Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

[nickthemajin]

Since this game has been out I've played countless myleagues and mygms and they're all relatively predictable with all of the free agents disappearing, Andrew Wiggins becomes a high 80s, etc.

What if there was an option to randomize the potential of all of the players under say age 26? With the current system its basically impossible to replicate something like Hassan Whiteside where a bust scrub randomly becomes one of the best centers in the league? Or maybe a league where Andrew Wiggins busts and David Stockton ends up being an incredible phenom like his dad, or a league where Iman Shumpert does his best Jimmy Butler impression and goes from a solid option to a star?

Just something I was mulling over last night. The static potential ratings make myleague and mygm feel very scripted. You can always expect Andrew Wiggins to be a a very good player. But he never becomes the next Lebron or Kobe and he never busts.

[jayhawkfan11]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

Since this game has been out I've played countless myleagues and mygms and they're all relatively predictable with all of the free agents disappearing, Andrew Wiggins becomes a high 80s, etc.

What if there was an option to randomize the potential of all of the players under say age 26? With the current system its basically impossible to replicate something like Hassan Whiteside where a bust scrub randomly becomes one of the best centers in the league? Or maybe a league where Andrew Wiggins busts and David Stockton ends up being an incredible phenom like his dad, or a league where Iman Shumpert does his best Jimmy Butler impression and goes from a solid option to a star?

Just something I was mulling over last night. The static potential ratings make myleague and mygm feel very scripted. You can always expect Andrew Wiggins to be a a very good player. But he never becomes the next Lebron or Kobe and he never busts.

I could be wrong but didn't some of the older 2ks kind of have something like this? Essentially based on performance (PPG and other metrics) they would either increase in ratings, remain the same, or decrease. I don't think there was randomization or how high someone could be though. So you could essentially make anyone a 99 Overall if you stat whored them enough, which a lot of guys hated. That is why they brought in this "overall potential" type rating to limit it.

I would agree that it does feel extremely scripted, maybe randomizing the potential would help. But I feel you'd need to weight it, to where guys like Andrew Wiggins has a much higher chance of becoming a star (like 50-60% higher) than someone like a Hassan Whiteside (who might be weighted at like 2-10% chance of becoming a star).

But there are so many little things to keep in mind. What if I user control Andrew Wiggins and make him a stud stat wise (20 ppg 7 reb 5 ast) however because of the randomized potential he turns out to be a bust due to some roll of the dice randomization when you start a dynasty. I wouldn't say that's fair, nor would it be logical.

You'd need some happy medium where it is random, but to some degree their performance helps dictate as well.

[dwayne12345]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

What the old 2k had/has was a potential system that allowed guys to exceed their potential ratings. That isn't a problem. The problem was that guys could only ever hit their potential or exceed their potential, but EVERYONE at least reached their potential (even if they didn't play).

Randomizing is OK as long as the majority of players DO NOT reach their potential. 60 guys get drafted every year. Out of them maybe 5 reach or exceed their potential.

[nickthemajin]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

I like the idea of different players having different chances of busting or succeeding. Just as of right now, myleague and magma are fantastic but overtime you do one, the players all progress along the same path every time.

[dwayne12345]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

I like the idea of different players having different chances of busting or succeeding. Just as of right now, myleague and magma are fantastic but overtime you do one, the players all progress along the same path every time.

ya. Jordan Adams of the Grizzlies. Always progresses into a really good offensive player. Like 18-21 ppg by season 3.

It should be so that even without injuries he may not become that EVERYTIME. Maybe if he's on a bad team, if you have a bad staff, or injuries of course guys don't hit their potential.

I heard from the devs that if you overtrain guys it can ruin their chances of hitting their potential but I haven't seen that yet.

[JAFranz33]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

I would like to see a potential "range". So, instead of just one number for potential, you would have a high and low. For example, someone like Embiid could have his range set at something like 77-90. I could have a MyLeague where he ends up not getting much better and hangs around the high 70's overall, start a new MyLeague and he ends up becoming what a lot of people think he may become. This way, it is sort of random, but at least you can control the range in which the "randomness" occurs. But, at the same time, production and other things certainly need to have value in whether or not a player reaches his highest potential.

