Well we all agree the logic is flawed. From contract signing to drafting to trades...
I think the easiest and most dynamic way 2K could simulate what dictates a team's roadmap is their finish from year to year.
Let the standings dictate who becomes a: rebuilding team, title contender, playoff bound, or middle-of-the-pack team. Then there could be 3 sub-categories based on "need" for each one of those main categories of teams. I remember how 2K use to set GM goals for their baseball titles pre-2K8. The execution of this feature was questionable, but the idea was great.
If the logic could (1) categorize teams based on standings, & (2) THEN categorize those teams by needs be it: youth, financial flexibility, positional (driven by a ratings attributes or by size) I think the end result would be the AI looking for what they need. Be it via trade or through the draft or free agency. As the user we'd have a clearer understanding of what the CPU teams were trying to do so that we could then have something tangible to validate their moves by.
I like the idea of NBA 2K using what MLB 2K used as far as the GM goals though. For those that don't know it would be something like: Acquire/sign a pitcher w/ an overall rating of 85, or acquire/sign a player w/ a running speed rating of 80.
If in NBA 2K they could bring this into play we could see CPU teams more active based on their needs, and some real bidding wars occurring in free agency. If say a team couldn't find a player w/ the rating points they're looking for, like a G w/ a 3pt shot of 90, then the CPU would have the logic to take the next highest rating rather than nothing at all.
That would be at least one way to see certain "specialist"-type players making rosters, and would open up the door to so much more IMO.
Comment