Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

[LorenzoDC]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

Like others were saying, it would be a good idea to have specific goals for a team based on their roster which would influence their trade logic. However, going one step further, I think that there should be franchise goals/history that influence a team's trade logic.

Teams like the Lakers and the Knicks aren't big into building a team up from the draft. Rather, they're always in a "win now" mentaliy, wheeling and dealing or using their influence in the free agent market. I think that should be reflected a little more in the game. Let's be honest, if LeBron leaves South Beach, for whatever reason, he's not going to Philadelphia. He's either going home or heading to one of the major markets in the league. It would definitely be interesting to see teams like the Knicks or Lakers perform differently in the trade market than other teams. They should be the ones pulling off the blockbuster trades that people will be talking about for years, not the Timberwolves or the Bucks. If something like that could be added to the logic, I'd see it as a nice touch.

Maybe that could be tied to owner personality profiles, already there to build on.

[El_Poopador]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

one other thing i would like to see is the "why" factor when it comes to certain roster moves. if i propose a trade and the cpu rejects it i would like to know why. do they not think the value of the trade was worth it in terms of the player(s) i was offering for the player(s) i wanted (ie offering luol deng for lebron)? do they not have a need for the players i offered even though the value was sufficient (offering to trade a pg for a big to a pg heavy team)? or maybe the value was there and the need but the specific player wasnt the type they were looking for (offering steve nash when theyre looking for more of a scoring pg instead of passing).

i would even go so far as being able to review cpu trades and be able to see the logic from both sides as to why they both agreed to the trade. that would go a long way to explain how lebron might end up in philly for example. it would also give us a lot more insight on how the trade/free agency logic actually works and be able to provide better feedback for future games.

not sure if it is possible but it would also be really cool to be able to sit down with the other gm youre proposing the offer to (or that is offering to you) and give an explanation of why you are offering what you are and what value they can bring to their team. this could lead to a gm being on the fence about a trade offer and you could sway them to go through with it. lets say im making a playoff push but my starting pg just went down for the season. i might offer a first round draft pick for steve nash and justify it by saying nash is getting old and there is a real stud pg in the upcoming draft class.

[Seanzie]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

I'm in the minority, but I think the NBA 2k14 trade logic is fairly solid, and easily the best in the history of sports video games (although trade logic in video games has been bad, historically). But there can definitely be improvements made.

I think there should be more parameters in place. For example, if a team has a player at a position that has an OVR of 80 or greater, they're less likely to trade for someone at that same position with a greater overall UNLESS said player is included in that trade. The closer the OVR, the less likely they want to make the trade. As an example:

Team A has a PG rated 80. Team B wants to trade a PG that is 81 OVR. Why would Team A give up anything to slightly improve the position?

However...

Team A has a PG rated 80 OVR. Team B wants to trade a PG that is 90 OVR. This is more likely to happen since it represents a significant upgrade.

To another point, I know Leftos said not to say, "X team would never do this!" But I've seen the Spurs, while having a record well above .500, trade Tim Duncan and Tony Parker for younger players with lower OVR's. I see two things wrong with that: firstly, I don't think SA would EVER trade Duncan or Parker, considering how much they've meant to that franchise. To combat stuff like this, I think players like Kobe and Duncan should be almost untradeable, unless their team is completely awful, which leads to my second point.

Why is a team in deep playoff contention making trades to get younger? I don't think that's ever happened in the NBA. I understand an old team on the fringes of playoffs sending off some semi-talented old guys for younger prospects, but why would a team that's third in the Western Conference do it?

[2KLeague]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

I'm in the minority, but I think the NBA 2k14 trade logic is fairly solid, and easily the best in the history of sports video games (although trade logic in video games has been bad, historically). But there can definitely be improvements made.

I think there should be more parameters in place. For example, if a team has a player at a position that has an OVR of 80 or greater, they're less likely to trade for someone at that same position with a greater overall UNLESS said player is included in that trade. The closer the OVR, the less likely they want to make the trade. As an example:

Team A has a PG rated 80. Team B wants to trade a PG that is 81 OVR. Why would Team A give up anything to slightly improve the position?

However...

Team A has a PG rated 80 OVR. Team B wants to trade a PG that is 90 OVR. This is more likely to happen since it represents a significant upgrade.

To another point, I know Leftos said not to say, "X team would never do this!" But I've seen the Spurs, while having a record well above .500, trade Tim Duncan and Tony Parker for younger players with lower firstly, I don't think SA would EVER trade Duncan or Parker, considering how much they've meant to that franchise. To combat stuff like this, I think players like Kobe and Duncan should be almost untradeable, unless their team is completely awful, which leads to my second point.

