Re: So how long will 2K continue to deny 3rd quarter momentum shifts?
That's what I'm trying to get across... there's no momentum system. Now there is a hot and cold streak system and if you're referring to that, you should be able to tell when it kicks in by the red (for warm/hot) or blue (cold/frozen) circles in the player indicator. Those are based on game events like made/missed shots and other stat-based things.
As for why many believe "the game is out to get them" or we have some super secret logic under the hood to try and even out scores, I have a few theories. The main thing I see when I watch people play is a misunderstanding of the law of averages. For example, you might make a couple of "lucky" 3's in succession, while the AI misses those same types of looks. Maybe a few possessions go by and the reverse happens. In most peoples' eyes this would look like a manufactured run to even things out, when in actuality it's just the percentages playing out. Let me put it this way, if you play a game and chart out the shot feedback throughout the entire game, with one team taking A quality shots and the other team taking C quality shots, the A-team will win that game almost every time. The C-team might be able to hang around and even take the lead from the time to time, but over the course of 48 mins, they will almost always lose. While on the flip-side, if both teams are taking the exact same shots with the exact same shot quality, there might be stretches where a given team leads by a large margin, but more often than not, the game will be close.
The other thing I see is a problem with perceptions. When I watch people play the AI, they often forgive bugs or poor quality shots dropping (sometimes not even noticing it) when it works in their favor. But when it happens against them, it's a much bigger/obvious issue to them and it sticks out in their mind as something unfair. So they think the game was forcing something to happen for whatever reason when really there are bugs happening on both sides at a pretty even clip. Not saying that's a good thing, but at the end of the day, there's a lot of lucky and unlucky things that can happen in our game and while we want to achieve expectable results for every moment of every possession, that's a very difficult thing to do.
One other thing that I always notice in my own games, is I tend to play differently based on the score and game time. My 3rd quarters are almost always my low quarters because I start to lose focus around then, so I'll sometimes blow leads or let games slip away and then have to claw my way back in the 4th. I also tend to concentrate much more when I'm down and get careless when i'm ahead. I think it's my subconscious wanting to keep the game close to make things more exciting. So when you watch me play, I often have close games and rarely see blowouts on either side. Although sometimes when I'm playing at work while simultaneously checking e-mails, chatting with people, etc... I'll mindlessly play without paying much attention and look down at the scoreboard after a few quarters and notice that I'm down by 30. So an interesting experiment would be to cover up the scorebug, concentrate on every possession and see if your games play out differently than they normally do for you.
I don't know... starting to ramble. I'm going to stop there. 2K16 needs some attention.
Thanks a ton for jumping in and correcting this for all of us. I'm really glad to get this feedback.
So, I'm wrong about this "rubber band" thing, and I accept that, gladly. It's terrific to have this kind of engagement here.
I do have a follow up question, if you're willing to respond again. Obviously, what I've interpreted about what I've been observing in the game these years has been wrong. My question is, though, how many events in a game does it take for the momentum system to switch and become highly weighted to either team?
I ask because there are times in the game where it seems to me, as a user, I may miss a shot that is a good shot, set up by a play after a few passes with a pretty open look, with a lead and a stable game dynamic going on, and then. . . just like that I can see the CPU convert to a bucket in a way that tells me instantly the momentum swing is is full effect.
It may happen in the following way: my shot misses and then the CPU either makes a fast break and scores, or the CPU takes and makes a (purposely) open 3 with a low rated 3 point shooter, or the CPU guard plows to the basket knocking over my big in perfect position to defend and scores with an and-one on the back end.
In each of these kinds of situation, the animations show some unlikely event that looks like it defies physics and CPU player look much faster to the ball and through the court. I can literally see it with one possession, and know the momentum has shifted, because of the successful low percentage play or the ball morphing some other physics impossible animation. The animations make it look like the animation system is being stretched to create an unlikely, predetermined result.
So, if there's no game balance "rubber band" code under the hood, my question is, how does it seem that momentum can suddenly swing so wildly in one possession on one play, not even set up by a couple of bad user possessions and a couple of let's start to get hot CPU possessions. It seems like the momentum swing happens with just one play.
If it's not rubber band coding, then what does it take to create a momentum swing? Because to me, and maybe to other people who play, it seems like the game just conveniently "catches fire" with no set up for the CPU when the CPU is losing.
Or, as in my previous comment, I've even seen some odd user catch up situations in the first quarter where I can purposely fall behind and then purposely take bad ill advised 3's with a bad shooter and change momentum to close the gap.
Thanks. And just to be clear, I'm not in any way disputing your explanation. I accept it 100%. I'm just asking a follow up to try to understand what I see happening in the game. As I said in another previous comment, I do change the user strategy and style of play when the CPU makes its adjustments. It just feels like, as closely as I watch the CPU, the CPU may go from adjustment to big hot streak in just one or two possessions.
