Re: Rant: Helping you out of necessity and insipid rage
.............
Non-starter? Really? We're at 6,303 views in 7 days (or ~900 a day) for thoughts like this. If there weren't any sliders, people would either have to deal in some fashion (dropping the difficulty or just learning how to play as constituted) or not play the game. Happens everywhere else (where sliders aren't available) in the the gaming community. Mark you, because we STARTED with sliders it would be difficult to take them away from people but eventually people would make that decision to adjust or not play.
A non-starter is an idea that has no chance of being accepted. The fact of the matter is we do have sliders and they can be very effective. Pared's presence here is both a proof and an irony. He is the legend he is today largely because his ability to accurately edit sliders to reflect realism. If not for him and men like him many gamers would have missed out on the opportunity to play these games true to form. Taking sliders away would both be a non-starter and a bad decision. 6000+ replies be damned.
Side note: I'm under the impression that 2K included sliders to appease people, not potentially "fix" the game. Had they wanted to make sliders a bigger part of the game, I THINK that they would have included more presets and provided an option to tie some of the sliders together.
The game styles which were described prior to launch are essentially different sliders sets. When you change difficulties settings, the sliders are adjusted. So they already have made sliders a large part of the game. In large part, they are the game. All taking them away really means is making them invisible and uneditable.
Back on task. I've never said that the game was perfect (i've typed this a million times now). I don't believe in tweaking the game to achieve a realistic outcome* (lets hope you mean realistic stats and not realistic outcomes). I believe, whole-heartedly, that there is a coaching or in game adjustment for every single reason why someone would adjust a slider. *barring the high amount of people's heads being above the rim.* That's my opinion. I still have bad habits that I try to kick and some things that were bad habits last year that I need to start doing again (*cough* *cough* Jump passing) but that's fine too.
So you don't believe the issues the game has can be solved in any way by adjusting sliders then, right? I want to be absolutely clear on this point.
If we all can a agree that the game isn't perfect, then why are we trying to shoot for specifics? (credit the wifey on this one)
I don't understand what this means.
"...This all assumes you want a game that represents NBA basketball to the fullest extent possible, if thats not what you're into then we've been wasting our time. We want two different games if thats the case."
This rubbed me the wrong way. Everything I've given tips about have been playcalls, team philosophy and fundamentals (and their proper usage) based. I live to practice on this game. And I've said all of this before. Before Pared said anything, I would have just flamed you for this, but I'll take my time here and ask where does that even come from?
I am having this exact same debate with many posters across a number of forums. Sometimes they spill over, my mistake. I've run across a lot of people who go the "its just a game, I want a challenge" route. But your response is quite telling. You would have "flamed" me lol? Wow. Take a laxative bro bring it down a few notches. There is nothing more worthless than web hubris.
In terms of the rosters, especially the living rosters and the game types that they apply to, they should be updated. Players develop and players regress. However, I, myself would not change anything. Letting 2K take care of that makes more sense to me because there is an over-arching value determination system that I would not want to even try to alter. There are "Good" 67 rated players and then there are "terrible" 67 rated players. It's not my call to change it. In terms of my Associations however, I will work players on their weaknesses as good coaches should. I don't like Martell Webster's D? The team will be Practicing D all week with the emphasis on Webster. I wouldn't go into the roster and outright change his ratings though. He has to earn it.
So basically you are saying you wouldn't touch the rosters because you don't have the capacity to do so, right? Well, the majority of gamers don't. But there are a few guys who do and they are a good deal better at making roster changes than the 2k Insider. Rashidi and Nogster are the most prominent and their work is easy to access for comparisons.
Last thoughts, I don't believe the rosters we perfect out of the box, but I feel that I'm better a player for learning how to use a player before their ratings changed (see my Jordan Crawford/ Mike Bibby example). I don't believe that gamers should have free license to make changes to a game, that's design run-a-muck. As a developer, you strive to provide a consistent and fluid experience throughout the game and over multiple platforms (obviously, to a reasonable point). With that said, should you be able to tweak somethings? 50/50. Not every gamer is the same and not every game is the same. To air on the side of caution, it seems to me that the industry decided that it's dependent on the video game genre. Sports games get tweaks, platformers/shooters get more difficulty settings and party games gradually bring you along at your own pace.
So because some people don't know what they are doing then everyone should be restricted? What is the point of "learning how to use someone" if that representation of them is inaccurate. I don't understand the logic you're employing here. If your whole approach is really "coaching decisions can override issues" then why even have 2k bother with a patch to fix bugs? Your whole argument seems to boil down to this:
The game isn't perfect but sliders can't be used to solve any of the problems. And people shouldn't be allowed to edit them in any case because some folks don't know what they are doing and are only trying to make the game easier anyway.
A non-starter is an idea that has no chance of being accepted. The fact of the matter is we do have sliders and they can be very effective. Pared's presence here is both a proof and an irony. He is the legend he is today largely because his ability to accurately edit sliders to reflect realism. If not for him and men like him many gamers would have missed out on the opportunity to play these games true to form. Taking sliders away would both be a non-starter and a bad decision. 6000+ replies be damned.