Why is a team in deep playoff contention making trades to get younger? I don't think that's ever happened in the NBA. I understand an old team on the fringes of playoffs sending off some semi-talented old guys for younger prospects, but why would a team that's third in the Western Conference do it?

I would suggest to add some sort of organization (team) loyalty rating tied to specific players similar to what players in the game have e.g Carmelo Anthony not loyal. Teams should have their own e.g Miami Heat loyal to Dwyane Wade, San Antonio Spurs very loyal to Tim Duncan, etc.

[asitter]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

At beginning of season if i was last in blocks the year before. The team should be looking to add a shot blocker to help increase that stat.

Basically if your last an category your Gm should be looking to improve in that area only if your in 20-30 in ranking.

Add specific type of players each team is looking for at each position. Might be a coach thing or could be an owner thing as well.

Ex:

Pg-- pass first, interceptor, spot up shooter
sg--scoring, microwave, finsher
sf-- point forward, 3pt specialist, catch n shoot
pf -- rebounding, hustle, d-anchor
c -- back to basket, eraser, bruiser

if a player at the position as one of the three or all 3 than the GM should be looking to add that player if necessary wether trade FA or draft.

So teams look for certain players ant not just get highest overall.

I think it would also help give each team unique identities in their own right.

Going along with this, it could almost be like Madden where each position has a few different play styles. You could set what play style your team wanted, and that affected the player's overall.

Another thing; not all teams want a traditional lineup. See MIA with them playing a 1,2,3,3,4. Or the Pacers played a 1.5,3,3,4,5 before Granger got hurt.

[SuperNova854]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

One idea I thought of in terms of signing players make it so that centers(and some PFs) almost always sign huge deals(lean towards young ones). We always see every year that because centers are so rare in today's game they end up getting bigger deals then a young guard with potential.

[Raw Energy]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

At beginning of season if i was last in blocks the year before. The team should be looking to add a shot blocker to help increase that stat.

Basically if your last an category your Gm should be looking to improve in that area only if your in 20-30 in ranking.

Add specific type of players each team is looking for at each position. Might be a coach thing or could be an owner thing as well.

Ex:

Pg-- pass first, interceptor, spot up shooter
sg--scoring, microwave, finsher
sf-- point forward, 3pt specialist, catch n shoot
pf -- rebounding, hustle, d-anchor
c -- back to basket, eraser, bruiser

if a player at the position as one of the three or all 3 than the GM should be looking to add that player if necessary wether trade FA or draft.

So teams look for certain players ant not just get highest overall.

I think it would also help give each team unique identities in their own right.

Going along with this, it could almost be like Madden where each position has a few different play styles. You could set what play style your team wanted, and that affected the player's overall.

Another thing; not all teams want a traditional lineup. See MIA with them playing a 1,2,3,3,4. Or the Pacers played a 1.5,3,3,4,5 before Granger got hurt.

for each position those i skills/playstyles can vary they don't have to be set in stone for every team/coach/player.

Depends on build of team and what will suit you best to play to your style of ball. if u want to be uptempo a back to basket center wouldn't be best move. U want a fast athletic center or maybe even pf who can play center who can run the floor without tiring as fast.

[LikMyNutz9]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

I believe that 4 items would greatly benefit team building and trade logic for NBA 2k.
1. Team Philosophy - This has been brought up by numerous posters and I think it is critical.
2. Expanded Player Roles - This would be similar to the roles or badges an old Madden would assign, 2008 I believe.
3. Expanded Trade Value - Instead of the 5 star system where most everyone is 1 star it would include a negative system, not every contract is created equal.
4. Draft Tiers - Teams drafting based on the tiered system instead of whatever they use now, cause I do not understand the draft logic sometimes.

Team Building
Like what others say I believe a team philosophy characteristic should be implemented. Rebuilding, Playoff contender and Championship contender would be the options. The philosophy would be based on the roster rating and the team's record the previous year or in the current year. A team's philosophy would change 3 times a year, the beginning of the season, January 1 or at the midpoint of the season (January 1 seems like the logical date since that's the date that items become available, ie free agents, etc.) and finally at the start of the offseason. This would allow teams to chase that playoff spot if they are exceeding expectations (ie the Suns this year) or to change to rebuilding if they are underperforming expectations (ie the Knicks this year). The user would get to chose their team's philosophy from during the entire process, but the computer controlled teams would be dynamic.

