[BroMontana82]

1. What is your opinion of the mode over all? Does it offer what you would expect it to offer?

Overall, it's pretty good. Personally, I like everything in there feature wise. I just think a lot is way too broken because of the patch and from the original implementation.

2. Simulating in an Association - how are the numbers from players overall? Are you seeing a good variance? Are you seeing - guys recover/not recover from injuries; young players become studs/busts; early/late retirements; player holdouts/trade requests; believable player stats? Please don't specific to one player (such as Chris Bosh is getting too many rebounds!).

Overall, the stats are pretty good. The big obvious issue is the 3 pt. glitch where centers will shoot 100 a year.

Another huge issue that would fall under simulation is the CPU trading. It is terrible. A lot of trades aren't fair but I can get past that. Again, the HUGE issue after the patch is that turning off roles and chemistry and keeping CPU trades on creates an insane number of trades each month with players being traded numerous times, sometimes from one team to another multiple times. Basically you are forced to play Association mode with roles, chemistry, and CPU trades off now. This definitely limits the Association experience.

FA vs. D League problems. CPU teams will sign D Leaguers over players in the FA pool even though the FAs are better. They should look either to both or by a mix of overall, potential, etc.

Standings - the team standings can be a lot more accurate. I'm not really sure how 2k does this, but a lot of the good teams have bad records and bad teams are better than they should be. It should be as close to real life as possible with a few surprises thrown in. If it were up to me, I would do it based on a mixture of things like overall ratings, chemistry, and some sort of "last year's record" factor. The problem with the team ratings is that a team could have a solid overall rating, but still be putrid in real life...

3. Draft classes - what would you like to see added/changed to them?

I haven't used 2K's but I've seen them and based on their official rosters, these look ok. Maybe lower or more varied potential though. With 2k share, 2k can do whatever they want for draft classes since I always go with custom ones. But I think 2k's default potentials are insanely high.

4. Somewhat going into one area in more detail - player progression/regression: how is it working in your eyes? Looks good?

I honestly have only gone through 1 year so I can't comment. However, if you play with player roles off (to bypass the 3 pt glitch) Team Chemistry is ridiculously high for all teams which makes ratings inflated. What I would definitely change is the lay out and format. When players progress at the end of the year, all you see is OVERALL up or down, but not how much each individual attritube went up or down. This is incredibly annoying and frustrating. You can easily overlook something. What if a guy went up +1 but still, his medium shot or close shot went down by 7? How would you really know. You would definitely want to know. This really should be changed.


I think 2k REALLY needs to do better testing before release and before patch releases. The last patch really ruined the game for a lot of people because the only workarounds were turning off key elements of the mode. The massive issues from this year (all of which are listed above) need to be addressed. I know SimBaller is aware of them but I also know these things won't be fixed this year and I'm sure it's out of his hands so he can't address them. Roles, chemistry, and CPU trades really has to be looked at to see how each affects one another so there is no domino effect of glitches or the need turn off all of them to fix one glitch.