2K21 needs to be completely positionless.

[DonMontae]

Trying to find realism and fairness in a mode like MyTeam seems futile to me. If that's the reason we're not doing things that could improve the rest of the modes, it might just be time to make two separate games

[ksuttonjr76]

Bad idea...everyone would just make SF demigods. Personally, I think they need to stick more with the traditional positions and particularly with how the positions were offensively defined during the 80's and 90's. Call me crazy, but 2K Sports needs to do away with the idea that people should be able to create "unicorns" in MyPlayer.

PG - Should be no taller than 6'3" - Playmaker, 3PT threat but not like a SG
SG - Between 6'3" and 6'6" - Shooter or scorer
SF - Between 6'5 - 6'8" - Jack of all trades, but master of none
PF - 6'9" and taller - Mainly rebounder and mid-range shooter
C - 6'10" and taller - Rim Protection and secondary rebounder

https://www.probasketballtroops.com/average-nba-height/

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by TeamBuilder

Positionless is the way to go. It's silly to stick to an old categorical way to oversimplify the game.

Nah, teams definitely still use positions, only their definition / role has changed.

Of course, its EXTREMELY easy to say the game shouldn't have any positions, without giving any alternate suggestion on how the AI would then determine LINEUPS (an ESSENTIAL facet) with any sense of consistency.

Quote:

Also, 2K does a terrible job at representing player OVR ratings because of the stupid attribute weighting at each position. I wrote about it 2 years ago.

They have since fixed it.

Quote:

So-called NBA analysts criticized Houston when the Rockets decided to "go small" because they didn't have a "traditional center" in their rotation. Covington can protect the rim well enough to cover for the rim protection that most "traditional centers" offer... so what if he's not 6'10" or taller? Most teams don't have a large, powerful, low-post threat who can punish them for that anyway.

The Rockets are 6-5 since the trade, and those losses have been nothing short of embarrassing. A wee bit early to declare death to positions...

D'Antoni played Boris Diaw at center 14 years ago, this is not a new development.
His system is the exception, NOT the rule.

[TeamBuilder]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

Nah, teams definitely still use positions, only their definition / role has changed. Of course, its EXTREMELY easy to say the game shouldn't have any positions, without giving any alternate suggestion on how the AI would then determine LINEUPS (an ESSENTIAL facet) with any sense of consistency. They have since fixed it. The Rockets are 6-5 since the trade, and those losses have been nothing short of embarrassing. A wee bit early to declare death to positions... D'Antoni played Boris Diaw at center 14 years ago, this is not a new development. His system is the exception, NOT the rule.

Haha you clearly have no idea how broken the current categorical position system is in 2K if you are complaining about how "ESSENTIAL" it is for A.I. to have a system that determines "LINEUPS." The current system is broken and stupid. For example:

I have a MyLeague where the A.I. 76ers signed Shaun Livingston and Derrick Favors. They started a lineup of Ben Simmons, Joel Embiid, Shaun Livingston, Derrick Favors, and Furkan Korkmaz against me in a MyLeague game... all because the stupid position system encourages them to get a PF (Favors) and think it makes sense to play him alongside Embiid, Simmons, and Livingston.

You can't seriously defend a system that stupid -- a system that simply constructs a lineup and roster based on listed positions without considering the attributes/skills/abilities of the players and how they fit together. A positionless system that prioritizes player attributes and complimentary skills would be much better, and would allow A.I./CPU teams to determine lineups based on team play style and player attributes that are valuable to mix into a lineup. Think about the key attributes that most lineup construction requires: Ball handling/creating, floor spacing, post scoring (depending on team offense), rim protecting, perimeter defending, etc.

A.I./CPU teams could actually try to build for their style and what fits well alongside their players, so you wouldn't have a team like the 76ers valuing Derrick Favors as their starting power forward just because the game tells them that they need a starter who is listed at the power forward position.

I shouldn't even have to explain this to you.

The Rockets example is entirely lost on you because you are looking only at their record as proof of your argument against positionless basketball without considering other factors (for example, they lack roster depth and have a weak bench). More specifically, look at Covington. He is playing great as a rim protector because it's not about his listed position and height, but rather his skills. His listed position is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the on-court skills he has.

Again, I shouldn't even have to explain this to you. Positions are shallowly categorical. That's it. Specific skillsets are much more important than listed positions. Positions are rigid and archaic. That's why you have teams foolishly play "stretch 5s" like Myers Leonard because he is a "center" when most of the time he is a waste of space. He doesn't rebound well, he doesn't defend the rim well, and he doesn't score well in the post. But teams look at him and say, "Oh gee, a 7'1" guy who can shoot the three, what an advantage to have a 'CENTER' who can stretch the floor." It's dumb. Just because he is tall he is stereotyped as a center. It's all nonsense. His skills simply aren't there. He is one dimensional.

