Brian, this is great! I am patiently awaiting your NCAA teams, assume you are still working on them? Looking forward to any sort of Kentucky, Indiana, etc.... Great work! - BAKER
Thank you. I do have a demo that you can playthe features 3 teams from the 90s: Duke, UNLV, and Loyola Marymount. I'm still trying to make sure everything is right, especially the timing. Would love to hear your thoughts after playing. brianhaferkamp.github.io/uptempo-ncaa/
Im curious, What metric did you use for rating individual player defense? You may want to introduce Offensive and Defensive Rebounding, There’s a large variation of individual rebounder’s in the NBA. It makes a big difference especially in clutch situations. You’ve definitely come along way from the original concept. Congrats my Friend!!
I used DRtg (from basketball-reference) and compared it with the league average (rounded down). The average for the league in 1986-87 was 108 so a team with a 107 DRtg would have a defense of -1 in Uptempo Basketball. I've yet to find an elegant solution for some of the detail stats like rebounding. I think it is going to be beyond the scope of this game to provide that level of scoring detail unless someone can help me figure it out. My first try was way too clunky. Plus, because there aren't that many actual misses in the game rebounds will suffer the most in terms of accuracy. At least that was what I got from testing. In the end this game is fast and flows well and anything that gets in the way of that should probably be jettisoned, even at the expense of more detail. I think there are a handful of fine games out there that can provide the detail some gamers want. This one will mostly likely fill a different kind of niche. That said, detail with great flow is the Holy Grail of sports board games, so I'm ready to hear how that can be added without slowing the game down. Thanks!
They are not available yet. You can play them using the demo teams here: github.com/brianhaferkamp/uptempo-ncaa. I've still got work on getting the timing and scoring correct for college.
Hmmmm... Well, I went ahead and bought the 1982-83 NBA season, because I'm a big fan of OBB. But something is seriously wrong with the scoring matrix for that season. I only used the team cards because (really) you want full blown stats? -- go play PC Replay or Hoops PC. So I played a dozen games using various teams and the scoring numbers are absolutely ridiculous. Using the PACE timing, I'm getting a scoring average per team of over 150ppg. (!) 40 point quarters are the norm. Perhaps I'm misplaying something (though using only the team cards is rather straightforward). The only possible wrong plays for me would be: 1. 2-point FGs are automatically good UNLESS the roll is in the 2-pt ATTEMPT range; or 2. I'm not supposed to shoot 2 FTs when that category is rolled. Yet both are those are correct, right? So WTF?? Also, where's home court advantage?
2PT shots are automatic as are 3PT shots. If there is an attempt then you roll again and compare that with the 2PT or 3PT percentage. If it is equal to or less than the percentage the shot is good. If it is greater than the percentage it is a miss. Be sure to take 2:00 off the clock for a scoring run. And each possession is :20 off the clock regardless what happens. If you're playing it that way and still getting crazy results let me know and I'll triple check everything.
I went back and looked at the possession based timing. It is wrong for the amount of scoring on the cards. The cards are in line with the clock based timing but I didn't adjust the possessions based timing when I pumped up scoring this last time. The easiest solution is to get the average pace of the two teams then divide that by 3, not 2. This should give you about the same number of possessions as the clock timing (37 per quarter). Hopefully, that brings scoring for both methods into better alignment and makes the final results closer to actual averages. Thanks again for pointing this out. I appreciate it.
Brian, this is great! I am patiently awaiting your NCAA teams, assume you are still working on them? Looking forward to any sort of Kentucky, Indiana, etc.... Great work! - BAKER
Thank you. I do have a demo that you can playthe features 3 teams from the 90s: Duke, UNLV, and Loyola Marymount. I'm still trying to make sure everything is right, especially the timing. Would love to hear your thoughts after playing.
brianhaferkamp.github.io/uptempo-ncaa/
Im curious, What metric did you use for rating individual player defense? You may want to introduce Offensive and Defensive Rebounding, There’s a large variation of individual rebounder’s in the NBA. It makes a big difference especially in clutch situations. You’ve definitely come along way from the original concept. Congrats my Friend!!
I used DRtg (from basketball-reference) and compared it with the league average (rounded down). The average for the league in 1986-87 was 108 so a team with a 107 DRtg would have a defense of -1 in Uptempo Basketball.
I've yet to find an elegant solution for some of the detail stats like rebounding. I think it is going to be beyond the scope of this game to provide that level of scoring detail unless someone can help me figure it out. My first try was way too clunky. Plus, because there aren't that many actual misses in the game rebounds will suffer the most in terms of accuracy. At least that was what I got from testing.
In the end this game is fast and flows well and anything that gets in the way of that should probably be jettisoned, even at the expense of more detail. I think there are a handful of fine games out there that can provide the detail some gamers want. This one will mostly likely fill a different kind of niche.
That said, detail with great flow is the Holy Grail of sports board games, so I'm ready to hear how that can be added without slowing the game down. Thanks!
does the game take injuries into account at all?
I haven't worked in injuries. I'm not sure what sort of stats I'd have for that.
Where can we find NCAA teams? I don't see them on the website.
They are not available yet. You can play them using the demo teams here: github.com/brianhaferkamp/uptempo-ncaa. I've still got work on getting the timing and scoring correct for college.
Great game. I need Giannis so the current season or the 2021 season would be great!
Totally understand. I do intend to make modern seasons. Too many great players to leave out.
Hmmmm...
Well, I went ahead and bought the 1982-83 NBA season, because I'm a big fan of OBB. But something is seriously wrong with the scoring matrix for that season.
I only used the team cards because (really) you want full blown stats? -- go play PC Replay or Hoops PC. So I played a dozen games using various teams and the scoring numbers are absolutely ridiculous. Using the PACE timing, I'm getting a scoring average per team of over 150ppg. (!)
40 point quarters are the norm. Perhaps I'm misplaying something (though using only the team cards is rather straightforward). The only possible wrong plays for me would be:
1. 2-point FGs are automatically good UNLESS the roll is in the 2-pt ATTEMPT range; or
2. I'm not supposed to shoot 2 FTs when that category is rolled.
Yet both are those are correct, right? So WTF??
Also, where's home court advantage?
2PT shots are automatic as are 3PT shots. If there is an attempt then you roll again and compare that with the 2PT or 3PT percentage. If it is equal to or less than the percentage the shot is good. If it is greater than the percentage it is a miss.
Be sure to take 2:00 off the clock for a scoring run. And each possession is :20 off the clock regardless what happens.
If you're playing it that way and still getting crazy results let me know and I'll triple check everything.
I went back and looked at the possession based timing. It is wrong for the amount of scoring on the cards. The cards are in line with the clock based timing but I didn't adjust the possessions based timing when I pumped up scoring this last time.
The easiest solution is to get the average pace of the two teams then divide that by 3, not 2. This should give you about the same number of possessions as the clock timing (37 per quarter).
Hopefully, that brings scoring for both methods into better alignment and makes the final results closer to actual averages.
Thanks again for pointing this out. I appreciate it.