Expanded Player Roles
The old Madden roles had QB of the future, 1st round pick, NFL Icon, Feature Back, Team Mentor, and a lot more. Each of these tags would affect the trade value in a positive or negative manner (+10% to trade value for example)and also determine draft strategy and FA strategy. In the NBA you could have Franchise Player (LeBron), Future Franchise Player (Kyrie), Star (Hibbert), NBA Icon (Duncan) and a lot more. So if the computer controlled the Miami Heat, they would do whatever they could to keep there Franchise Player (LeBron), they would also not draft someone for the same position or sign someone in the same position if the FA was greater than 75 for example. This would help prevent teams like the Cavs signing Chris Paul when they already have Kyrie. This would also make it harder to trade for these types of players. This would also keep Icons with there current teams (Kobe, Duncan). Certain roles could be selectable while others obtained, for example you would not be able to give MCW the Icon role but you could give him Future Franchise Player. This is just scratching the surface at all the possibilities.

Expanded Trade Value
There should be the possibility for negative trade value, if the NBA would buy off on that then change the scale, 5 would be the mid point and 10 would be Lebron and 1 would be Amare and his contract. This allows for the negative contracts to come into play more, for example if the Celtics trade Rondo they will insist on Gerald Wallace being part of the deal if possible as a Rondo tax, this should be reflect in the trade logic. This would help teams in not trading for a bad contract, even if the contract would just be 1 star in the old system, in the new system it maybe -3 and would cause the trade to not happen.

Draft Tiers
If anyone has seen Chad Ford's Draft tiers, this is what I am referring to. Basically you draft by need inside a tier but you never draft a tier 2 guy is there is a tier 1 guy left on the board. So this year I would anticipate Wiggins, Parker and Embiid to be Tier 1 guys and Smart, Randle, Exum, Gordon, Saric possibly to be tier 2 guys. This would mean that Wiggins, Parker and Embiid would be the top 3 picks in some order no matter whos picking and the tier 2 guys would follow in some order, but Saric would never be drafted ahead of Parker. So maybe the tier is just another column in the top prospects list, that would fluctuate based on scouting. I think this would be another way to assist in computer team building.


I think some of the other ideas are great, specific GM attributes, but will take years to develop and require special cases for each team. The items I outlined would be universal to all teams and I think could be accomplished in 1 to 2 years of development cycle because I think the framework is there it just needs some refining.

[El_Poopador]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

So if the computer controlled the Miami Heat, they would do whatever they could to keep there Franchise Player (LeBron), they would also not draft someone for the same position or sign someone in the same position if the FA was greater than 75 for example. This would help prevent teams like the Cavs signing Chris Paul when they already have Kyrie.

i dont necessarily think its a bad thing for a team to sign two great players at the same position. but the coaching logic has to be there as well. if the cavs have the opportunity to sign cp3 they may take it and just move either him or kyrie over to the 2 guard spot rather than benching him. granted i dont think they would try to trade for another pg but if there is a solid pg in free agency its plausible.

[asitter]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

for each position those i skills/playstyles can vary they don't have to be set in stone for every team/coach/player.

Depends on build of team and what will suit you best to play to your style of ball. if u want to be uptempo a back to basket center wouldn't be best move. U want a fast athletic center or maybe even pf who can play center who can run the floor without tiring as fast.

Maybe some of the player styles could include things like stetch 4 (MIA), combo guard (IND) and PF at C (BKY without Lopez).

[bamalam]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

Didnt read through all these- skimmed over. sorry if repeat

Appreciate the chance for feedback-

#1 please add back in 30 team control classic association as these ideas will take years to implement correctly into MYGM and other 'my" modes.

The other thing imo, is that all these ideas for both teams and players should be completely editable by the consumer, so that we can adjust how each team/player approaches team building/trades.


also if 1 team only control, and you dont add back 30 team control, then give the user total override ability on all trades/player roles-silence the players whining about time//


Respectfully,
it is concerning that it is late January, and these ideas are just being discussed, again - we have voiced our concerns for years! Look back through the last few years of threads and you will find some good ideas on your question

I see 2k15 as the first year I probably will be skipping ever due to the poor implementation on NG- had to return 2k14 in december as it was a sub par product

look forward to see what you guys can implement/add back feature wise from past versions by next year. maybe 2k will surprise-

Definitely not a day 1 purchase anymore.

[asitter]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

Although I'm sure you have heard this before, it needs to be said again; VC ruins MyGM. Stop being greedy by shoving VC down our throats. If 2K wants more money, make a better game. Don't rely on microtransactions.

[doctoroz14]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

Ok first I think all teams need a few possible directions to go and that depends on if they're a good team or bad team.

Bad team: if they start out ok get into playoffs, if they suck try to land a top pick, or trade salary dump for star or trade to get more assets.

