 Alright, the things I'm talking about here in this video, all facts. We're talking about the ranking system, the leaderboard system and NBA 2K. It's flawed for a many number of reasons, but the most major one is it doesn't reward skill, it rewards time played, and that's frustrating. We all ran against a 91 overall who can't play for his life. Probably on my career dishing flashy passes, hitting floaters, stepping back, pulling up from limitless range, all game racking up 100k points a game. And it's usually those same guys with the high ranked as booty cheeks that will refuse to play with lower overall players purely because of their overall. It gets boring, you don't feel like you need to level up, right? I feel at any given moment, I feel like I really want to hop on rainbow so that I can play and rank up to a platinum so that I can feel that I'm nice at the game, right? Now there is a correlation, the more you play a game the better you should be at it, but it's not a flat line correlation, the guy who played the most is going to be the best. We know that, you don't need me to sit here and tell you that, but there's a lot of games recently and Rainbow Six is probably my favorite example of the game that I understand. I'm sure League of Legends, Dota, CSGO, a lot of these games have growing fan bases, so while most games would drop and then trail off, those games will drop and then go up, which is insane if you think about it. Oh you could also like, it probably has a lot to do with the cool Black Friday sales thing, yo I see a CSGO drop for like $5 and you know, I don't even play CSGO, but I can't say no to $5. Alright I'm going to use Rainbow Six as an example, for those who don't play the game there's two different types of ranking systems. There's one ranking system that you can just keep playing and it rewards time playing, so you're running against people that have like a 200 and you don't really think too much of it because just because you play the game a lot does not mean you're nice at the game. And nobody even chats for that rank, it's almost irrelevant but it exists and that's the type of ranking system 2K has, you just play the game over and over and over and over again, you don't have to get better, all you have to do is keep playing and you'll continuously go up and rank 92, 93, 94, 95 right? But Rainbow also has a ranked system, but the system on Rainbow Six that really only focuses on wins or losses separates the good players from the bad players. And unlike 2K where there's a lot of randomness that goes on in percentages, you shoot the ball, 60% chance it goes in, on Rainbow clear cut, if you can't make your shot you're gonna get shot. And in those lobbies there's a very clear difference between Plat lobbies and Gold lobbies. Gold lobbies, you might get a chance to make a mistake and still kill the guy, on Plat lobbies you're getting gunned down the second you make a mistake. And as frustrating as it is sometimes to be at the top of the leaderboard consistently with a trash team and you're losing and you're going down in rank, I feel so addicted to wanting to just rank myself up. There's just something about knowing that you could actually go down in rank that motivates you to continue playing to improve and to get better. If I'm playing Tekken I could be a Grandmaster rank, I lose 6 games straight I'm dropping down to expert. And then I hop on the next day like I gotta get back to Grandmaster, once I'm Grandmaster I wanna get to more order. If you can't go down in a ranking system, it's not a ranking system. How can you possibly rank people if you can't go down for poor performance? And on 2k it's a little more complex because there's so many variables like a lot of it is IQ, especially on Pro Am. If you're a big man, they're getting rebounds and just blocking out the right guy, rotating properly on the zones, avoiding defensive 3 and the keys. All of that is just IQ. But there's a way to quantify that if they could just sit down and figure that out. And the same way they've done it on Pro Am, where all they really care about is wins and losses, right? If you beat really good teams, you're gonna climb up Elite 4, Elite 5, Elite 6. And so right now, I'm feeding because I don't wanna get my team to Elite 4. But I know on the back of my mind, if I play around and I lose like 10 games straight for whatever reason, I'm not gonna stay Elite 3. How could you be possibly motivated to improve if you know there's no possible way you can go down? So on 2k it's really just about abusing a flawed point system. If you're a big man, you're not gonna get enough points, but does that mean you're a worse player? Why are you lower down in the rankings? Honestly, I wish there was like a robust version of the Pro Am ranking system on the part. I get the whole Roll to 99 