Team Building and Trade Logic: Your Ideas

[Leftos]

Hello everyone. I haven't been around in a while, and I do apologize for that. I'm stopping by because I really enjoyed the Player Roles discussion and saw a lot of great feedback, so I wanted to start a new thread to gather your feedback and ideas on team building & trade logic. I know a lot of you have made your points repeatedly on various threads, but I needed one place where we can get everything in.

Just some pointers, if you're going to post your feedback:
- Saying "I hate this" or "this makes no sense" without any explanation doesn't help. I've felt that posts that had a mere mention of a trade and then "'nough said" are the least helpful of all, as that gives me no idea as to what the state the teams were in and whether the trade actually made sense. If it doesn't make sense in the current NBA, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense in your save's world. As pieces move around and your world diverges from the NBA, things that might fail in the real world might apply perfectly to your save. I'm not saying this as a cop-out. I'm saying that before you post, look at the movement in depth. Is a team trying dump salaries because it's looking to rebuild? Did the trade cause a logjam in a position or cause a position to become highly understaffed? The more factors you bring up in your post (even if it's 10 things that add up to the trade not making sense), the more helpful it will be.
- "X team would never do this". Think twice before saying that. We've seen trades and movements by GMs that had us pulling our hair out, we're all fans and we've been befuddled at times. If we made the AI amazing and the Pistons made moves that actually benefited them wouldn't that make the game extremely unrealistic? (Just kidding, but boy I wish I knew what Dumars is thinking.) Don't think in a box. When building team logic, you can't build 30 different logics and update them ever year. You have to build 1 logic that's dynamic. That can support the weirdest of custom teams. That can support any team situation. So try to think outside the box. Forget about what team it is, and think of whether that move benefited the team (or not) in the world currently existing in your save.
- This is not a thread to discuss user control and commissioner features. I want us to discuss how to improve the logic. If you feel that we wouldn't need to have this discussion if only you controlled the league, fine, you don't have to participate. But there are people that want a living league that acts on its own around them, and I want NBA 2K to move towards that goal tangibly (which is why I was hired to work on the modes and AI).
- Do not assume you know how the logic works. Simply put, I made enough of those assumptions myself before I joined VC, and most of them were proven wrong. If you're going to make a suggestion, do not make it a "take this out". Write in detail why you want to see something, instead.

Now that all the disclaimers are out of the way, feel free to reply. I sincerely hope this thread becomes a hub of constructive discussion, and that hateful posts are kept to a minimum.

And a final note: Around this time last year I was planning on creating a modding tool that would expand NBA 2K's franchise feature. There's an improptu podcast over at the NLSC where JaoSming and I were discussing all the features and expanded logic we would add. Knowing what I know now, it's a humbling experience to come in and see how much goes into the logic over how teams trade and build their rosters. I'm not saying its perfect, far from it. But there is logic there, and it's an attempt to have something that works for any team, any league, any point in time and any situation, which is why I insisted that you do not base the discussion on what one of the 30 NBA teams would do today. Small things might seem simple enough to solve. "This makes no sense, I should make sure that it never happens." It's not that simple though, more often than not. Based on all the parameters that go into the AI making a move, it might've made perfect sense.

And with all that, being able to be here, at the VC studio and work directly on the logic that goes into everything that happens, makes me very excited. Which once again, brings me to what I'm here for. I want to hear your ideas from basic groundwork on how teams should look to build themselves up, to very specific details on what should make a trade work or not work.

[Smirkin Dirk]

Firstly, I'd like to say allowing 30 team control is a necessary safety valve, but I wont mention this as the OP said not to

1. Each team should have an overall team goal. As we know, very few teams are trying to win the championship. Some teams seek to tank. Some to make the playoffs. Some to shed salary. These overall goals should decide what types of moves a team would make. A team wanting to win it all might trade for Marion, a team looking to tank wouldnt. Here's a potential list.

Compete for 'ship.
Compete for playoffs.
Get younger.
Get picks.
Shed salary.

