The Real Problem with "Got Next"

[Pokes404]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

Easy fix.

Win: +4 rep
Lose: -2 rep
Disconnect: -5 rep

So quitting will essentially mean you have to win an entire game just to get back to where you were, but even then you are -1 rep back.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that the penalty wasn't big enough ... I'm saying that a number of people don't care enough about their "rep" to keep them in a game where they are losing, not getting enough shots, etc. Their "rep" rating simply doesn't mean that much to them. They just want to play in a game. The problem is that when you have people who will quit when they're losing, it spoils the mode for others when they know there's a decent chance that they'll end up having to play against the CPU in any given game.

I love Team Up, but this is one of the big drawbacks of the mode. If people don't get the team/player they want, or get down a few points, they quit because they know a new game is just a button press away. Now, this is amplified right now by the fact that there's hardly any penalty for doing this in 2K14. But even back in 2K12 & 2K13 when there was a penalty, it still didn't do much to deter people from this practice.

Even if "rep" does help curve quitting, I don't see any way it would curve it to the degree that the "Got Next" system does with the simple fact that you're not guaranteed to be able to jump right back into a game. You're better off playing through adversity and trying to get the win so you can stay. Which means less having to play with/against the CPU, which makes the mode more fun for others.

I'm really not trying to argue that "Got Next" is perfect. They obviously need to make some changes because having to wait 10-15 mins (or 30-40 mins in the Jordan Rec Center's case) with nothing to do but watch a game you don't care about is a fairly significant problem.

[Jhawkfootball06]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that the penalty wasn't big enough ... I'm saying that a number of people don't care enough about their "rep" to keep them in a game where they are losing, not getting enough shots, etc. Their "rep" rating simply doesn't mean that much to them. They just want to play in a game. The problem is that when you have people who will quit when they're losing, it spoils the mode for others when they know there's a decent chance that they'll end up having to play against the CPU in any given game.

I love Team Up, but this is one of the big drawbacks of the mode. If people don't get the team/player they want, or get down a few points, they quit because they know a new game is just a button press away. Now, this is amplified right now by the fact that there's hardly any penalty for doing this in 2K14. But even back in 2K12 & 2K13 when there was a penalty, it still didn't do much to deter people from this practice.

Even if "rep" does help curve quitting, I don't see any way it would curve it to the degree that the "Got Next" system does with the simple fact that you're not guaranteed to be able to jump right back into a game. You're better off playing through adversity and trying to get the win so you can stay. Which means less having to play with/against the CPU, which makes the mode more fun for others.

I'm really not trying to argue that "Got Next" is perfect. They obviously need to make some changes because having to wait 10-15 mins (or 30-40 mins in the Jordan Rec Center's case) with nothing to do but watch a game you don't care about is a fairly significant problem.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I totally agree with everything you just said. And you're absolutely right, having to wait 30-40 min to play a game is not an optimal solution in any case whatsoever. So, here's another solution.

In Halo 3, if somebody were to quit (was a big problem) they would be penalized with time. They wouldn't be able to go into a match for 5-10 min. Now what if 2K introduced something along those lines for quitters, maybe 15min?

[charlesadams3rd]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

I think it'd be great if 2k implemented an accelerated clock as well similar to EA games. That could also reduce times. Hopefully the wait won't be too bad. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[JYoung28]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

Pokes, like I've said before, if that's there reasoning, it's still is a bad decision. Make everyone wait 30+ mins, again, 30+ minutes and possibly additional games just because people quit?

Come up with something different but not that. I can think of better things just off the top of my head, I believe. Make them lose VC points for quitting or something. Almost anything is better than making people wait almost an hour for a game.

I would much rather deal with quitters than wait times. If they quit, just give us the option to continue playing or move on to the next team. So what someone quits? It's going to happen regardless.

[Pokes404]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I totally agree with everything you just said. And you're absolutely right, having to wait 30-40 min to play a game is not an optimal solution in any case whatsoever. So, here's another solution.

In Halo 3, if somebody were to quit (was a big problem) they would be penalized with time. They wouldn't be able to go into a match for 5-10 min. Now what if 2K introduced something along those lines for quitters, maybe 15min?

