2K15 Broken Play graveyard

[hikwelity]

Czar,

You might be interested in following this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Nv8/edit#gid=0

Granted, I'm not known for my quick work, but I do planning on working my way through the entire playbook.

[Da_Czar]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hot Kidd

Czar, there is a play in the Mavs book that leads to a poor animation. I havent got access to the game this weekend but it involves a double off ball screen at the top, with the guard running across the top. As he is about to receive the pass, he gets stuck in a terrible animation that usually takes him across the half court line.

Do you happen to have a play name ? I went through the off-screen plays but did not see anyone go across half court.

[PaR@bLe]

Quote: Originally Posted by hikwelity

Czar, You might be interested in following this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Nv8/edit#gid=0 Granted, I'm not known for my quick work, but I do planning on working my way through the entire playbook.

This is impressive. I like how you show playside and emphasis, and the general directive of the play.

I began to notice little things about the plays as I play with art on FULL. The secondary plays inside the primary play are DEADLY. Then you just use your own IQ to make adjustments mid play (ie driving the lane and the weakside perimeter player collapses and you kick it out to the corner). It's all possible because of the spacing.

(I DIGRESS)
But this is a nice sheet......let me know the best way to follow.

[Da_Czar]

Quote: Originally Posted by hikwelity

Czar, You might be interested in following this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Nv8/edit#gid=0 Granted, I'm not known for my quick work, but I do planning on working my way through the entire playbook.

Just as an FYI I went through what you have so far. I noticed on a lot of the old school iso plays you have bad spacing listed. Those old school plays are meant to be era specific. Meaning I tried to copy the spacing as close as I could to what they actually ran. Even if it means bad spacing by today's teams.

Also as a note for myself when you say the play is not effective, for example 2 quick 32 iso. How do you mean ? For you ? or for the AI ?

As an example. When I run that one I get Iverson open on the left side for an iso but you have it an not effective. Is it just not enough space for you or he never get's open to receive the ball ?

[QDB9]

In the Mavericks playbook it has to be one of the 12 give plays. It's not broken, It only happens when you pass the ball to the guard too fast, you'll send him backourt.

Edit: or the Loop 24 play, but I haven't seen anything wrong.

[hikwelity]

Quote: Originally Posted by Da_Czar

Just as an FYI I went through what you have so far. I noticed on a lot of the old school iso plays you have bad spacing listed. Those old school plays are meant to be era specific. Meaning I tried to copy the spacing as close as I could to what they actually ran. Even if it means bad spacing by today's teams. Also as a note for myself when you say the play is not effective, for example 2 quick 32 iso. How do you mean ? For you ? or for the AI ? As an example. When I run that one I get Iverson open on the left side for an iso but you have it an not effective. Is it just not enough space for you or he never get's open to receive the ball ?

Hey Czar, just to specify, I am testing from a user perspective. I don't think I have AI testing in me, lol.

With that being said, I'm not sure if this info is any help at all coming from a user perspective. As an example, with the old school iso plays.... I don't doubt that they are historically accurate, but even if I am using a classic team, I don't want to use that in my playbook. It doesn't make sense with today's illegal defense rules in the game compared to what they were when that type of play was run. Again, not saying it's wrong to be in there, but from a user perspective, I'll always go with a different iso play that gives me more options.

I will try to be a little more descriptive where I can be to explain my reasoning. So on a play like the 2 quick 32 iso, my reasoning would go something like this. In real life that play as it has recently been run by teams like Charlotte and Chicago is designed to give a first look of a catch and shoot opportunity, second look of an immediate catch and baseline drive if they get separation from their defender. If the big defenders help, your bigs can slip to the rim.

In this play, I say it is ineffective because it is a slow developing screen that does very little to create separation from the defender, and results in a catch very far out. It's fine for creating an iso on the wing, but I'd rather run an iso that throws directly to the wing and saves the 7-8 seconds that are lost in the development of the play.

Again, it may not be helpful to you if your end goal is to create a play and action that results in a wing iso. It's not that the play is inaccurate or that there is something inherently broken about it, but from a user perspective I would go with a different play for my playbook.

If the spreadsheet isn't helpful for your goals, I certainly understand. I'll try to be as descriptive as I can going forward just in case any of it helps.

[Da_Czar]

Quote: Originally Posted by hikwelity

Hey Czar, just to specify, I am testing from a user perspective. I don't think I have AI testing in me, lol. With that being said, I'm not sure if this info is any help at all coming from a user perspective. As an example, with the old school iso plays.... I don't doubt that they are historically accurate, but even if I am using a classic team, I don't want to use that in my playbook. It doesn't make sense with today's illegal defense rules in the game compared to what they were when that type of play was run. Again, not saying it's wrong to be in there, but from a user perspective, I'll always go with a different iso play that gives me more options. I will try to be a little more descriptive where I can be to explain my reasoning. So on a play like the 2 quick 32 iso, my reasoning would go something like this. In real life that play as it has recently been run by teams like Charlotte and Chicago is designed to give a first look of a catch and shoot opportunity, second look of an immediate catch and baseline drive if they get separation from their defender. If the big defenders help, your bigs can slip to the rim. In this play, I say it is ineffective because it is a slow developing screen that does very little to create separation from the defender, and results in a catch very far out. It's fine for creating an iso on the wing, but I'd rather run an iso that throws directly to the wing and saves the 7-8 seconds that are lost in the development of the play. Again, it may not be helpful to you if your end goal is to create a play and action that results in a wing iso. It's not that the play is inaccurate or that there is something inherently broken about it, but from a user perspective I would go with a different play for my playbook. If the spreadsheet isn't helpful for your goals, I certainly understand. I'll try to be as descriptive as I can going forward just in case any of it helps.

