Best Roster for Association and Potentials?

[kramm]

Has anyone found a Roster where all teams are not 90's and high 80's by year 2 or 3 in an association?

I know this is a common problem in most rosters because 2k's potential formula causes every team to have ridiculous ratings a couple of years in. But I like to sim alot to see how my team will pan out, and it causes my association to become so unrealistic a 2-3 years down the line. Are there any rosters out there that lower potentials across the board to combat this. I saw Rondo is God mentioned this in his rosters but I'm waiting for him to work out some kinks in his roster before I give it a try. Anybody else have any suggestions?

[Melbournelad]

I don't mean to be rude, but you didn't think to try the roster with the most views and replies? Because it also happens to the one with the best overall's and potential's.

[kramm]

Uhhh yeah duh haha... otherwise I wouldn't be asking what I found others thought was best. Go try it yourself, even on the OS Collab roster by year 3 or 4 there might be one or two teams in the 70's. Everyone else is in the 80's and 90's. But when you first start off with the OS roster there are about 14 teams in the 70's. I realize some teams are young and will grow to have a better rating, but I just don't think those results are realistic. Might be something that can't be fixed but I was just curious if anyone else still had a nice variety of good, mediocre and bad teams in their association 3-4 years in.

[kramm]

This post sums it up perfectly:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ble-ideas.html

[Melbournelad]

Quote: Originally Posted by kramm

Uhhh yeah duh haha... otherwise I wouldn't be asking what I found others thought was best. Go try it yourself, even on the OS Collab roster by year 3 or 4 there might be one or two teams in the 70's. Everyone else is in the 80's and 90's. But when you first start off with the OS roster there are about 14 teams in the 70's. I realize some teams are young and will grow to have a better rating, but I just don't think those results are realistic. Might be something that can't be fixed but I was just curious if anyone else still had a nice variety of good, mediocre and bad teams in their association 3-4 years in.

Fair enough, but IMO the best option is the Collab roster. I haven't found any other roster with lower potential and overall. Also what draft classes are you using? Obviously they would make a big difference.

[kramm]

Yeah I'm using CWSapps/Dreece's fictional classes. I think their's are the most realistic as far as taking into account overalls and potentials. But it really still does seem that the roster would be the main problem or at least the progression in the game. The way the Collab roster is set up now is perfect, just how I would want the teams to look. Only a couple of teams have major stars. Even having an 80+ player is a privilege for some teams. But take it a couple of years into the game, and it becomes a mess. Everyone will have mutliple 80+ players. Like the previous discussion I linked before said, it seems like players don't regress fast enough to account for the rising young talent that is coming in. Likewise the young talent under 25 rated with B's and A's as potential almost always reach their potential, which does not take into account busts. This is all just thinking out loud here. Whether there's a solution or not I don't know, just wanted to see if anyone found anything different.

[vtcrb]

Quote: Originally Posted by kramm

Yeah I'm using CWSapps/Dreece's fictional classes. I think their's are the most realistic as far as taking into account overalls and potentials. But it really still does seem that the roster would be the main problem or at least the progression in the game. The way the Collab roster is set up now is perfect, just how I would want the teams to look. Only a couple of teams have major stars. Even having an 80+ player is a privilege for some teams. But take it a couple of years into the game, and it becomes a mess. Everyone will have mutliple 80+ players. Like the previous discussion I linked before said, it seems like players don't regress fast enough to account for the rising young talent that is coming in. Likewise the young talent under 25 rated with B's and A's as potential almost always reach their potential, which does not take into account busts. This is all just thinking out loud here. Whether there's a solution or not I don't know, just wanted to see if anyone found anything different.

The Sim Engine is BROKE in 2k meaning that players dont progress properly. The ONLY solution for you would be to Control ALL 30 teams and keep players progressing as you see fit by editing them each season. By focusing on Overall Rating and keeping it low you miss out on alot of the Animations and CPU movement as well. Hopefully you find something that works for you.

[kramm]

Quote: Originally Posted by vtcrb

The Sim Engine is BROKE in 2k meaning that players dont progress properly. The ONLY solution for you would be to Control ALL 30 teams and keep players progressing as you see fit by editing them each season. By focusing on Overall Rating and keeping it low you miss out on alot of the Animations and CPU movement as well. Hopefully you find something that works for you.

Yeah kind of figured. Anybody ever try anything like scaling down potential where an A potential would actually mean having B potential, B means C, etc.? I was thinking of trying this with a couple of teams just to see how it might work. Maybe it could help curb growth and encourage more regression? Thanks for the reply btw.