Would anyone else like to see a randomize potential option?

[Midnitewaters]

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

[nminleder]

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]

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]

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by Leftos

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]

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by Leftos

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.

[dwayne12345]

Is there a way next year to have the CPU GM's and Coaches be more accountable for how a player develops? (allowing for hiring and firing of GM's would be great too)

I mean as Jalen Rose always says on Grantland "The right player drafted to the wrong team can ruin someone's career."

Like Zach Lavine might become a star, but if he stays in Minny and the GM never gets rid of Kevin Martin, Shabazz Muhammad, and/or Rubio AND he sits behind Wiggins for ever that would stifle his progression.

If Anthony Bennett got drafted to San Antonio he might've developed into something great under the tutelage of Duncan and Pop. In Minnesota/Cleveland he's a borderline bust.

Maybe factoring team culture and GM decision making (including CPU accountability) could be cool.

As it stands right now 76ers are almost guaranteed to be a competitor in 4 years regardless of team decision making/culture.