2k deciding who wins at tip off

[harryl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mweemwee

The only theory I am putting forward is that 2K punishes you for not buying packs/having a good record and forces losses past a certain point.

What are you saying, exactly? That 2K tags accounts of people who don't buy VC and nerfs their results online? And buffs the results of people who do buy VC?

Is that what you're claiming?

[Bi00]

It's hard to have a real discussion about this topic when the conclusions being drawn are ridiculous like 2K favors VC or low-record players. Or that there is cap on # of wins possibly at 17 possibly at 80.

Have you checked something simple like when you were demoted from Ruby to Sapphire, did you still play at Ruby difficulty level? Maybe msg your opponent to see if they were playing on something else, maybe Pro. That would be an easy explanation for this stuff.

[Mweemwee]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bi00

It's hard to have a real discussion about this topic when the conclusions being drawn are ridiculous like 2K favors VC or low-record players. Or that there is cap on # of wins possibly at 17 possibly at 80. Have you checked something simple like when you were demoted from Ruby to Sapphire, did you still play at Ruby difficulty level? Maybe msg your opponent to see if they were playing on something else, maybe Pro. That would be an easy explanation for this stuff.

I'm not saying those are hard and fast rules for what is happening. I think you are taking that out of context.

I don't know what my conclusion is, all I know is that people are getting nerfed.

The mentioning of 17 wins, 80 wins was based on specific people that have been affected by this. I never said "x amount of wins will make you lose".

The only thing I actually suggested was that 2K was punishing people for not buying packs. This is just based on my experience and what I have heard from countless other people. It's not a conclusion I'm saying is 100% true, I'm just stating opinions of possible theories.

Again, I also never made a mention of player ratings as that has no bearing on my results. I am seeing ridiculous play from opponents regardless of what team they have in certain games and it's unstoppable.

Quote: Originally Posted by harryl

What are you saying, exactly? That 2K tags accounts of people who don't buy VC and nerfs their results online? And buffs the results of people who do buy VC? Is that what you're claiming?

I don't know, as above. I'm not really saying anything except that something suspicious is happening. Myself and others have had games that were impossible to win. Again (and I'm getting tired of repeating this) I have a winning record and I'm not posting this because I'm a sore loser. I have benefited from this system also, where my opponent has had no chance against me.

All I know for sure if that something deeper is going on than just winning and losing in my games. And others have noticed it too. I don't know if it affects everyone. And I don't know what criteria is being utilised.

I know I sound crazy. If I had my previous account from 2003 with plenty of posts and my whole history of sports gaming attached I would probably get more credibility rather than sounding like a nut.

[harryl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mweemwee

I don't know, as above. I'm not really saying anything except that something suspicious is happening. Myself and others have had games that were impossible to win. Again (and I'm getting tired of repeating this) I have a winning record and I'm not posting this because I'm a sore loser. I have benefited from this system also, where my opponent has had no chance against me. All I know for sure if that something deeper is going on than just winning and losing in my games. And others have noticed it too. I don't know if it affects everyone. And I don't know what criteria is being utilised. I know I sound crazy. If I had my previous account from 2003 with plenty of posts and my whole history of sports gaming attached I would probably get more credibility rather than sounding like a nut.

This is a much more reasonable set of statements than what you started off with. It's good that you clarified this all and moderated what you are claiming, and provided more accurate explanation of your thought process.

So, basically: you have a suspicion that something outside of "straight" game mechanics is going on for good players with good cards, and possibly more so if those players didn't spend $ of VC.

My experience doesn't match up with this, but my own experience is only my own. More problematic is that doing something like this doesn't really make any sense for 2K. Their motive is to make money, for which they need people to spend $ on VC to buy packs, presumably for better cards.

If it is true and so obvious that better cards makes it harder to win, then that reduces incentive to buy VC/packs. What you believe to be the case is counterintuitive and, for 2K, would be counterproductive.

If they were being devious about things, they'd make high-end cards more OP than they already might be.

[Foldzy]

I've been trying to do get the second diamond shoes forever lol I I go 6-1 every single time and either lose the first or last game on some bs omg this last one was too much for me

[Mweemwee]

Quote: Originally Posted by harryl

More problematic is that doing something like this doesn't really make any sense for 2K. Their motive is to make money, for which they need people to spend $ on VC to buy packs, presumably for better cards. If it is true and so obvious that better cards makes it harder to win, then that reduces incentive to buy VC/packs. What you believe to be the case is counterintuitive and, for 2K, would be counterproductive. If they were being devious about things, they'd make high-end cards more OP than they already might be.

This is what is so utterly frustrating about communicating on this thread. I never said any of that!

In fact, you're agreeing with what I said because I'm saying 2k want to force you to buy packs by making you lose.

I have never said that high rated cards are underpowered. That's other people saying that in other threads. I will not repeat myself on this matter one more time. People are reading other threads and reading the title of mine and assuming they know what it's about.

The post you quoted of mine literally said that I don't know what the criteria is. I don't even have high powered players, my highest overall is my 92 Stackhouse that I got from winning Domination.

I'm not making the assertions that you are attributing to me. I'm saying that 2K forces you to lose in certain games and if you haven't bought packs and have been on a run then they make you lose in order to force you to buy packs to get the better players so you can win.

What I'm saying is the exact opposite of what you claim I'm saying so I would appreciate if any more replies to this thread would only be made after reading my comments. I'm not going to respond to another false accusation after this post.

I will be uploading gameplay footage as soon as I put some commentary over it.

[Foldzy]

whatever it is it's nonsense, it should be about making smart basketball plays, not worrying about calling timeouts because the other team has been powered by god

it all just seems scripted, sometimes even when I'm losing I know I'm gonna win cause I have seen the scripts so many times before and vice versa, I say in my head "here it comes" and pretty much every time I'm right. I have close games against Pink Diamond leaguers and noobs alike... the real good players seem to just abuse certain game mechanics in order to win consistently, if you just play normal sim style ball you're at the mercy of the equalizer no matter what squad you roll out

[NoLeafClover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mweemwee

This is what is so utterly frustrating about communicating on this thread. I never said any of that! In fact, you're agreeing with what I said because I'm saying 2k want to force you to buy packs by making you lose. I have never said that high rated cards are underpowered. That's other people saying that in other threads. I will not repeat myself on this matter one more time. People are reading other threads and reading the title of mine and assuming they know what it's about. The post you quoted of mine literally said that I don't know what the criteria is. I don't even have high powered players, my highest overall is my 92 Stackhouse that I got from winning Domination. I'm not making the assertions that you are attributing to me. I'm saying that 2K forces you to lose in certain games and if you haven't bought packs and have been on a run then they make you lose in order to force you to buy packs to get the better players so you can win. What I'm saying is the exact opposite of what you claim I'm saying so I would appreciate if any more replies to this thread would only be made after reading my comments. I'm not going to respond to another false accusation after this post. I will be uploading gameplay footage as soon as I put some commentary over it.

What you're saying directly contradicts yourself though. If 2K "forces you to lose to buy packs" then you wouldn't have even been able to come close to your "80 game win streak", obviously.

I am sure the evil Dungeon Master at 2K was watching your specific games and goes suddenly "Enough! This man has not spent enough money on packs, I am going to adjust his difficulty level to be randomly higher than everyone else's! Muahahah" *twirls moustache*

Like, seriously...

All you're vaguely aiming for is getting us to agree to this nebulous concept that "something is wrong", while people are trying to give you a laundry list of realistic factors that could be contributing to losses.