If You Could Choose The Amount of Stars (Gold, Silver, Bronze)

[HELLisFUN]

For example, by default you have the same amount of Star Slots as in 2k8, but in 2k9 if you got the following option or some type of order that dictates something of adding a specific slot by losing another and combination of such slots:

Add 1 more Gold player by giving up (two silver, or 4 Bronze)
Add 2 more Silver players by giving up (1 Gold, or 3 Bronze)
Add 2 more Bronze players by giving up (1 Silver)
Add 4 more Bronze players by giving up (1 Gold)

But there can be a limit that you can have certain amount of such (ex. Only 3 Golds at most, etc)

Or do you feel that it would become a cheese-fest by following such guidelines? Or is it fine the way it is?

Any opinions/comments

[LBzrule]

Quote: Originally Posted by HELLisFUN

For example, by default you have the same amount of Star Slots as in 2k8, but in 2k9 if you got the following option or some type of order that dictates something of adding a specific slot by losing another and combination of such slots: Add 1 more Gold player by giving up (two silver, or 4 Bronze) Add 2 more Silver players by giving up (1 Gold, or 3 Bronze) Add 2 more Bronze players by giving up (1 Silver) Add 4 more Bronze players by giving up (1 Gold) But there can be a limit that you can have certain amount of such (ex. Only 3 Golds at most, etc) Or do you feel that it would become a cheese-fest by following such guidelines? Or is it fine the way it is? Any opinions/comments

I don't see the problem with any of those especially since alot of the guys that are listed as "legends" are not really legends. I mean come on Andre Ware, please. Bubby Brister hahah whatever.

[xylocaine]

Quote: Originally Posted by HELLisFUN

For example, by default you have the same amount of Star Slots as in 2k8, but in 2k9 if you got the following option or some type of order that dictates something of adding a specific slot by losing another and combination of such slots: Add 1 more Gold player by giving up (two silver, or 4 Bronze) Add 2 more Silver players by giving up (1 Gold, or 3 Bronze) Add 2 more Bronze players by giving up (1 Silver) Add 4 more Bronze players by giving up (1 Gold) But there can be a limit that you can have certain amount of such (ex. Only 3 Golds at most, etc) Or do you feel that it would become a cheese-fest by following such guidelines? Or is it fine the way it is? Any opinions/comments

I would love it!!!

Exactly how it should be. This game is pure heaven online, because it allows you to try thousands of combinations to make your team, this would just make the possibilities even greater.

I would also Like to see Bronze players have at least 2 abilities as minimum, Silver 3, and Gold 4 and make Generic players Earn an ability by accumulating stat in online games. So If you keep your team the same your generics could earn abilities by their performance.
I would love to see accumulated individual stat tracking for my players for the online games i've played etc.

Why some bronze players have NO abilities is beyond me, that's why no one ever uses them on their team. Also letting generics earn an ability (limited to one) would make the game deeper and give your team a ton of personality.

[HELLisFUN]

Quote: Originally Posted by xylocaine

I would love it!!! Exactly how it should be. This game is pure heaven online, because it allows you to try thousands of combinations to make your team, this would just make the possibilities even greater. I would also Like to see Bronze players have at least 2 abilities as minimum, Silver 3, and Gold 4 and make Generic players Earn an ability by accumulating stat in online games. So If you keep your team the same your generics could earn abilities by their performance. I would love to see accumulated individual stat tracking for my players for the online games i've played etc. Why some bronze players have NO abilities is beyond me, that's why no one ever uses them on their team. Also letting generics earn an ability (limited to one) would make the game deeper and give your team a ton of personality.

I understand generics aren't good in this game, but giving them an ability online Man that will make the game even harder than it already is. But who knows, there could be ways around it to make it work.

[spankdatazz22]

Quote: Originally Posted by xylocaine

Why some bronze players have NO abilities is beyond me, that's why no one ever uses them on their team. Also letting generics earn an ability (limited to one) would make the game deeper and give your team a ton of personality.

While I think VC did a great job on it's first attempt w/it's abilities-based ranking system, it still needs refinement. I think we're so used to numbers that we're missing the point when we look at the abilities. I know a lot of people always went for players that had the most abilities listed, but it didn't mean the players with none had no value. Just as I feel there were many generics that played on an [at least] bronze level. I've seen many instances where a player in a certain scheme doesn't play as well as a lesser player in that same scheme. But VC somehow needs to give gamers the ability to see these unique characteristics and reward players that pick the best players to suit their scheme, not just those that pick the best players available because it doesn't always translate to chemistry.

[RogueHominid]

I think this could work very well, provided we get more options at every tier and position next time around. As it is, I feel like my six bronze choices tend to get filled with a limited number of players, especially on the defensive side of the ball where we only get three corners and one strong safety. And I agree wholeheartedly with LBZ that our bronze's need to have some real star power. What was Brian Jones good at?

I think an added bonus to this sort of reallocation of funds is a redistribution of certain players. Metzelaars is no bronze, or at least he doesn't play like one.

On the whole, though, this is a great idea, and one that could lend even more life to an already lively online experience because of its increased emphasis on strategy and the maximization of your roster's talent.

[evarts2616]

i chose option 3 i think it would be great if that was included in 2k9

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by spankdatazz22

While I think VC did a great job on it's first attempt w/it's abilities-based ranking system, it still needs refinement. I think we're so used to numbers that we're missing the point when we look at the abilities. I know a lot of people always went for players that had the most abilities listed, but it didn't mean the players with none had no value. Just as I feel there were many generics that played on an [at least] bronze level. I've seen many instances where a player in a certain scheme doesn't play as well as a lesser player in that same scheme. But VC somehow needs to give gamers the ability to see these unique characteristics and reward players that pick the best players to suit their scheme, not just those that pick the best players available because it doesn't always translate to chemistry.

Good points, spank, on the importance of having players that fit the system, and vice versa. I also hear what you're saying about people potentially gravitating toward players with lots of stated abilities over players with relatively fewer of them. There's a part of me that really likes this ranking system as-is, though, as it forces you to get to know your guys on the field. I did some experimenting with one-ability guys, and was really interested to find out just how much they could do. And I do think that the game rewards players who play to fit their schemes. I see guys all the time who use Randall and throw the ball tons, thinking that they're just going to bomb the daylights out of me for huge scores all game long. The problem is that Randall is a very streaky passer, and not all that accurate. Ergo, people that lean on him like that take a hit, and when facing good competition, are likely to taken an L. I'm more for avoiding numbers and overstatement, but that's just my opinion. And as for people gravitating toward the players with the most icons, well, they're just missing out on a lot of interesting players. I'll tell you now that the best KR I ever had was George Macafee, that tiny Silver SS.