This way you could give the sure bet guys like Wiggins a generous range, since we all know he is going to be a solid player for many years. But, guys with big upside who have not proved themselves can have a much wider range of potential, making each time you play a MyLeague or GM more unique. I hope that makes sense.

[CaseIH]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

Since this game has been out I've played countless myleagues and mygms and they're all relatively predictable with all of the free agents disappearing, Andrew Wiggins becomes a high 80s, etc.

What if there was an option to randomize the potential of all of the players under say age 26? With the current system its basically impossible to replicate something like Hassan Whiteside where a bust scrub randomly becomes one of the best centers in the league? Or maybe a league where Andrew Wiggins busts and David Stockton ends up being an incredible phenom like his dad, or a league where Iman Shumpert does his best Jimmy Butler impression and goes from a solid option to a star?

Just something I was mulling over last night. The static potential ratings make myleague and mygm feel very scripted. You can always expect Andrew Wiggins to be a a very good player. But he never becomes the next Lebron or Kobe and he never busts.

They did have a variable potential a couple eyars back but they screwed it up, and it didn't work right, or how it should have anyway, as basically everyone went up,lol.


What I would like seen done is a variable potential, but add D league, and have what they do matter, so if a guy plays well, then he can go up, if he plays bad it goes down. If the put D League back in then you could send guys down to work on their game, but potential needs to be based on performance, as well as being able to stay healthy.


There is so many things they could do to enhance My League, and My GM, and hopefully they build on what they have, and get D league back. But dont bring D league back just to bring it back like it use to be, its needs t be done well, as previous it was a joke with sim stats being whacked. They need to take a page out of MLBTS devs book, and add slowly and do it right or dont do it at all. So every installment of the game is playable, that's not always been the case for NBA2k in Association mode over the years with way to may glitches. This is the 1s time in along time that Association/ My league has been playable without major gltiches.

[joosegoose]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

I would like to see a potential "range". So, instead of just one number for potential, you would have a high and low. For example, someone like Embiid could have his range set at something like 77-90. I could have a MyLeague where he ends up not getting much better and hangs around the high 70's overall, start a new MyLeague and he ends up becoming what a lot of people think he may become. This way, it is sort of random, but at least you can control the range in which the "randomness" occurs. But, at the same time, production and other things certainly need to have value in whether or not a player reaches his highest potential.

This way you could give the sure bet guys like Wiggins a generous range, since we all know he is going to be a solid player for many years. But, guys with big upside who have not proved themselves can have a much wider range of potential, making each time you play a MyLeague or GM more unique. I hope that makes sense.

When it comes down to it, this would probably be the easiest (and just about best) way to implement this. The most important part is making the sure player (and AI logic, for that matter) never knows the exact rating. It would also be nice if the game didn't even know ahead of time and it was progressively calculated and possibly even adjusted. Even when hidden, static potentials are not that fun.

[Midnitewaters]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

Wouldnt you have to hide them? Being able to see players potential would ruin making it random right?

[nminleder]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

It would also be nice if the game didn't even know ahead of time and it was progressively calculated and possibly even adjusted. Even when hidden, static potentials are not that fun.

[Leftos]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

Potential isn't static and changes from year to year. I've gone in depth about this in a roster thread too, but here goes again:

- For players that are young and still developing/progressing, Potential is the max they can potentially reach overall wise. It is not guaranteed, and injuries or not enough playing time can limit a player's progression, as well as the dice rolls to make each experience feel fresh and different (to an extent, we don't want the game doing crazy different things). If a player doesn't progress enough to maintain the possibility of reaching his potential overall at his peak, we will drop his potential to reflect that accordingly at the end of the season.