The only downside of that kind of penalty is sometimes you get kicked for whatever reason. It would kind of suck to be treated as a "quitter" by the game and bar you from jumping back on with your friends for 15 mins when you didn't do anything. They'd need a way of detecting whether it was an intentional quit (including people who manually turn off their Internet to trigger a kick and avoid penalties), or an accidental kick. As long as there's a work-around for people to quit a game and get in a new one quickly, people will find a way to utilize. Meanwhile, the rest of us get stuck playing the CPU, and no one gets online so they can go head-to-head with the CPU. We have offline for that.

I think a timer-penalty system could work if done right. But I also think "Got Next" is a good solution to combat quitting IF 2K can find something fun/interesting for us to do between games. It's clear that watching others play isn't a viable solution.

[Pokes404]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

Pokes, like I've said before, if that's there reasoning, it's still is a bad decision. Make everyone wait 30+ mins, again, 30+ minutes and possibly additional games just because people quit?

Come up with something different but not that. I can think of better things just off the top of my head, I believe. Make them lose VC points for quitting or something. Almost anything is better than making people wait almost an hour for a game.

I would much rather deal with quitters than wait times. If they quit, just give us the option to continue playing or move on to the next team. So what someone quits? It's going to happen regardless.

"Moving on to the next team" is a solution for 1v1, but not for Team Up/Park where you have multiple users on each team. If someone quits, it isn't really fair to kick the other 4 users when they didn't have anything to do with it. The only option is have the CPU take over. But as I've said, rampant quitting, and getting stuck playing the CPU is already a problem in Team Up. It's one of the reasons a number of people don't enjoy that mode. You can't have this in the Park. Bottom line, you need people to stay once they get into a game to make the mode more enjoyable for everyone. There isn't any better way of doing this than making people put in a little work to get into a game in the first place. As far as taking VC, that could be effective. But again, unless they have a way of detecting whether a quit was intentional or accidental, it wouldn't be much fun to lose VC because the server was acting up. That could do as much damage to online play as waiting for a game.

Again, I'm not trying to say that this is a perfect system ... or even that it's really a good one. I think it's effective, I'll say that. But again, whether the up-side outweighs the bad is up to the individual and it's clear that the "Got Next" system ends up on the negative side for a lot of people. I like that it seems to stop people from quitting, so I'm OK with the system (although we'll see what waiting for a Jordan Rec Center game is like), but would certainly like to see something added to make the time waiting between games entertaining.

[JYoung28]

The Real Problem with "Got Next"

Spoiler

"Moving on to the next team" is a solution for 1v1, but not for Team Up/Park where you have multiple users on each team. If someone quits, it isn't really fair to kick the other 4 users when they didn't have anything to do with it. The only option is have the CPU take over. But as I've said, rampant quitting, and getting stuck playing the CPU is already a problem in Team Up. It's one of the reasons a number of people don't enjoy that mode. You can't have this in the Park. Bottom line, you need people to stay once they get into a game to make the mode more enjoyable for everyone. There isn't any better way of doing this than making people put in a little work to get into a game in the first place. As far as taking VC, that could be effective. But again, unless they have a way of detecting whether a quit was intentional or accidental, it wouldn't be much fun to lose VC because the server was acting up. That could do as much damage to online play as waiting for a game.

Again, I'm not trying to say that this is a perfect system ... or even that it's really a good one. I think it's effective, I'll say that. But again, whether the up-side outweighs the bad is up to the individual and it's clear that the "Got Next" system ends up on the negative side for a lot of people. I like that it seems to stop people from quitting, so I'm OK with the system (although we'll see what waiting for a Jordan Rec Center game is like), but would certainly like to see something added to make the time waiting between games entertaining.

Well, it's similar to 2K11 Crew in that aspect. Just whoever quits, their player will come a Cpu. What's so bad about that? I don't recall many people at all complaining about this. If you ever played the original crew, you'll know majority of people were friends and most people didn't quit because they were with their guys. But if they did, mostly all of them would back out at once. And I believe most likely people will be playing with their friends.