Ok. I understand that. All the documents you guys do are helpful because not a huge install base uses the plays so it is hard to get great feedback especially when trying to figure out why a user may feel a play may be broken.

Your explanation helps me to interpret your doc. Lots of useful info in there. It is all greatly appreciated so please don't put yourself out by adding even more text just for me.

I tend to laugh to myself though when I see guys saying hey this is pointless action(even though it's accurate)... I'm like man an NBA coach drew it up fam I'm copying it down for yall. LOL.

Thanks again.

[bo_jax2000]

Quote: Originally Posted by Da_Czar

I wanted to talk briefly about team play-type assignments. I know we have many expert playbook editors in the community. I am in no way trying to take away from the great work they do. There is no secret the disdain our community has for the stock tendencies that ship with the game each year. Just some notes and some background information that you may want to know before requesting changes or establishing your own set of play edits. For the play-types to be absolutely authentic you would need two things that are not present in NBA 2K12. One you would need each teams complete playbook. While the plays in 2K12 are a significant authentic upgrade over any previous effort. Let’s not pretend that 25-40 plays is the complete sum of any NBA teams arsenal over 82 games plus playoffs. Secondly you would need for every single play-type to be accounted for. 2K12 has 8 play-types. A few obvious omissions are ally-oop and handoff play-types. These types of plays are grouped differently depending on the team, other plays in their play-book’s and personnel at the time. Since we are missing both of those key ingredients. The play type assignments will not be as rigid as some may hope for or that other’s may have feared they were. It might help to know that the play-types are NOT tendencies. The actual player tendencies will still play a role in determining what plays the AI decides to call for each player. The play-types just give a player access to a group of plays. With a slight preference for the order the groups appear in. There will be players who have authentic plays they actually ran last year in a play-type that they may not be “known” for. So just because you see a player who is not a 3 point specialist with 3 point plays it does not mean he will be chucking 3’s all day long. It simply gives him access to those types of plays. If you eliminate a team’s perimeter players from having 3 point plays they can’t run them when they need a 3. So don’t think 3 point specialist think off screen plays that happen to get him open on or around the 3 point line. For some teams you will severely limit your floppy action or other offscreen plays by only having a player with one or the other. (Screen_Mid, Screen_3PT) The play-types were not meant to be rigid lines separating one player from another but simply groupings of plays. The design decision was made to increase the amount of plays available in the game and reduce the manual administrative overhead involved with plays concerning personnel moves. Another thing to consider is the variability in each teams play-books for the same type of plays. For instance Boston’s mid range plays differ greatly from the Bobcats. The Bobcats mid range plays are much more suitable for athletic slashers rather than pure shooters. Some of them could even be considered Cutter plays. Many times NBA teams do not pass to a player and clear out for their isolations. Some use floppy plays or other offscreen action sets to get a player the ball. Casual observers oftentimes just see the ISO because they are following the ball and that player happens to catch it and go one on one. The play that got him in position to iso is the play-type not what he chooses to do after he receives the ball. So if you simply judge the play-types without also considering the team specific play-books, it can lead you to eliminate plays that a player may have actually ran last year. If we look at the bulls for example. Many may scoff at D Rose having mid range as his 3rd option. Perhaps thinking that means he would be running floppy plays like Ray Allen. When in fact the majority of the Bulls mid range plays like CHI 43 floppy is a play the Bull’s actually run get Rose the basketball. Whether he Iso’s after the catch or shoot’s off the screen is up to his tendencies. Another mid range play is the Chi hand-off they ran for him. Because there is no hand-off play-type it goes in the mid range play type. You will notice a stark difference between Chicago’s mid range plays and Boston’s. Similarly each team has their own offensive identity. I urge you to get familiar with the actual plays AND branches rather than just making your decisions based on the play-type. Every year until this you were severely limited in the offensive variety and execution of each Player in the NBA. It is only fitting that with 4 plays you needed those to be the one’s that represented the most important aspects of what that star player means to you as a fan. This year you have the ability to represent a much broader scope and therefore more authentic version of your favorite superstars and role players. I hope you can see the beauty and replay-ability that lies in the variety of authentic offensive options; not the limitation of the same. While there are undoubtedly mistakes like some pg’s being labeled with pnr_screener as opposed to pnr_ball_handler those can and will be easily rectified. There was a considerable amount of thought put into the play grouping and team play assignments. Although that doesn’t make them correct it does represent a much more thorough attempt than you have seen from this company in the past. One other small bit of info that you can’t see in the front end is that if your team has 8 pick and roll plays and 4 were designed for the pg and the other 4 were designed for the sf. The AI will prefer to run the SF pick and roll plays for the SF and the PG pick and rolls for the PG. This further differentiates the plays to players as was the original intention. At the end of the day however the MOST important thing is that you have to tools to have the players play as YOU see fit.

Your quote above was from a thread posted in 2011. How have things changed in 2k15 in regards to the marriage of playbooks and play-types? Did you assign the play-types this year? Thanks for any response and sorry for the off topic post.