BuzzerBeater Forums

and if it's at the end of the shot clock, it's a poor shot

that's why till now the "low tactics" aren't so good?

About your last phrase, do you think this random factor could be reduced?

so when someone takes a shot, and we determine that it should go in 45% of the time, how do you go about "reducing the random factor" ?

I'm not a BBs so I can only try to immagine how the GE is working; taking in consideration only the js and od skill I can say this:
lvl 20 js vs lvl 1 od = 99% of shots go into the basket (1% random)
lvl 15 js vs lvl 7 od = 65% of shots go into the basket (15% random) so in the worst case lvl 15 will score with the 50%
lvl 15 js vs lvl 15 od = 45% of shots go into the basket (5% random)
If in my example the random % is higher you can "reduce the random factor" if otherwise you've fixed the % in the 45 without random, of course you can't do anything ;)

Anyway, coming back to my previous question, seeing a lvl 20 against a lvl 10 score with a percentage of the 15% is not so good for who has in roster a lvl 20

no... see... if 65% of shots go into the basket, and each shot is really independently taken, the number of shots that go in or don't go in will be variable. We simulate the game basket by basket, and don't go back and change previous baskets, or think about what happened two quarters ago to determine if this shot went in, that's not how basketball works.

I knew that and I'm not saying the match is decided before to play but the point is when there is a shot how the GE works; I can't believe that there is the 50% of possiblity like the coins indipendently from the skills. I also know that you cannot tell me how a single shot is calculate and you've written "will be variable". What I'd like to know, in this word "variable" there is inside also a small percentage of random?

Let's say one player has a 60% probability to score a shoot. He shoots 5 times in the first quarter. Against all odds... he misses all of them. Does the GE take that 0% and try to adjust it up in next shoots (increasing the initial 60% probability) or just ignores it and continue to use the 60% probability for the rest of the match?

Each shot is an independent trial;

So yes it ignores the past results. It's a independent chance.

But the player does take into acount the history (shots that did or did not fall) of shots he has been taken on a specific place on the court. Right?

But the player does take into acount the history (shots that did or did not fall) of shots he has been taken on a specific place on the court. Right?

no. independent events have no "memory"

its complicated... and i don't think i should go into TOO much detail of how the GE works, but players do have a memory in the sense of they understand what is a good shot and what is a bad shot this game and this influences the decisions they make once they decide to shoot.. but once they decide to shoot, there is a probability that that shot will go in... lets say 65%. sometimes it goes in, sometimes not. The next shot they take.. remember all the skills are likely to be different, that shot is going to be from a different spot on the floor.. a different situation in the game, he might be more tired, he might have a different defender.. who knows.. a million things could change... but say at the end of the day, this shot has a 30% probability of going in and he takes it. Should we take the fact that he missed his 65% opportunity and have it influence the 30% probability upward in an attempt to "reduce the randomness"... I think not, that would defeat the purpose of all the calculations that went into that 30% shot ending up being only a 30% opportunity.

I understand people think about it as.. my guy is a 10 his guy is a 5 that means, my guy should shoot 65% (or whatever, dont take these numbers seriously) so when i take 100 shots i should hit 65 of them..

the problem is that this ignores all the rich dynamics we consider when simulating a real game, we don't want to simplify these dynamics down.. its what makes the game engine interesting. It is inherently probabilistic, but all the evidence suggests that real life is probabilitic too... statisticians cannot find correlations between shots when they look for them. "Getting hot" actually has no evidence in fact. There is a great paper on this analyzing basketball.. maybe if i find it later i will post it here.