Once again, I really appreciate you jumping in to correct my misunderstanding of the game.
So, I'm wrong about this "rubber band" thing, and I accept that, gladly. It's terrific to have this kind of engagement here.
I do have a follow up question, if you're willing to respond again. Obviously, what I've interpreted about what I've been observing in the game these years has been wrong. My question is, though, how many events in a game does it take for the momentum system to switch and become highly weighted to either team?
I ask because there are times in the game where it seems to me, as a user, I may miss a shot that is a good shot, set up by a play after a few passes with a pretty open look, with a lead and a stable game dynamic going on, and then. . . just like that I can see the CPU convert to a bucket in a way that tells me instantly the momentum swing is is full effect.
It may happen in the following way: my shot misses and then the CPU either makes a fast break and scores, or the CPU takes and makes a (purposely) open 3 with a low rated 3 point shooter, or the CPU guard plows to the basket knocking over my big in perfect position to defend and scores with an and-one on the back end.
In each of these kinds of situation, the animations show some unlikely event that looks like it defies physics and CPU player look much faster to the ball and through the court. I can literally see it with one possession, and know the momentum has shifted, because of the successful low percentage play or the ball morphing some other physics impossible animation. The animations make it look like the animation system is being stretched to create an unlikely, predetermined result.
So, if there's no game balance "rubber band" code under the hood, my question is, how does it seem that momentum can suddenly swing so wildly in one possession on one play, not even set up by a couple of bad user possessions and a couple of let's start to get hot CPU possessions. It seems like the momentum swing happens with just one play.
If it's not rubber band coding, then what does it take to create a momentum swing? Because to me, and maybe to other people who play, it seems like the game just conveniently "catches fire" with no set up for the CPU when the CPU is losing.
Or, as in my previous comment, I've even seen some odd user catch up situations in the first quarter where I can purposely fall behind and then purposely take bad ill advised 3's with a bad shooter and change momentum to close the gap.
Thanks. And just to be clear, I'm not in any way disputing your explanation. I accept it 100%. I'm just asking a follow up to try to understand what I see happening in the game. As I said in another previous comment, I do change the user strategy and style of play when the CPU makes its adjustments. It just feels like, as closely as I watch the CPU, the CPU may go from adjustment to big hot streak in just one or two possessions.
Once again, I really appreciate you jumping in to correct my misunderstanding of the game.
As for why many believe "the game is out to get them" or we have some super secret logic under the hood to try and even out scores, I have a few theories. The main thing I see when I watch people play is a misunderstanding of the law of averages. For example, you might make a couple of "lucky" 3's in succession, while the AI misses those same types of looks. Maybe a few possessions go by and the reverse happens. In most peoples' eyes this would look like a manufactured run to even things out, when in actuality it's just the percentages playing out. Let me put it this way, if you play a game and chart out the shot feedback throughout the entire game, with one team taking A quality shots and the other team taking C quality shots, the A-team will win that game almost every time. The C-team might be able to hang around and even take the lead from the time to time, but over the course of 48 mins, they will almost always lose. While on the flip-side, if both teams are taking the exact same shots with the exact same shot quality, there might be stretches where a given team leads by a large margin, but more often than not, the game will be close.
The other thing I see is a problem with perceptions. When I watch people play the AI, they often forgive bugs or poor quality shots dropping (sometimes not even noticing it) when it works in their favor. But when it happens against them, it's a much bigger/obvious issue to them and it sticks out in their mind as something unfair. So they think the game was forcing something to happen for whatever reason when really there are bugs happening on both sides at a pretty even clip. Not saying that's a good thing, but at the end of the day, there's a lot of lucky and unlucky things that can happen in our game and while we want to achieve expectable results for every moment of every possession, that's a very difficult thing to do.
One other thing that I always notice in my own games, is I tend to play differently based on the score and game time. My 3rd quarters are almost always my low quarters because I start to lose focus around then, so I'll sometimes blow leads or let games slip away and then have to claw my way back in the 4th. I also tend to concentrate much more when I'm down and get careless when i'm ahead. I think it's my subconscious wanting to keep the game close to make things more exciting. So when you watch me play, I often have close games and rarely see blowouts on either side. Although sometimes when I'm playing at work while simultaneously checking e-mails, chatting with people, etc... I'll mindlessly play without paying much attention and look down at the scoreboard after a few quarters and notice that I'm down by 30. So an interesting experiment would be to cover up the scorebug, concentrate on every possession and see if your games play out differently than they normally do for you.
I don't know... starting to ramble. I'm going to stop there. 2K16 needs some attention.
Comment