So let's say you have a player that starts at a 68 with a potential of 82. He's 22, so he still has time to get there. His team plays him a lot, he strayed away from injuries, he had a good year, the stars aligned for him to get a good dice roll, he develops at the max we would allow him: he's now at a (say) 71, with a potential of 82.

Let's say that same player played 10 games before going down for the season with a torn ACL, missing the rest. He spends most of the year in rehab, not being able to hone and practice his craft. Offseason progression can barely make up for all the lost time during the season, and he stays a 68 at the end of the year. It's mathematically impossible for him to be an 82 at his peak now, so his potential drops to a 78. If his stars align and the rest of his career goes well, he can still be a 78, but not an 82.

So potential is varied, and only reflects the max a player can achieve if all the factors that go into progression align just right.

- For players on the downward/regressing slope, potential simply reflects the best overall they ever achieved, and tells us how much of their skill they have lost over time due to age so that we can adjust their regression pace. Potential does not change for players past their peak; it's a read-only value that reflects something in the past, and unless you have a time machine (or go into Edit Player), their potential will stay the same.


Potential range is something we can discuss internally, it's not a terrible idea. But having a "randomize potential" on-off switch sounds like one of those options that's so niche that you can't really justify it making it into the game, when roster editing is allowed.

[dwayne12345]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

I had NO idea that potential was tied in ANY way to playing time. I thought it was just injuries and training. That's dope.

Maybe (if this isn't already the case) it can adjust for too much playing time too early in someone's career as well.

A historic look at this is O.J. Mayo's career. Dude was playing 38 mpg in his first two seasons averaging 18 ppg between them. It was too much too soon and dude wasn't ready. He was almost out of the NBA before Jason Kidd saved his career.

Maybe a situation like that can be an added variable to next years potential rating as well.

Maybe the wrong coach can be a factor as well? Dwight Howard doesn't become Dwight Howard if Mike D'Antoni was his coach in his first 4 years in the NBA for example.

[8KB24]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

Spoiler

Potential isn't static and changes from year to year. I've gone in depth about this in a roster thread too, but here goes again:

- For players that are young and still developing/progressing, Potential is the max they can potentially reach overall wise. It is not guaranteed, and injuries or not enough playing time can limit a player's progression, as well as the dice rolls to make each experience feel fresh and different (to an extent, we don't want the game doing crazy different things). If a player doesn't progress enough to maintain the possibility of reaching his potential overall at his peak, we will drop his potential to reflect that accordingly at the end of the season.

So let's say you have a player that starts at a 68 with a potential of 82. He's 22, so he still has time to get there. His team plays him a lot, he strayed away from injuries, he had a good year, the stars aligned for him to get a good dice roll, he develops at the max we would allow him: he's now at a (say) 71, with a potential of 82.

Let's say that same player played 10 games before going down for the season with a torn ACL, missing the rest. He spends most of the year in rehab, not being able to hone and practice his craft. Offseason progression can barely make up for all the lost time during the season, and he stays a 68 at the end of the year. It's mathematically impossible for him to be an 82 at his peak now, so his potential drops to a 78. If his stars align and the rest of his career goes well, he can still be a 78, but not an 82.

So potential is varied, and only reflects the max a player can achieve if all the factors that go into progression align just right.

- For players on the downward/regressing slope, potential simply reflects the best overall they ever achieved, and tells us how much of their skill they have lost over time due to age so that we can adjust their regression pace. Potential does not change for players past their peak; it's a read-only value that reflects something in the past, and unless you have a time machine (or go into Edit Player), their potential will stay the same.


Potential range is something we can discuss internally, it's not a terrible idea. But having a "randomize potential" on-off switch sounds like one of those options that's so niche that you can't really justify it making it into the game, when roster editing is allowed.

I really like the idea of potential range. But it could be described as 'Star', 'Role player' etc. And have it that stats and coaches with better grades impact the progression more. So a player that is 70 rated and described as potential All-star could have Pop as his coach and lot's of playing time and good stats so he went from 70 to, let's say, 74. And eventually he would become an all-star level player rated 85 or something like that. All-star would have a range from 79-85, for example. So this player maximized his potential because of the environment.