Side note: I'm under the impression that 2K included sliders to appease people, not potentially "fix" the game. Had they wanted to make sliders a bigger part of the game, I THINK that they would have included more presets and provided an option to tie some of the sliders together.
The game styles which were described prior to launch are essentially different sliders sets. When you change difficulties settings, the sliders are adjusted. So they already have made sliders a large part of the game. In large part, they are the game. All taking them away really means is making them invisible and uneditable.
Back on task. I've never said that the game was perfect (i've typed this a million times now). I don't believe in tweaking the game to achieve a realistic outcome* (lets hope you mean realistic stats and not realistic outcomes). I believe, whole-heartedly, that there is a coaching or in game adjustment for every single reason why someone would adjust a slider. *barring the high amount of people's heads being above the rim.* That's my opinion. I still have bad habits that I try to kick and some things that were bad habits last year that I need to start doing again (*cough* *cough* Jump passing) but that's fine too.
So you don't believe the issues the game has can be solved in any way by adjusting sliders then, right? I want to be absolutely clear on this point.
If we all can a agree that the game isn't perfect, then why are we trying to shoot for specifics? (credit the wifey on this one)
I don't understand what this means.
"...This all assumes you want a game that represents NBA basketball to the fullest extent possible, if thats not what you're into then we've been wasting our time. We want two different games if thats the case."
This rubbed me the wrong way. Everything I've given tips about have been playcalls, team philosophy and fundamentals (and their proper usage) based. I live to practice on this game. And I've said all of this before. Before Pared said anything, I would have just flamed you for this, but I'll take my time here and ask where does that even come from?
I am having this exact same debate with many posters across a number of forums. Sometimes they spill over, my mistake. I've run across a lot of people who go the "its just a game, I want a challenge" route. But your response is quite telling. You would have "flamed" me lol? Wow. Take a laxative bro bring it down a few notches. There is nothing more worthless than web hubris.
In terms of the rosters, especially the living rosters and the game types that they apply to, they should be updated. Players develop and players regress. However, I, myself would not change anything. Letting 2K take care of that makes more sense to me because there is an over-arching value determination system that I would not want to even try to alter. There are "Good" 67 rated players and then there are "terrible" 67 rated players. It's not my call to change it. In terms of my Associations however, I will work players on their weaknesses as good coaches should. I don't like Martell Webster's D? The team will be Practicing D all week with the emphasis on Webster. I wouldn't go into the roster and outright change his ratings though. He has to earn it.
So basically you are saying you wouldn't touch the rosters because you don't have the capacity to do so, right? Well, the majority of gamers don't. But there are a few guys who do and they are a good deal better at making roster changes than the 2k Insider. Rashidi and Nogster are the most prominent and their work is easy to access for comparisons.
Last thoughts, I don't believe the rosters we perfect out of the box, but I feel that I'm better a player for learning how to use a player before their ratings changed (see my Jordan Crawford/ Mike Bibby example). I don't believe that gamers should have free license to make changes to a game, that's design run-a-muck. As a developer, you strive to provide a consistent and fluid experience throughout the game and over multiple platforms (obviously, to a reasonable point). With that said, should you be able to tweak somethings? 50/50. Not every gamer is the same and not every game is the same. To air on the side of caution, it seems to me that the industry decided that it's dependent on the video game genre. Sports games get tweaks, platformers/shooters get more difficulty settings and party games gradually bring you along at your own pace.
So because some people don't know what they are doing then everyone should be restricted? What is the point of "learning how to use someone" if that representation of them is inaccurate. I don't understand the logic you're employing here. If your whole approach is really "coaching decisions can override issues" then why even have 2k bother with a patch to fix bugs? Your whole argument seems to boil down to this:
The game isn't perfect but sliders can't be used to solve any of the problems. And people shouldn't be allowed to edit them in any case because some folks don't know what they are doing and are only trying to make the game easier anyway.
; width: 100%; height: 1px;" width="100%">So because some people don't know what they are doing then everyone should be restricted? What is the point of "learning how to use someone" if that representation of them is inaccurate. I don't understand the logic you're employing here. If your whole approach is really "coaching decisions can override issues" then why even have 2k bother with a patch to fix bugs? Your whole argument seems to boil down to this:
</td> </tr></tbody></table>No I'm not saying that. I specifically said " I don't believe that gamers should have free license to make changes to a game, that's design run-a-muck. As a developer, you strive to provide a consistent and fluid experience throughout the game and over multiple platforms (obviously, to a reasonable point)." Great understanding of the game or not, that's not the function of the gamer. Gamers are the end product. Just because someone's opinionated doesn't mean that they should be the project coordinator at 2K. If that was the case, why bother even making the game. Just let 2K make an NBA 2K SDK and call it a night. Again, this is probably the best sports game of this gaming generation, if you believe IGN that is, let the people work and adjust their own game. Once they do, be a gamer and learn how to excel within the framework that has been developed for you. You feel like someone isn't an actual portrayal of who they are in real life? I'm sorry. I don't like Jamal Crawford shot while moving and I don't like Martel Webster's shot off of a curl. Got to learn to deal with it and adjust.
Comment