Nofixations:We cannot use old ME. The game is not designed to have 3 different engines. And to implement that would be too costly.
fanling3:This is not as easy as it sounds. We are not only changing numbers in formulas, but also changing the code.
The initial idea was to update ME in multiple small steps.
However when we fixed the biggest issue - that single step was a huge change.
I talked more about this in the article (shooting situation section):
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/News/article/61b8928fae0a2/match-engine-updateWe have similar situations in other areas as well. -- 91 S 61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Hi a-darius could you please explain me (because I asked 3 times un different posts) how could my main team had 6 players tired and dead , playing between 21-24 minutes, with less than 30 years? Normal pace alma the matches
--
91 S
61 d.
a-darius could you please explain me (because I asked 3 times un different posts) how could my main team had 6 players tired and dead , playing between 21-24 minutes, with less than 30 years? Normal pace alma the matches
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
This is because of long-term tiredness.
You can read more about it:
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/News/article/638f378379b2f/single-match-tiredness-vs-long-term-tiredness
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/News/article/630f24095221c/coaches-and-training-updates
The easiest way to handle this is to have more players and sometimes give free days. -- 91 S 61 d.
You can read more about it:
https://www.basketpulse.com/en/News/article/638f378379b2f/single-match-tiredness-vs-long-term-tiredness https://www.basketpulse.com/en/News/article/630f24095221c/coaches-and-training-updatesThe easiest way to handle this is to have more players and sometimes give free days. -- 91 S 61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
200cm SG are much better than 180cm PG (similar skills), while playing at PG. Please indicate if this trend will continue in the coming few seasons. If yes, we will keep scouting Forwards (some will develop to SG) for all guards. Never scouting Guards anymore.
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
I know this articule, but 21 minutes or 24 per Game is so much? For a 28 years Old player?
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
fungys Sg with much worse skills which is needed to PG is better than small PG
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
I will try to find a bit more time and create a separate article about height.
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
a-darius
In terms of height, I have two suggestions.
1. The lower players are not necessarily the higher the better, although height is an obvious advantage. But tall players are bound to have weaknesses in speed and flexibility. In the future game engine, we should consider developing low players into two types, namely low attack type and speed agile type, which is the general trend of basketball. If two teams have four strong men crowded under the basket, it will greatly limit space. In the history of the NBA, such a combination has rarely been successful. The combination of Duncan and David Robinson, O'Neill and Holly is the most common.
2. The height of outside players is not the key factor for their success. I once made statistics when I was young. At that time, the average height of NBA point guards was about 187cm. Basketpulse needs a legend like Allen Iverson. Specifically, when attacking the inside, the outside players mainly rely on their strength and bounce, but on their bounce and speed and the angle of cut. Even De Angelo Russell, a very thin player with little speed, has a shooting rate of nearly 50% in the low post, but the number of times he cuts into the interior is relatively small. And Allen Iverson is an expert at attacking low positions.
I hope Darius can consider my suggestion. -- 91 S 61 d.
In terms of height, I have two suggestions.
1. The lower players are not necessarily the higher the better, although height is an obvious advantage. But tall players are bound to have weaknesses in speed and flexibility. In the future game engine, we should consider developing low players into two types, namely low attack type and speed agile type, which is the general trend of basketball. If two teams have four strong men crowded under the basket, it will greatly limit space. In the history of the NBA, such a combination has rarely been successful. The combination of Duncan and David Robinson, O'Neill and Holly is the most common.
2. The height of outside players is not the key factor for their success. I once made statistics when I was young. At that time, the average height of NBA point guards was about 187cm. Basketpulse needs a legend like Allen Iverson. Specifically, when attacking the inside, the outside players mainly rely on their strength and bounce, but on their bounce and speed and the angle of cut. Even De Angelo Russell, a very thin player with little speed, has a shooting rate of nearly 50% in the low post, but the number of times he cuts into the interior is relatively small. And Allen Iverson is an expert at attacking low positions.
I hope Darius can consider my suggestion. -- 91 S 61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+6
Where disappear PG steals? It was quite higher average, but now it's quite disaster..
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
In my opinion, the disadvantages about short players in BP is mainly related at the weakness of speed, dribbling and offense/defence IQ.
The short players truly do worse on defending because their height and strength can't cover any attack from taller players such as from shooting to inside scoring.
And their shooting also easily miss or be blocked if they cannot have a wide open to shoot.
But short players have their weapons to make them useful in the pro league. Those are the skills I mentioned at the beginning.
They might use their intelligence on the court and their movement to run to make wide open chances, or use speed and dribbling to cut into paint and layup, they can also use their brains and speed to hold the defence until wing players come to double-cover.
But in BP, I don't see short players play well as same height players do in reality. -- 91 S 61 d.
The short players truly do worse on defending because their height and strength can't cover any attack from taller players such as from shooting to inside scoring.
And their shooting also easily miss or be blocked if they cannot have a wide open to shoot.
But short players have their weapons to make them useful in the pro league. Those are the skills I mentioned at the beginning.
They might use their intelligence on the court and their movement to run to make wide open chances, or use speed and dribbling to cut into paint and layup, they can also use their brains and speed to hold the defence until wing players come to double-cover.
But in BP, I don't see short players play well as same height players do in reality. -- 91 S 61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
And about the ME updates, I highly recommend a-darius to design a sandbox mode to import the testing ME and let us set our players' detail(height and skills) by our own.
It's helpful for us to quickly find out what kind of players in each position and tactics are better in the upcoming version of ME. -- 91 S 61 d.
a-darius to design a sandbox mode to import the testing ME and let us set our players' detail(height and skills) by our own.It's helpful for us to quickly find out what kind of players in each position and tactics are better in the upcoming version of ME. -- 91 S 61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Short player should definitely have some additional bonus in the future GE. At the moment a 180cm 300RT player in WL3 is useless with skill set
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
*with any skill set
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Let me correct my words. Designing a sandbox mode not only benefit managers to figure out the better way to play the testing ME, but also help a-darius to collect bugs may happen in every situation.
--
91 S
61 d.
a-darius to collect bugs may happen in every situation.
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+1
a-darius, nereikia žiūrėti vien į varikliuką. Žaidimą žaidžia realūs žmonės. Jei žaidėjų potencialai toliau kurs beprotiškus žaidėjus su -50 dvitaškių ir +50 tritaškių (ar atvirkščiai), dauguma trenerių nori nenori kurs vienpusius žaidėjus. Tuomet Jums niekada nepavyks suderinti metimų taip, kad tiek turintis tiek neturintis metimą mestų artimu realybei procentu. Todėl tendencija treniruoti tik pliusą turinčius įgūdžius liks bei toliau kurs problemas. Supraskite pagaliau nuo kur prasideda bėdos neleidžiančios jums surasti tinkamos formulės pagal kurią bus sukurta reikiama rungtynių simuliacija.
--
91 S
61 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
a-darius I agree with kip88363 that sandbox mode is necessary. At this stage everyone is using the old system of players, big and tall, single shooting, no dribbling. When you put out the new ME, these playersd performance must suck, and by then it's a bunch of complaints and you have to dial back, just like this season's rebounds. People can't practice the group of all-around players you expect very quickly, and the conclusions drawn by tweaking the new ME based on the old players must be inaccurate.
--
91 S
62 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+4