Also, if that same player started his career in a detrimental environment with guys like Sanders, Bynum etc and with lousy coach and he didn't play much he'd wouldn't even come close to the floor potential of all-star, which in this case is 79.

If none of the ideas are implemented, make it even more dynamic so that more players progress unexpectedly(Butler, Lance) or don't at all when they should've (Barnes, Beasley etc).

[Leftos]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

Don't underestimate the confusion a rating that apparently doesn't do much can cause. A fresh, unexpected, unpredictable experience can be really fun for some, but really frustrating to design, test, or to even explain to users.

e.g.
Mr. Rightos: Here's the Potential rating. It might mean something, or we might just completely ignore it and do something completely different in your playthrough of the game!
Mr. User: But I'm a roster maker and I like editing things that make a difference, I want to be able to control how much a player potentially develops because I've been watching them for years and I believe I can figure out their ceiling.
Mr. Rightos: -munching on a sandwich- Hmm... What's that now?

e.g.2
Mr. Tester: Umm... I tried this guy's potential at 50 and 90 and the same thing happened twice. Is this working as its supposed to?
Mr. Rightos: Maybe! Nobody knows! That's the great thing about it!

This is an extreme example, of course, and there's a way to be unpredictable within the confines of still making sense. "Environmental factors" are things we consider in a lot of features behind-the-scenes, and the details are beyond the scope of what I could discuss in this thread. But even then, there's a line we have to draw at some point at how much randomness and other non-obvious factors affect a game mechanic, so as not to even confuse ourselves and our userbase, and to be able to actually test the game and as many possibilities of it in the limited timeframe we have.

Adding sliders to MyLEAGUE, for example, might seem straight-forward, but it adds an enormous number of potential "sub-modes" you have to test with every different slider combination needing to lead to a league that makes sense even 40 years down the line. It's not easy stuff.

[8KB24]

Re: Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

Don't underestimate the confusion a rating that apparently doesn't do much can cause. A fresh, unexpected, unpredictable experience can be really fun for some, but really frustrating to design, test, or to even explain to users.

e.g.
Mr. Rightos: Here's the Potential rating. It might mean something, or we might just completely ignore it and do something completely different in your playthrough of the game!
Mr. User: But I'm a roster maker and I like editing things that make a difference, I want to be able to control how much a player potentially develops because I've been watching them for years and I believe I can figure out their ceiling.
Mr. Rightos: -munching on a sandwich- Hmm... What's that now?

e.g.2
Mr. Tester: Umm... I tried this guy's potential at 50 and 90 and the same thing happened twice. Is this working as its supposed to?
Mr. Rightos: Maybe! Nobody knows! That's the great thing about it!

This is an extreme example, of course, and there's a way to be unpredictable within the confines of still making sense. "Environmental factors" are things we consider in a lot of features behind-the-scenes, and the details are beyond the scope of what I could discuss in this thread. But even then, there's a line we have to draw at some point at how much randomness and other non-obvious factors affect a game mechanic, so as not to even confuse ourselves and our userbase, and to be able to actually test the game and as many possibilities of it in the limited timeframe we have.

Adding sliders to MyLEAGUE, for example, might seem straight-forward, but it adds an enormous number of potential "sub-modes" you have to test with every different slider combination needing to lead to a league that makes sense even 40 years down the line. It's not easy stuff.

I'm not asking to completely re-write the code for potential and how it works at this stage of the development for nba 2k16. Nor am I believing that that's plausible to do and make sure it works properly even when started at the beginning of the dev cycle for 2k16. Maybe add a factor or two to the potential thing that you guys are already working on. Even that might screw too much stuff because there's so much to tweak and adjust. I remember a dev saying that trying faster passes screwed up a lot of animations and situations.

I too wouldn't like to get that extreme example you wrote but to not have a definite potential number would be cool to have. I also think that that number might be a little arbitrary but an ugly neccessity.