There are games where 2k's just straight out to get you in RTTP.

[Cowboyfan_19]

No joke. I just finished a game with a guy cheesier than the cheese heads from Lambeau field. Though his cheese wasn't the problem, but 2k bailed him out TIME AFTER FN TIME with offensive boards, poor 3pt shooters making their shots, him getting bailed out to go to the FT line, my guys losing control of their dribble, my guys missing wide open shots, and the whole thing was just a mess.

Much to my shock, he had a difficutly multiplier of 1.50, so he WASN'T in the 4th seed. I was surprised to say the least, because I only see cheesy animations like that in the 4th seed.

This leads me to believe that there's obviously something else out there that pre-determines who will get the wrong end of the stick the whole game or gets shafted. I don't mean a momentum booster, because that's a totally different topic unrelated to what I'm referring too. And before anyone says that 1 game is too small of a sample size, I've been on the opposite spectrum of this. I have read up on nearly ALL of Sam Pham's tips and videos so I know the "counters" to this crap too.

Reason I ranted was that this game made me start off 3-3 in the 1st seed, with no chance to get Ewing this time around.

[start it up]

I thought the same thing for a while, but this year I started recording all of my online games and I can easily see what I'm doing wrong during these runs. Also don't focus on your Seed Record while playing RTTP. That causes you to play safe and limits creativity.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[ChiliPalmer]

Say what. Its called Equalizer and/or rubberbanding and now watch QNO and his posse jump on this thread denying everything thats "not provable".
Evolution cannot be proved as well, still it did happen.

Sam Phams "counter" video is trash. He doesnt get what rubberbanding means, so his video is talking about stamina for over 10 minutes.
You can't counter it. All you can do is take smart timeouts and play extra safe. Still you will see things like you described happen a lot.

Difficulty multiplier 1.50 should be 4th seed tho if you played in the 1st.

[QNo]

Quote: Originally Posted by ChiliPalmer

Say what. Its called Equalizer and/or rubberbanding and now watch QNO and his posse jump on this thread denying everything thats "not provable". Evolution cannot be proved as well, still it did happen. Sam Phams "counter" video is trash. He doesnt get what rubberbanding means, so his video is talking about stamina for over 10 minutes. You can't counter it. All you can do is take smart timeouts and play extra safe. Still you will see things like you described happen a lot. Difficulty multiplier 1.50 should be 4th seed tho if you played in the 1st.

There's overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution. There is as much evidence for rubberbanding as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My repeated assertions that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true deity in the universe are unlikely to convince anybody of its existence, especially if these assertions are derogatory and mean towards non-believers, misrepresenting a lot of their claims.

You're actually missing the point Sam is making, which is that a lot of what people call 'rubber-banding' is a result of poor stamina management. Don't be quick to judge when you don't even understand the other side's argument.

[ChiliPalmer]

Quote: Originally Posted by QNo

There's overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution. There is as much evidence for rubberbanding as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My repeated assertions that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true deity in the universe are unlikely to convince anybody of its existence, especially if these assertions are derogatory and mean towards non-believers, misrepresenting a lot of their claims. You're actually missing the point Sam is making, which is that a lot of what people call 'rubber-banding' is a result of poor stamina management. Don't be quick to judge when you don't even understand the other side's argument.

As usual you make up your argument by blurring the initial point.
I would argue "evidence" is something different from "proof". I said there is no proof for evolution. Now you talkin' about evidence. Differentiation is key, your spaghetti monster wont help you with that.
there surely is evidence for an equalizer and rubberband effect (see initial post, see my posts in the closed thread, see tons of yt videos, see nk141 having close games in rttp while dominating other modes) but no proof (naturally).

[QNo]

Quote: Originally Posted by ChiliPalmer

As usual you make up your argument by blurring the initial point. I would argue "evidence" is something different from "proof". I said there is no proof for evolution. Now you talkin' about evidence. Differentiation is key, your spaghetti monster wont help you with that. there surely is evidence for an equalizer and rubberband effect (see initial post, see my posts in the closed thread, see tons of yt videos, see nk141 having close games in rttp while dominating other modes) but no proof (naturally).

Quite the opposite. The very point of what I was saying is that 'evidence' and 'proof' are two completely different notions. In these kinds of circumstances, proof is sufficient evidence. You introduced proof as an alleged argument I and others were making, thus making a so-called straw man argument. Classic undergraduate debate club strategy. That's what I was clarifying instead of blurrying. Making fun of arguments instead of engaging them on the other hand does not help anything.

