Does real field goal % solve the high shooting percentage problem?
 

I haven’t played 2k for a while but I often visit this form to see what’s going on from time to time, I am bored of fifa so I am going to start putting a lot of time into 2k, however, after reading so many posts here and tried a few games on my own, i realized the the high shooting percentage is really killing the fun, so therefore, I would like to ask you brothers here, would changing to real field goal percentage help solving this issue or not? AND I AM PURELY AN OFFLINE GUY! Thank you very much in advance!

Re: Does real field goal % solve the high shooting percentage problem?
 

I have never understood the uproar over the high shooting percentages, but I'm an offline real fg% player. I don't think it's an issue with that setting, and even if you do think it's an issue it should just be a matter of tweaking the shooting sliders to get things how you want them.

Speaking of sliders, Shady Mike's set is good for real fg%.

Re: Does real field goal % solve the high shooting percentage problem?
 

Firstly, thank you for your reply man! The uproar over the high shooting percentage is extremely obvious (I play either on Superstar or HOF, and always set it to be simulation), and along with shot timing setting, and the problem is HUGE! You don't need to run any plays, you just need to non stop pop the three balls and you will make many of them, so I read a few times here that having real fg% Will put everything back to normal, which means you will make and miss baskets like reality, so is it really true that is the case? Thank you!

Re: Does real field goal % solve the high shooting percentage problem?
 

Check out Shady Mikes set of sliders. Real nice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Does real field goal % solve the high shooting percentage problem?
 

I always play with real fg%. The last patch kind of threw a wrench into my sliders though.

Also not sure if it is still the same, but several years ago when I first made the switch it affected the AI as well. I noticed that as I constantly improved in my timing I had to constantly go and alter the user sliders to keep things in check. The AI shot at a excellent rate, but when I changed to real player % the shooting % for the AI was then off so I had to readjust the CPU sliders

So as a precaution decide on timing/real player first then tune sliders.

To me real player % is always preferred. Not only because of the aforementioned slider updates, but it also keeps you playing actual basketball instead of playing Meter Master 2015. It keeps you disciplined and working for good shots.

My position is that if you consider yourself a sim style player real is the way to go

Re: Does real field goal % solve the high shooting percentage problem?
 

I have never used this setting but am considering it. Does playing good defense still affect the shot? What I mean is if a guy has a hand in your face, does that lower the % of making the shot? Or is I truly jut percentage based on where player is shootng from and their stats from that range?

Re: Does real field goal % solve the high shooting percentage problem?
 

No, it doesn't solve the high shooting percentages. I've used Real FG% since it became an option and if you don't adjust sliders in NBA 2K15 after the latest patch, you'll see FG numbers above 50% for you and the CPU ... if you're using an older roster. The newer official 2K rosters that have globally reduced the mid-range and 3-point ratings have helped bring the team FG% numbers down a bit, but it still doesn't hurt to drop those sliders a few points.

Re: Does real field goal % solve the high shooting percentage problem?
 

Thank you for your input. I am using the latest roster, which all the players' shooting ratings got dropped, and then I just use sim sliders, will give this combination a try first, however, can I ask, why do you prefer real fg% over shot timing, since you said you use that as an option for a long time, actually I also want to know when did it become an option and why was it made as an option back then? Do you know? Thank you!