thing, aside from the fact that you have to restart if you make a new player. I actually like the idea. But I don't feel intrigued to wanna hop on and play. I've never felt really like I cared about my rank. Last year I was a Superstar 1 and I stopped caring, period. The year before, I think I was like an All-Star 3. Like you couldn't get me on the game at XXP. First of all, it was the laggiest time of year. Second of all, I really just didn't care, man. See, on Rainbow Six, I can run against the guys that play a ton and you can see their time played and I can sauce those guys. It would be a shame if for whatever reason, Ubisoft ranked me lower than those guys just because I don't play the game as much. I'm making moves. I got videos to make. A lot of the time I'm playing 2k, but when I wanna hop on Rainbow, I know in the back of my mind I'm a gold one. Really, I play like I'm a Plat 2. I'm not gonna lie to y'all, man. I might be a Plat 1. I play with a lot of suspect teams, y'all. I can't tell you how many. Ever since I unlocked Lesion on Rainbow Six, I got a 2.2k lead. You know I'm killing the game. You know what I'm talking about. I don't know how much you specifically play games, but at least 70% of the people watching this have once been O.D. addicted to a game. Whether that game was RuneScape. Some of y'all know about RuneScape. As a kid, bro, I used to be on RuneScape. I used to be addicted to Socom. And for a game like 2k that touts that it's a RPG, last year they said it was the best RPG sports title ever released. The whole point of RPGs is you're supposed to grow with your player. It's a role-playing game, but it doesn't feel like you're growing when the tasks are off and tedious and you don't feel rewarded for how good you are. You know, to be honest, I feel like a lot of people think they're better than they really are on any game in general, but on 2k especially. Have you ever had a conversation with your friend that went something like, yo, I could sauce you in 2k and your friend replies, you probably can. No matter how trash your friend is, he's gonna say he could sauce you back. That's just the way it is on 2k. And Pro-M has a very simple, basic version of what I'm talking about. And for me, it's not as trivial as I just wanna see if I'm 1000th in the world. It's not about that. It's about feeling like you have something to work towards. And feeling that you can work towards it by improving not just playing more. I don't know, to be honest, 2k has never had a system like that. Pretty much any game, anybody watching the industry will see so many games coming out with the exact same system. You know, with variations to adjust to what their game is about, but everybody's running the same style now, right? One game blows up and succeeds and everyone's trying to pick apart what that game did successfully, except 2k. That's how I'm feeling, yo. Hey, there's no reason for you to disagree with me. The only reason you wanna disagree with me is if you're that specific person that's ass at every game he plays but just plays a lot. If that's you, then that's my problem with 2k is you shouldn't be that high. You're overrated. I can't even trust people now. Agent, I'm a 93 overall and I'm trying to play with your pro team. I don't know if they're nice. I have no idea. Because there's no real way to see unless you actually get a chance to sit down and play with him. I hope this stuff is just obvious. Like, I'm not saying anything that's like super in-depth like, whoa, Agent, you thought of that by yourself. Nah, actually, I just play other games and I've seen so many other developers do it and it makes sense because I really enjoy it on those other games. If y'all remember Road to the All-Star game last year, it was really just who could learn and abuse the point system first. I mean, if you want the best possible teams in a pro-amp tournament, just do double elimination. What are you talking about? Get a tournament with the top 1000 teams on pro-amp, run a double elimination tournament and then if you lose, you're going to have to back it and whoever makes it out wins and qualifies. How is that not the first thing people think of? Why would you implement a point system that could easily be abused? If you're looking for the best teams, that's all you have to have done. You have three months, get into the top 1000 pro-amp and then you qualify to get into the qualifiers. Boom! At least to me, that seems obvious. But 2K does a lot of point systems. I don't know what their obsession is with doing points. They like point systems. Anyway, if you guys enjoyed, man, make sure to drop a like, subscribe if you guys are new. Hey, some videos popping on the screen right now. If you haven't watched them already, go ahead, click on them. I'm going to catch you guys later. I'm out. Peace.