Making a post that states your beliefs is not evidence, it's a collection of claims. Evidence is something that supports claims or arguments. All of the evidence you're presenting is at best circumstantial -- e.g., it is consistent with (some of) your claims, but it is also consistent with other claims (stamina, badges, sliders, ...). You believe that there is rubber-banding, so you take everything that can remotely support that belief as evidence in your favour. In addition, your strategy is to rule out any evidence or alternative explanation, since your goal isn't coming to the bottom of things, but to find support for the rubber-banding conspiracy theory. That's the same as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, taking everything consistent with your belief as evidence, while ignoring everything that goes against it.

If you truly want to convince someone of rubber-banding, you need to present evidence + rational argument, while being sensible about the evidence and arguments others present. In the other thread several of us showed the flaws of your arguments and presented alternative views that make at least as much sense, arguably much more. You choose to disregard everything that doesn't fit into your world-view, thus making it impossible to have a reasonable debate with you. You couldn't possibly be convinced of a different view.

Also, when proposing a conspiracy theory like this, the burden of proof is on those making it. If there are two explanations with roughly equal explanatory power, with one of them claiming that there is a hidden mechanism behind everything, while the other claims that everything is as it seems, the latter, simpler theory is to be preferred. This principle is widely known as Occam's Razor. Personally, I could very well be convinced that there is rubber-banding. However, it seems that there isn't nearly enough evidence to believe something outrageous like this, especially since the mechanisms that produce the appearance of rubber-banding are easily explained with known gameplay mechanics.

[ChiliPalmer]

Quote: Originally Posted by QNo

Quite the opposite. The very point of what I was saying is that 'evidence' and 'proof' are two completely different notions. In these kinds of circumstances, proof is sufficient evidence. You introduced proof as an alleged argument I and others were making, thus making a so-called straw man argument. Classic undergraduate debate club strategy. That's what I was clarifying instead of blurrying. Making fun of arguments instead of engaging them on the other hand does not help anything. Making a post that states your beliefs is not evidence, it's a collection of claims. Evidence is something that supports claims or arguments. All of the evidence you're presenting is at best circumstantial -- e.g., it is consistent with (some of) your claims, but it is also consistent with other claims (stamina, badges, sliders, ...). You believe that there is rubber-banding, so you take everything that can remotely support that belief as evidence in your favour. In addition, your strategy is to rule out any evidence or alternative explanation, since your goal isn't coming to the bottom of things, but to find support for the rubber-banding conspiracy theory. That's the same as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, taking everything consistent with your belief as evidence, while ignoring everything that goes against it. If you truly want to convince someone of rubber-banding, you need to present evidence + rational argument, while being sensible about the evidence and arguments others present. In the other thread several of us showed the flaws of your arguments and presented alternative views that make at least as much sense, arguably much more. You choose to disregard everything that doesn't fit into your world-view, thus making it impossible to have a reasonable debate with you. You couldn't possibly be convinced of a different view. Also, when proposing a conspiracy theory like this, the burden of proof is on those making it. If there are two explanations with roughly equal explanatory power, with one of them claiming that there is a hidden mechanism behind everything, while the other claims that everything is as it seems, the latter, simpler theory is to be preferred. This principle is widely known as Occam's Razor. Personally, I could very well be convinced that there is rubber-banding. However, it seems that there isn't nearly enough evidence to believe something outrageous like this, especially since the mechanisms that produce the appearance of rubber-banding are easily explained with known gameplay mechanics.

Aw man, you cant hide your exposed argument by holding a lecture about problem-solving principles (which are much more complex than you think they are) that you discovered in your school library. You must be in a centre for highly gifted kids and underchallenged if you bring this up in a Nba2k forum and recommend books you once heard of. My claim was there is no proof for evolution as there is no proof for rubberbanding. This is a fact. Now you can argue with yourself about the grades of evidence, i have not discussed "evidence" at all and i won't discuss this with you again.

Btw your patronizing ignorant tone may impress some 12 year olds but is just more laughable if it doesnt contribute anything. Entertaining tho.

"Lets agree to degree"

And now tell me about some Aristoteles next.

[QNo]

Quote: Originally Posted by ChiliPalmer

Aw man, you cant hide your exposed argument by holding a lecture about problem-solving principles (which are much more complex than you think they are) that you discovered in your school library. You must be in a centre for highly gifted kids and underchallenged if you bring this up in a Nba2k forum and recommend books you once heard of. My claim was there is no proof for evolution as there is no proof for rubberbanding. This is a fact. Now you can argue with yourself about the grades of evidence, i have not discussed "evidence" at all and i won't discuss this with you again. Btw your patronizing ignorant tone may impress some 12 year olds but is just more laughable if it doesnt contribute anything. Entertaining tho. "Lets agree to degree" And now tell me about some Aristoteles next.

Once again responding with nothing but personal attacks. Entirely baseless and inaccurate, one might add.