[howardphillips214]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

Nah, teams definitely still use positions, only their definition / role has changed. Of course, its EXTREMELY easy to say the game shouldn't have any positions, without giving any alternate suggestion on how the AI would then determine LINEUPS (an ESSENTIAL facet) with any sense of consistency. They have since fixed it. The Rockets are 6-5 since the trade, and those losses have been nothing short of embarrassing. A wee bit early to declare death to positions... D'Antoni played Boris Diaw at center 14 years ago, this is not a new development. His system is the exception, NOT the rule.

2k still hasn't put Luka at PG all year. It's ridiculous. LBJ is still considered a SF/PG. He may start the game at PG but still ends the game at SF. What is Ben Simmons? He's listed as PG/PF. Is Giannis a 3/4/5? What are we talking about here?

Jrue Holiday can DEFEND the 1, but he's more of a 2. George Hill has never been a true 1 but he likes to play there and shoot like a 2.

"Combo guard" was a term used for Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis back in the day. This has been a trend for 30 years, my guy.

[ksuttonjr76]

Quote: Originally Posted by TeamBuilder

Haha you clearly have no idea how broken the current categorical position system is in 2K if you are complaining about how "ESSENTIAL" it is for A.I. to have a system that determines "LINEUPS." The current system is broken and stupid. For example: I have a MyLeague where the A.I. 76ers signed Shaun Livingston and Derrick Favors. They started a lineup of Ben Simmons, Joel Embiid, Shaun Livingston, Derrick Favors, and Furkan Korkmaz against me in a MyLeague game... all because the stupid position system encourages them to get a PF (Favors) and think it makes sense to play him alongside Embiid, Simmons, and Livingston. You can't seriously defend a system that stupid -- a system that simply constructs a lineup and roster based on listed positions without considering the attributes/skills/abilities of the players and how they fit together. A positionless system that prioritizes player attributes and complimentary skills would be much better, and would allow A.I./CPU teams to determine lineups based on team play style and player attributes that are valuable to mix into a lineup. Think about the key attributes that most lineup construction requires: Ball handling/creating, floor spacing, post scoring (depending on team offense), rim protecting, perimeter defending, etc. A.I./CPU teams could actually try to build for their style and what fits well alongside their players, so you wouldn't have a team like the 76ers valuing Derrick Favors as their starting power forward just because the game tells them that they need a starter who is listed at the power forward position. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you. The Rockets example is entirely lost on you because you are looking only at their record as proof of your argument against positionless basketball without considering other factors (for example, they lack roster depth and have a weak bench). More specifically, look at Covington. He is playing great as a rim protector because it's not about his listed position and height, but rather his skills. His listed position is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the on-court skills he has. Again, I shouldn't even have to explain this to you. Positions are shallowly categorical. That's it. Specific skillsets are much more important than listed positions. Positions are rigid and archaic. That's why you have teams foolishly play "stretch 5s" like Myers Leonard because he is a "center" when most of the time he is a waste of space. He doesn't rebound well, he doesn't defend the rim well, and he doesn't score well in the post. But teams look at him and say, "Oh gee, a 7'1" guy who can shoot the three, what an advantage to have a 'CENTER' who can stretch the floor." It's dumb. Just because he is tall he is stereotyped as a center. It's all nonsense. His skills simply aren't there. He is one dimensional.

Dude...that's a programming problem or limitation. This is not a valid reason for "positionless" basketball. You're literally asking the developers to create a program that makes human decisions and have "opinions" about players.

[ksuttonjr76]

Quote: Originally Posted by howardphillips214

2k still hasn't put Luka at PG all year. It's ridiculous. LBJ is still considered a SF/PG. He may start the game at PG but still ends the game at SF. What is Ben Simmons? He's listed as PG/PF. Is Giannis a 3/4/5? What are we talking about here? Jrue Holiday can DEFEND the 1, but he's more of a 2. George Hill has never been a true 1 but he likes to play there and shoot like a 2. "Combo guard" was a term used for Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis back in the day. This has been a trend for 30 years, my guy.

Giannis is primarily a SF. Simmons is primarily a PG who can be switched to the PF based on the offense. Holiday is a PG who plays SG in the current offense. George Hill splits time between PG and SG, but he was the PG when he was with Indiana. Marbury and Francis were scoring PGs.

[ksuttonjr76]

Raise your hand if you would put Steph Curry at the position that was previously known as "center". Anyone? Any takers?