籃板球如何運作？

遊戲新聞: 籃板球如何運作？

-- 91 賽季 11 天

How does rebounding work?

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

3.4 3.4 McGod

By strength you mean Toughness? -- 91 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

McGod yes, sir. -- 91 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 4.5 bananajohn

40% rebound to defending team regardless criteria.... was there something like thsi in the old engine? thats not a skill play anymore... -- 91 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

4.1 4.2 GBuckets

Yeah, I don't like that 40% rebound goes to defending team. Wouldn't it make more sense to give some sort of advantage to defending team because of a better positioning to box out? But the fact that no matter what, 8 out of 20 rebounds go to defending team doesn't really make sense. As bananajohn said, this is not a skill play anymore -- 91 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

bananajohn

Gbuckets we want to avoid situations when one of the teams gets 15 offensive rebounds and the other one gets 4 defensive rebounds. That is highly unlikely to happen in real life game. The 40% mark is not a strict line, we will see how it works and make further adjustments if necessary. -- 91 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 3.1 timmy296701

LMAO, they are talking 40% is too less for the defending team. 8/20 is already not acceptable, and you are talking about 4/20? Can you clear your mind before writing anything?
Also, "On the other hand, there are situations when similar-level teams are playing, due to the combination of several factors, one of the teams wins the battle for the balls by a landslide." So two SIMILAR teams, what factors will cause this difference, it is not even explained. Then why are you writing this article? -- 91 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

3.4 3.2 zopen

This makes 0 sense, if my team is averaging low amount of rebounds, then it is up to me to fix that, by either concentrating more on training or buying players that are good at rebounding. By making changes like that you are limiting managers from managing their teams properly. The whole point of being a good manager is to address the weaknesses of your team. Now it feels like managers are more and more restricted to what they can do. This is my only 4th season, so I am quite new, but I am getting more and more frustrated with these changes. -- 91 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 3.1 timmy296701

Usually I don't write in press, but for this time.

You can share whatever stats you want to share, that's called "Announcement". You can share the stats the community is interested, that's called "Communication".

After reading your "Announcement":

1. "What skills are the most important?"

Thanks for reminding me my mum is a woman, all the items are clearly stated in help and tatic section.

Height: "On the contrary, if small player and tall player have the same toughness skill's values, the tall player will be tougher than the small player."

Jump: "Jumping - the better the skill, the higher player can jump. This helps in both: defense and offence. Good jumping skill helps to get rebounds"

Toughness: "Toughness - describes the strength of the player. Toughness helps when there is contact with opponent: fighting for better position in the low post"

Rebound: "Rebounding - describes how well the player can rebound the balls."

2. "How to increase chances of getting a rebound?"
From your graphs, the new test engine changed nothing on the current situation
The major discussion is about the insane amount of off. reb you can get from one game. In some games I can get close to 30 off. reb.
I am using maximum effort on getting off. reb, so should I expect I can get ~25 off.reb with the new update as well?

3. "Does the better team always get more rebounds?"
"On the other hand, there are situations when similar-level teams are playing, due to the combination of several factors, one of the teams wins the battle for the balls by a landslide"
Nothing explained here, do I need to pray every night my opponent will not turn into Shaq and destroy my team even we got the similar team?

"From now on, in the test engine, about 40% of the defensive rebounds will be won by the defending team, regardless of other criteria."
This makes no sense as well, if two identical player, why would the defensive player have the lower chance to get the reb.

I am really curious if any test had been done before the update is deployed. With average players stat across different WLs and different tactics. If yes, why this obvious problem still existed when the update comes live. And we have to wait for another season before the problem can be fixed.
The balance might be difficult, but the current engine is definitely not balanced at all. -- 91 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

no interesting information, I like powerpoint -- 91 賽季 11 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 2.2 fungtys

Everyone chooses Max Off rebounds now. Fastbreaks are not enough to penalise this setting. -- 91 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Nephasto-bot

I keep reading that every change in the engine is made to make the game more similar to real basketball... But I honestly think that the majority of the users would firstly like to have a more Fair engine, where one can understand what Is happening, make adjustment and see some results in one sense or the other.
Free 40% defensive rebounds is not going in this direction -- 91 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

kip88363

Only bad algorithm needs to be fixed by its data. It's a really bad idea to perform what you want by setting a "guaranteed result," which is killing the variety of tactics and the variety that how we play this game. We players keep getting used to the new changes of the game engine, but there will always be more problems come after these updates so rapidly and make our efforts leave in vain. This engine algorithm needs more serious review to check whether its structure has defects or not. -- 91 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

zopen we have implemented similar safeguards in the old ME version to address concerns about gameplay balance. We understand that the 40% rebound to the defending team regardless of criteria is a concern, and we have made adjustments to the updated version of the engine that will be used for the first time in tonight's NL games. We believe that these adjustments will help us to avoid unrealistic amount of offensive rebounds that we have noticed in the previous version of the ME. The managers are able to control the way their team perform through team settings, for example choosing to be very intense on offensive rebounds and training players skills that have impact on getting a rebound, for example rebounding, toughness or jumping. We look forward to receiving feedback from the community on these updates.

