BuzzerBeater Forums

(78692988)

Anyone? xDDD

Then explain me this: (78551459)

It happened the following week. Same lineup, same defenses, same offense, but this time my opponent had 2 recovered players who were injured in the first game I posted, plus he had his center who was also injured in that game, plus no home court advantage for me and same gameshapes (in the playoff game, I had better gameshapes than him FYI). And still I won.

So you're telling me that a SINGLE prediction can overcome home court advantage, better enthusiasm, better gameshapes EVEN when the involved team had only 4 players worthy (and his LI crippled because of the injury of his center), who played almost every minute of the game?. Sorry, but your answer is INVALID. Try another one.

Last edited by Mojon_man at 2/5/2015 8:17:45 PM

Sorry but I am a bit lazy to breakdown minute per-minute and player-per player to see specific match-up differences.
I will take your word for it that these lineups are exactly the same, althogh there are clearly minor differences.

My lineup is exactly the same. His lineup changed a bit, he sold this guy (19582898), who's not anything out of this world (OD 15, JS 15 JR 13 IS 8, if I remember correctly) and besides was in low respectable gameshape at that time; but he had these two players, who were injured in the playoff game (26456055)--(30873192), and moreover, this one (21260206) wasn't injured right from the start, like in the playoff game.

So, according to the game engine, (32424725)>>>(21260206)

I am thinking that with uptempo tactics the random factor is much larger as well, especially for you as an outside shooting team...although looking at shooting %s between the two games I do not see as big a difference...

I think that's the key. The random factor being extremely high. I've tried to look for another reason but I couldn't, and thats THE ONLY GAME since I was given this team, where I failed to find a reasonable explanation. That's why I posted it here.

I'm not complaining about my % FG, it should've been better but it's plausible. I'm complaining about his crippled LI scoring me 100 points (btw my starting 5 had ID 6, 14, 12'5, 15, 16, that's something!).

The way I understand it is that GDP boosts team ratings (like home court). The issue however is that those result especially the first one can't be explained in any way using the ratings provided.

I would kindly ask that they review the way the Team Ratings and the Scoring Ratings are calulated. There is no way that game should happen. If your team ratings AND shooting ratings are all better/substantially better than your opponent's AND the fouls are in line, having two -10 quarters is a travesty. There is clearly something that is not reflected properly in the ratings provided.

I'm sorry but either this is true or not:

For games played during season 3 and later, we have replaced this with the more comprehensive matchup ratings. The matchup rating represents the number of points that players at a given position would have scored, on average, if they were to take 100 shots. A higher number is indicative of better scoring opportunities at that position over the course of the game, and of course you should try to take full advantage of your strength when selecting your tactics.

Team ratings are not affected by effort or the opponent, so there is that, but shooting ratings should do exactly what described in the game manual. If that's not the case, they might as well remove them. To be more specific:
Dude played motion:
PG 83.3/100 scored 11 points on 11 shots (this is equivalent to 100/100)
SG 105.1/100 scored 16 on 20 shots (80/100)
SF 104.0/100 scored 32 on 30 shots (106.7/100)

The opponent played LI:
SF rating 62.0/100, effectively 169.2/100
PF rating 89.8/100, effectively 104.5/100
C rating 93.3/100, so really 100/100

62 to 169 it's a 107 difference for the second best scorer in the game. It sounds very odd that the average would be 62.



Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/6/2015 10:46:00 AM

That's why I gave you the comparison for the 3 key positions. 62 on average vs 169 in reality cannot be explained by normal means. It means that if they replay the same exact game another 7-8 times that player should go a combined 40 points on 87 FGA to balance things out while in this game he had 22 points with 13 FGA!

It makes no sense whatsoever: the most rational conclusion is that either the game manual is missing some key part in the definition or they made changes to the GE while this information (and the team ratings) have stayed the same and they are therefore less accurate than they used to be.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't lose with better ratings. But if you have better ratings and the opponent is also supposed to score inefficiently at the positions taking the bulk of the shots then something does not add up. Either something is missing or incorrect, but being unable to tell what was wrong is bad.