Nobody should have to wait anymore than 5 mins to start playing the mode they'd like to play. What other game makes you wait even 10 mins to get in a game intentionally? And I thought about that server and VC issue, but I feel that's better than making people wait an half and hour to get into a game. That's so ridiculous it's laughable.

I believe it will be sort of effective. I don't think it'll be as effective as you think it will. People will get blew out and get mad or whatever and quit regardless. They know they'll have to wait again anyways since they are about to lose so why not get a head start on it? And I am specially talking about the Jordan Rec Center which is 5 mins quarter. I won't play the Park at all. I honestly don't believe they implemented this to stop quitting to be 100% honest.

[HowDareI]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

The rec center is tied to the park you're in, right?
So the 80 people [at max] are split between the two.
If there's 4 5v5's at the rec center that's half the lobby...statistically speaking I don't see waiting times being bad this year.

Hopefully courts don't glitch and I'll be real excited to get into this mode.

[Jhawkfootball06]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

The rec center is tied to the park you're in, right?
So the 80 people [at max] are split between the two.
If there's 4 5v5's at the rec center that's half the lobby...statistically speaking I don't see waiting times being bad this year.

Hopefully courts don't glitch and I'll be real excited to get into this mode.

No. The rec center is not tied to the park you're in.

[Pokes404]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

Well, it's similar to 2K11 Crew in that aspect. Just whoever quits, their player will come a Cpu. What's so bad about that? I don't recall many people at all complaining about this. If you ever played the original crew, you'll know majority of people were friends and most people didn't quit because they were with their guys. But if they did, mostly all of them would back out at once. And I believe most likely people will be playing with their friends.

Nobody should have to wait anymore than 5 mins to start playing the mode they'd like to play. What other game makes you wait even 10 mins to get in a game intentionally? And I thought about that server and VC issue, but I feel that's better than making people wait an half and hour to get into a game. That's so ridiculous it's laughable.

I believe it will be sort of effective. I don't think it'll be as effective as you think it will. People will get blew out and get mad or whatever and quit regardless. They know they'll have to wait again anyways since they are about to lose so why not get a head start on it? And I am specially talking about the Jordan Rec Center which is 5 mins quarter. I won't play the Park at all. I honestly don't believe they implemented this to stop quitting to be 100% honest.

It's just that people who play online don't want to end up playing the CPU on a regular basis. This is something that happens in Team Up, and even for someone who loves that mode like I do, it gets old sometimes when you can hardly ever finish a game against a human opponent.

Now, combatting quitting may have nothing to do with 2K's reasoning. I'm just floating that theory. Others have said that this system reduces the workload on the servers, since they are effectively removing 25-33% of the players who would be in a game and moving them to a "Got Next" spot. Makes sense to me. But I feel that the system, whether intentional or not, also cut down on the number of people quitting games and may have played a role in 2K keeping the system in place.

People scream about VC playing too big of a role in the game ... 2K tones down VC's role in a number of modes. People complain about MyGM not being a suitable replacement for Association ... 2K comes out with MyLeague. Gamers complain about the wait times in MyPark ... 2K makes no adjustments and actually introduces a variation in Jordan Rec Center where you actually have to wait longer. I don't think 2K just felt like giving everyone the middle-finger on this one. There's obviously a good reason for them to keep things the same.

I guess ultimately, I'm not really trying to argue for or against it. And if I am arguing for it, I'm certainly not arguing for it IN IT'S CURRENT SATE. We need to be able to do something entertaining while we wait. I'm just pointing out to those who find it unfathomable that 2K would keep the "Got Next" system that there do seem to be some benefits to the system.

For me personally, I'm actually on the fence about its return. It does seem to keep people in the game, once they finally get in a game, which I like. Also, it puts greater importance on winning, at the very least, just so you don't have to get back in line.

At the same time, my work schedule seems to get busier every year and it's getting more difficult to find the time to wait. Sometimes I just want to jump right in and play.