timmy296701 1. apologies if the explanation was not clear enough in the article. The main factors causing the difference in rebound are: rebounding, toughness and jumping skills; height, offensive rebounding team settings (min - max), and the amount of fouls the player has committed. For example, if the team has set the offensive rebounding setting a maximum and is slightly taller, in the previous version they would be getting unrealistic number of offensive rebounds. There's been a WL1 game where team skills were similar (rebs 6.4 vs 5.7, toughness 9.8 vs 8.2), however the rebounding margin was 44 to 17, with one team grabbing 18 offensive boards. There's been numerous games like that and we want to avoid that in the future therefore we have added the 40% safeguard to avoid situations like that in the future.

2. In the previous version of ME teams would get 17,97 defensive rebounds and 11,48 offensive rebounds per game, so the ratio was 1,56:1. After the changes in the test environment we have had 20,2 defensive and 8,95 offensive rebounds per game, the ratio is 2,25:1. Compared to Euroleague teams, roughly the ratio is in the interval between 1,75 and 3,4, while NBA this season has 3.15 ratio.
Essentially, we are talking about a decrease of 2-3 offensive rebounds per game and added safeguard to avoid unrealistic offensive rebound outcomes.
You may use max offensive rebound settings and in the new version you should not expect to get 25 offensive rebounds, unless there's a LOT of missed shots and your players dominate the opponents by skills necessary for rebounds.
3. We have tested the safeguard in the development environment. That is where the above mentioned stats are coming from. We expect that the 40% safeguard introduction will help us give more realistic rebounding outcomes in the game. If necessary, we will make further adjustments.

joancrumor apologies if the information provided was not interesting for you. We understand that everyone has different preferences when it comes to how information is presented, and we will take that into consideration in the future.

fungtys yes, without the 40% safeguard max team intensity gave too much advantage and with the update we are creating more balance in the game. Today we will run the first games in NLs, I would suggest to watch the games and see how it goes. If you see something unusual, please let us know and we will take a look at that.

Nephasto thank you for your feedback. We understand that a fair and transparent engine is important to our community. Our goal with the changes to the engine is to create a more realistic and authentic basketball experience, but we also recognize the importance of fairness and understandability in the game. Therefore, we communicate about our plans and reasoning behind them. I hope that the news posts and comments provided will lead to a better understanding of the game.

kip88363 thank you for your feedback. We understand your concerns about the impact of the changes on gameplay tactics and variety. We assure you that the changes made to the engine are not intended to limit the variety of tactics and playstyles. We believe that the "guaranteed result" feature is a necessary safeguard to address issues with unrealistic rebounding outcomes and to make the game more authentic.
However, we understand that this may have unintended consequences and we are closely monitoring the effects of these changes. We are constantly working to improve the engine algorithm and if you see anything unusual please let as know as we strive to create the best possible experience for our community. We will continue to review and make adjustments as needed to ensure that the engine is fair and balanced for all players. -- 91 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 3.2 Smoku

I am not sure, you are going a good way with your tests. You are checking games in WL-1-3, where are teams with different builds, some composed for old ME, some more for new ME (I guess managers still dont comprehend new ME, not mention it is still subject of change). Then you compare results with NBA for instance and make adjustments.
I agree with Zopen, that it is a role of manager to build a team to perform in certain way, to patch a weaknesses and rise strengths.
Wasn't it better for you to create model teams with model players, where they have certain skills. Some average, some better reounding, better scoring and so on. then generate number of matches and get results. Then to tune ME accordingly to results from NBA or EL leagues. And then, when anyone of us in our games get results with too few rebounds or something with current team, this would mean, that it is necessary to look for better rebounders on the market. Or change tactics. This is what I would like to see and this is how I would like to play this game.
Because for the moment I have a rooster and I dont think what to change by myself I just wait for what you change in ME and if it will be good change for my team or not, basing on your observation of completelly random teams from WL1-3. -- 91 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

smoku we test the game in WL 1-3 with current season skills and tactics that are set, so we test the teams that have different skills as different managers tend to train their team different ways. I see where you are coming from with the suggestion of testing different skillset team and providing the testing results. I think this is an interesting idea. However, this is too time-consuming at this point and we would rather analyse games played by using filters to find out whether further changes are necessary. We will keep this idea in mind for the future.