Good team: if they start out good they try to contend for a ring, if they are doing bad they should either use expirings for help or she's salary

These should be given to all teams based on previous record. Def some more wrinkles would be nice but it would be a start, trade logic in this game is dumb. I sometimes offer a good deal for a player and it gets rejected but another team will trade for that player with such ****ty players. Makes no sense

[Leftos]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

Although I'm sure you have heard this before, it needs to be said again; VC ruins MyGM. Stop being greedy by shoving VC down our throats. If 2K wants more money, make a better game. Don't rely on microtransactions.

Yes, I've heard it before, and I understand. However, bringing this point up in this thread doesn't help. You'll get a few replys with "Amen to that" and "+1" and the thread will become harder to read through every time I use it as reference. Same with "30 team control". I said in the first post, I understand the want for it, but this thread is not about that. Reiterating this doesn't help in this thread.

And to those that say "we've had threads like this for years", there have been tweaks to the logic for 2K14, even if they're not so obvious. If older ideas still apply, feel free to repost them.

[jfinger2013]

Re: Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

I believe that 4 items would greatly benefit team building and trade logic for NBA 2k.
1. Team Philosophy - This has been brought up by numerous posters and I think it is critical.
2. Expanded Player Roles - This would be similar to the roles or badges an old Madden would assign, 2008 I believe.
3. Expanded Trade Value - Instead of the 5 star system where most everyone is 1 star it would include a negative system, not every contract is created equal.
4. Draft Tiers - Teams drafting based on the tiered system instead of whatever they use now, cause I do not understand the draft logic sometimes.

Team Building
Like what others say I believe a team philosophy characteristic should be implemented. Rebuilding, Playoff contender and Championship contender would be the options. The philosophy would be based on the roster rating and the team's record the previous year or in the current year. A team's philosophy would change 3 times a year, the beginning of the season, January 1 or at the midpoint of the season (January 1 seems like the logical date since that's the date that items become available, ie free agents, etc.) and finally at the start of the offseason. This would allow teams to chase that playoff spot if they are exceeding expectations (ie the Suns this year) or to change to rebuilding if they are underperforming expectations (ie the Knicks this year). The user would get to chose their team's philosophy from during the entire process, but the computer controlled teams would be dynamic.

Expanded Player Roles
The old Madden roles had QB of the future, 1st round pick, NFL Icon, Feature Back, Team Mentor, and a lot more. Each of these tags would affect the trade value in a positive or negative manner (+10% to trade value for example)and also determine draft strategy and FA strategy. In the NBA you could have Franchise Player (LeBron), Future Franchise Player (Kyrie), Star (Hibbert), NBA Icon (Duncan) and a lot more. So if the computer controlled the Miami Heat, they would do whatever they could to keep there Franchise Player (LeBron), they would also not draft someone for the same position or sign someone in the same position if the FA was greater than 75 for example. This would help prevent teams like the Cavs signing Chris Paul when they already have Kyrie. This would also make it harder to trade for these types of players. This would also keep Icons with there current teams (Kobe, Duncan). Certain roles could be selectable while others obtained, for example you would not be able to give MCW the Icon role but you could give him Future Franchise Player. This is just scratching the surface at all the possibilities.

Expanded Trade Value
There should be the possibility for negative trade value, if the NBA would buy off on that then change the scale, 5 would be the mid point and 10 would be Lebron and 1 would be Amare and his contract. This allows for the negative contracts to come into play more, for example if the Celtics trade Rondo they will insist on Gerald Wallace being part of the deal if possible as a Rondo tax, this should be reflect in the trade logic. This would help teams in not trading for a bad contract, even if the contract would just be 1 star in the old system, in the new system it maybe -3 and would cause the trade to not happen.

Draft Tiers
If anyone has seen Chad Ford's Draft tiers, this is what I am referring to. Basically you draft by need inside a tier but you never draft a tier 2 guy is there is a tier 1 guy left on the board. So this year I would anticipate Wiggins, Parker and Embiid to be Tier 1 guys and Smart, Randle, Exum, Gordon, Saric possibly to be tier 2 guys. This would mean that Wiggins, Parker and Embiid would be the top 3 picks in some order no matter whos picking and the tier 2 guys would follow in some order, but Saric would never be drafted ahead of Parker. So maybe the tier is just another column in the top prospects list, that would fluctuate based on scouting. I think this would be another way to assist in computer team building.


I think some of the other ideas are great, specific GM attributes, but will take years to develop and require special cases for each team. The items I outlined would be universal to all teams and I think could be accomplished in 1 to 2 years of development cycle because I think the framework is there it just needs some refining.

i love everything he said 2K should hire u immediately