[jaateloauto]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

I think the main reason for the "Got Next" template is to keep people from getting into a game, getting down a few points, and then quitting. If you can almost immediately get into a new game, there are a number of people who won't play through a little adversity, they'd rather just quit and get into a new game. It's a problem that 1v1 and Team Up modes face. No one jumps online so they can play against the CPU after 45 seconds.

With the gamer knowing that there's a good chance that they'll have to wait to get into another game, it encourages them to stick it out and finish the game. Ultimately, that's a big positive, but the wait times are also a big negative. Guess it's up to individuals to decide which one outweighs the other.

I do agree though that there really needs to be a freelance, shoot-around court while you're waiting. Shoot, even in real life, I don't usually stand and watch the on-going game. I'm calling my spot and then going to shoot on another court, stretching, working on ball handling, shooting against the wall, sneaking on the court while they're at the other end to shoot a quick jumper, etc. There needs to be something.

This is an imaginary problem. Not a single team in pro clubs in FIFA or EASHL in NHL quits after they've gone down a goal or two. Only when the game is decided we see quitting and mostly not even that since there's actual matchmaking that finds games for you based on the percentage of games you quit early (no quitters play against no quitters, quitters play against quitters). Quitting goes on to the club and player record.

Pokes404 hit the way I see it right on the head, some of the best pick up games at the rec I have ever played in real life have come when the gym was packed with tons of teams having next. Knowing if you get beat, it's going to be hard to get back on the court is a big incentive to play hard and as a team, imo.

Again, that concept sucks for those that don't have the time or patience to wait and I'm not trying to talk them into liking or embracing the idea. I'm just saying, I can see how a concept like this can potentially raise the quality of online play in the virtual rec. Hopefully there are other ways/modes in the game for people to get a quick game in with friends because the more options the better, yet I'm excited that there is seemingly a sim online mode option structured strictly for "serious" play.

When I play a video game I actually want to play it. I don't have unlimited amount of time to just wait around and it's going to be impossible to persuade anyone from playing this instead of FIFA where there's no waiting and it actually has a matchmaking system that puts you against people of your club's skill, not just randoms that happen to be in the same virtual gym as you.

'Staying on the court' means nothing after you've stopped playing. Having your club rank against others in a leaderboard or division system is a bit better than that.

Add to that what happens when games allow for a good club system: people form tournaments where they can schedule games against other top teams. How is that going to work here? Oh, yeah, go to some server and hope that the courts aren't occupied?

[Pokes404]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

This is an imaginary problem. Not a single team in pro clubs in FIFA or EASHL in NHL quits after they've gone down a goal or two. Only when the game is decided we see quitting. Quitting goes on to the club and player record.

I can definitely tell you that quitting is a problem in Team Up. Granted, part of that problem is because people simply get a player they don't want. The Park doesn't have that problem since everyone plays with their MyPlayer. And the reason people in FIFA don't quit is because they are part of a squad and the team's record is tracked. For something like The Park, where there isn't a larger squad, and everyone is basically just an individual playing with other people, not really a "team," if they had the option to quit and immediately join a new game, I would bet good money that you would see a lot more people quitting games. I mean, there is that aspect where you have 3 different squads and you getting ratings boosts depending on who you decide to play for, but I doubt most people will care a great deal about that. It's just something kind of going on in the background.

The closer analogy to The Park for FIFA would be that mode you play when you play with your Pro, but aren't actually on a club. It's basically a 6v6 exhibition game where you join up and play with random players. You earn points towards making your player better, but there aren't any team stats being kept. And people quit out of those games quite often.

So why not go the team route like FIFA Pro Clubs and the old 2K Crew mode? Well ... I don't know. I don't make those kinds of decisions. My guess ... it's harder for people to get together and form teams. It's a lot easier for someone to jump on themselves, squad up with whoever is already in the park, and focus on their player without having to worry about teammates schedules, not having enough people online from your crew's roster to be able to play a Rec Game, being online but your team already has 5 guys on, etc.