Combine some (OKC, for example, are trying to compete and shedding salary)

2. Build aggression levels into owner/GM behaviour. An aggressive owner/GM makes lots of moves, a timid one doesnt.

To be honest Leftos, this is hard as we dont really know how the 2K roster logic work. What program allows LBJ to sign for Philly for 24m over 3 years? What program allows Boston to trade for Chris Paul when they already have Rondo, and then bench Paul?

[Leftos]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hot Kidd

To be honest Leftos, this is hard as we dont really know how the 2K roster logic work. What program allows LBJ to sign for Philly for 24m over 3 years? What program allows Boston to trade for Chris Paul when they already have Rondo, and then bench Paul?

Wouldn't Dumars do that? :P

Joking aside, I'm not saying there are not blatant lapses (e.g. Chris Paul to CLE and Kyrie benched). I'm looking to kill those first, just like Patch 3 killed the most blatant cases of unrealistic Player Roles expectations. Again, even having the most obvious things mentioned one more time in this thread doesn't hurt, if it's going to act as a resource for me moving forward.

[Smirkin Dirk]

Quote: Originally Posted by Leftos

Again, even having the most obvious things mentioned one more time in this thread doesn't hurt, if it's going to act as a resource for me moving forward.

Fair call. I only mentioned them to ascertain if it was a glitch or a flaw in the existing logic. If its a flaw, perhaps we'd need an insight into why these errors occur, then feedback could be more constructive.

I have another suggestion. As well as the roster goals I outlined previously, each team should have a roster profile. A few selections could be star based (OKC), athletic (Miami), shooters (Portland), even spread (Denver), big (I cant think of anyone!), defensive (Indiania).

Perhaps rather than give each team a desired roster profile that has one single characteristic, use the slider system to give it some room to move.

Basically, roster AI seems random.

Give it some systems which give teams an identity and instill teams with a sense of logic and direction. Ive outlined 2 above that I feel would add an overall AI logic template.

[SuperNova854]

Could this possibly help? If a team has a bunch of young guys, and it's obvious they are rebuilding, would it be possible for that team to somehow be labeled in the rebuilding process, therefore making so they don't trade for older players etc? And vice-versa. If a team is obviously in win-now mode, have it where they will trade young assets/picks in order to get better players that fit in with their play style in order to compete for a championship. Or another idea a team like the Celtics for example who have a ton of picks the next few years could end up packaging all that young talent like they did before to compete for a title? Obviously you would have to add in all real draft picks for this to work. Team's could have their own version of personality badges like player's do. They would change at the end of every season by how their team finished the year before, the team's current roster, etc.

[SPRINGS03]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hot Kidd

Firstly, I'd like to say allowing 30 team control is a necessary safety valve. . .

Sorry but this. Needs to be said, and should be noted. More control is important and in high demand.

BUT, as for an idea for better trade logic. We need things that are more based on team need, and not just an overall rating. Teams need to factor things like, position, age, size, based on what their team has and needs before making a trade. Also, certain teams that are known for going into rebuilding mode should make trades accordingly. Just something to possibly factor in.

Maybe something that could help the logic is a team profile type of thing for each team. So some teams have goals of going to the finals and adding good pieces to their roster but mostly role player types, others are rebuilding and hoping to add young talent, etc.

[Smirkin Dirk]

Quote: Originally Posted by SuperNova854

Team's could have their own version of personality badges like player's do. They would change at the end of every season by how their team finished the year before, the team's current roster, etc.

Yep this is what I was touching on. Your idea is great; give teams a personality badge.

Giving AI teams a sense of purpose (contending, rebuilding etc) is a must. At the moment it feels just random.

If teams have no overall purpose, make an allowance for that (Sacramento for instance)

[Smirkin Dirk]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPRINGS03

Maybe something that could help the logic is a team profile type of thing for each team. So some teams have goals of going to the finals and adding good pieces to their roster but mostly role player types, others are rebuilding and hoping to add young talent, etc.

Yep this seems pretty popular so far.