This adjustment has been made after the community has expressed that the rebounds do not work the right way, as described in the example in the previous comment. We have tuned ME by introducing safeguard for defensive rebounds and tuned the way tactics influence the rebounds. For example, low post offense right now has more influence in getting an offensive rebound compared to the rest of the tactics than previously. -- 91 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 4.5 d0man

I think that situation when one team have 16 offensive rebounds when one has 4 defenses isn't unlikely even in real life if you have 5 rebounding specialist versus people that don't know how to rebound. IMO it would be better to give some bonuses to defensive rebounding instant of having a hard cup of 40%. Because why do we need to train rebounds if we can have 40% in defense anyway so first we can spend it on other skills to be better in offense or defense, second even if we spend it on Rebounding in 40% of cases it doesn't matter so it is nonsense to train. And if you want to say that 40% is logical why don't we apply this to other skills, why we don't make minimum shooting % like 40% and only count skill for when it is above it? -- 91 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

dwyane3: forgive my comment, but I'm about to abandon this game because it's illogical, even though they say it's real, I'm very tired -- 91 賽季 12 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Bug fix has been included into the main match engine (version 1.3.2):

https://www.basketpulse.com/lt/Pagalba-sarasas.htm#hlpanc_632c567404b00 -- 91 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

4.6 4.1 fortuzas

Same bug happened after its fixed update? -- 91 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

3.4 3.3 a-darius

it was fixed only in testing ME. Now it is fixed in both. -- 91 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 nofixations

How about reverting to the ge we had before starting all these changes? That was fun to play, you could analyze, understand what happened, adapt tactics... Now every season changes, you only need to adapt players to the engine.... No long-term planning possible. Default tactics.... -- 91 賽季 13 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+14

1.1 2.2 Pianoschulz

Just keep in mind how many versions of new ME, we've suffered in the last 2 seasons -- 91 賽季 14 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 dragiux

Kuo skiriasi, atkovotas kamuolys nuo atkovotas kamuolys atšoko tiesiai į rankas?
Ir vienas ne į temą, kodėl prie vienodos rungtynių atmosferos vieną kartą būna 5 įvykiai, o kitą kartą 10? -- 91 賽季 16 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

+10

Testing match engine has been updated. Please check the changes’ log in help section for details:

https://www.basketpulse.com/en/Pagalba-sarasas.htm#hlpanc_632c567404b00
In a few upcoming days we will have an article about these updates.
We hope that this is the last bigger ME update in this season.
Please pay attention to your matches in the national league - if these fixes work and do not create any unwanted effect. -- 91 賽季 34 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.3 Morrow

from the issues it tackles, it seems a good update -- 91 賽季 34 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 2.2 coldmeow

a-darius

dwyane3
“-Unlucky shots will be counted only when the shot has a negative skill ratio and negative shooting quality. ”
We don't quite understand what this article means, can you explain it in detail? -- 91 賽季 34 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2023-01-04?????????
1.4-b.4 -- 91 賽季 34 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

No comment, if we don't know where we are, anything is good, a game engine, in theory it is finalized and created and receives major modifications -- 91 賽季 34 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Sorry - there was an error in the date written of the last update.
Fixed: the date of the last update - 2023-02-04 -- 91 賽季 34 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.1 4.4 jopencjusz

"Unlucky shots will be counted only when the shot has a negative skill ratio and negative shooting quality."

1Q 9:18 PBBC Unlucky close range shot: M. Gorski (Excellent situation, Players skills' ratio: 5, Shot quality ratio: 5, Defender: Z. Malek)

Perfect! -- 91 賽季 34 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 3.1 zurda10

jopencjusz I think you misunderstood the concept because that phrase refers (or it should imo) to shots MADE with negative SR and SQ, which are counted as lucky. On the other hand if a shot with positive SR and SQ is MISSED it is counted as unlucky.

If the phrase was written like that, then it should be corrected from what I know. -- 91 賽季 35 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

zurda10 is right.
We tried to make the text in the Change log more clear:
"-Lucky shots will be counted only when the shot has a negative skill ratio and negative shooting quality (vice versa with unlucky shots). " -- 91 賽季 35 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

顯示隱藏回應: 32

2.1 4.4 jopencjusz

It's not making the text more clear, it's changing it original meaning to new one. -- 91 賽季 35 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 2.1 fanling3

a-ramune
So this is a bug? Or it's not a lucky shot indeed?
32:32 2Q 4:45 416 logotipas Lucky mid-range 2PT shot: Y. Ng (Good situation, Players skills' ratio: -5, Shot quality ratio: 3, Defender: M. Canals)

比賽 -- 91 賽季 35 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)