[Big FN Deal]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

When I play a video game I actually want to play it. I don't have unlimited amount of time to just wait around and it's going to be impossible to persuade anyone from playing this instead of FIFA where there's no waiting and it actually has a matchmaking system that puts you against people of your club's skill, not just randoms that happen to be in the same virtual gym as you.

'Staying on the court' means nothing after you've stopped playing. Having your club rank against others in a leaderboard or division system is a bit better than that.

Add to that what happens when games allow for a good club system: people form tournaments where they can schedule games against other top teams. How is that going to work here? Oh, yeah, go to some server and hope that the courts aren't occupied?

Like I stated, I'm not trying to change anyone's POV on "got next", it's cool if you don't like it, don't have time for it, won't play the mode because of it and are vocal about it. I'm just stating my opinion on the potential merit of the concept. I have been online gaming for well over a decade, even on various competitive sites for cash and in my experience, the type of gamers I'd rather avoid playing, don't care much about "reps" or other bad publicity.

[JYoung28]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

Spoiler

It's just that people who play online don't want to end up playing the CPU on a regular basis. This is something that happens in Team Up, and even for someone who loves that mode like I do, it gets old sometimes when you can hardly ever finish a game against a human opponent.

Now, combatting quitting may have nothing to do with 2K's reasoning. I'm just floating that theory. Others have said that this system reduces the workload on the servers, since they are effectively removing 25-33% of the players who would be in a game and moving them to a "Got Next" spot. Makes sense to me. But I feel that the system, whether intentional or not, also cut down on the number of people quitting games and may have played a role in 2K keeping the system in place.

People scream about VC playing too big of a role in the game ... 2K tones down VC's role in a number of modes. People complain about MyGM not being a suitable replacement for Association ... 2K comes out with MyLeague. Gamers complain about the wait times in MyPark ... 2K makes no adjustments and actually introduces a variation in Jordan Rec Center where you actually have to wait longer. I don't think 2K just felt like giving everyone the middle-finger on this one. There's obviously a good reason for them to keep things the same.

I guess ultimately, I'm not really trying to argue for or against it. And if I am arguing for it, I'm certainly not arguing for it IN IT'S CURRENT SATE. We need to be able to do something entertaining while we wait. I'm just pointing out to those who find it unfathomable that 2K would keep the "Got Next" system that there do seem to be some benefits to the system.

For me personally, I'm actually on the fence about its return. It does seem to keep people in the game, once they finally get in a game, which I like. Also, it puts greater importance on winning, at the very least, just so you don't have to get back in line.

At the same time, my work schedule seems to get busier every year and it's getting more difficult to find the time to wait. Sometimes I just want to jump right in and play.

Pokes, trust me, I am BIG online gamer and play online to not play against the CPU. But team up and this sort of similar type of Crew is mad different. In random teamups, yes, most people quit but why? Because they don't get a good player and most likely because they are not getting the ball and people playing dumb.

Now, with Jordan Rec Center, you'll be playing w/ friends 8/10, so the dumb play and ball hogging will be toned down a lot. You also will have your OWN player so you def won't quit because of that. If you're going to compare it with something, it'll have to be a private teamups. And rarely people quit those. Or Crew mode in 2K11. They only quit when they were getting blew out and as a whole they left.

I see what you like about it and I can respect that. But overall it's just so wrong to make people wait to play a game. When I get on my video game, I want to play, I don't want to have to stand and watch people play for and hour in a half plus. And maybe have to keep watching other games if it's setup how I am thinking if people are in front of you. The bottom line is this is almost the worst way to combat quitting I believe. I am sure if there was a universal online poll on if you'd rather wait almost an hour to play a game or allow players to quit out of games if they choose, I believe the latter will blow it out the water.

At work so sorry if it seems to cluttered and has errors.

[Jhawkfootball06]

Re: The Real Problem with "Got Next"

Pokes, trust me, I am BIG online gamer and play online to not play against the CPU. But team up and this sort of similar type of Crew is mad different. In random teamups, yes, most people quit but why? Because they don't get a good player and most likely because they are not getting the ball and people playing dumb.

This. This is why 99% of players quit in Team up. Because they get stuck with Joakim Noah when they wanted to play with Derrick Rose.