Question for the roster makers.

[pasateaterdave]

What's up with the team ratings when I plug these new rosters in? Now Im a Browns fan but there's no way that the Offense should be rated 96 or defense rated 97.

The rosters look great btw I'm just wondering if there's a way to make the team ratings look not so ridiculous.

[puja21]

in the words of Eddie Murphy

"read: you'll catch some sh_t"

[jsou4646]

lol^

[NuJoiseySoulja]

yeah i know what you mean with the 99 overalls on the Dolphins... I think they also should tone it down a little with the ratings, I know the ratings do not matter because the game will run smoothly regardles. Browns despite being 96 rated overall will finish the season probably 7-9 compared to the other teams.. catch my drift? so the the lowest 90s rated is considered the worst team - i think this should be fixed.

Edit: Feel free to edit the ratings yourself, ya know - it might be work but hey its your game you can do whatever you want with it.

[D16NJD16]

If the roster is done well, each rating is relative to the others, so editing a choice few up or down is not a good idea.

[Bulldogs78]

just don't pay attention to the team ratings. Because when it comes to playing the game, it's different.

[NuJoiseySoulja]

yeah its good but i guess some people want realism like the Browns should be an 87 overall at best. Dolphins come on easily maybe a 75

[dophin26]

Those ratings are based on players who's ratings reflect what 2k5 makers put out in 2004. Most roster makers agree these ratings are "broken" and things needed to be changed to make the game run smoother (some ratings increased, like passing/catching and some reduced, like catch numbers for DBs). The resulting off & def rating reflect those changes the roster makers deemed necessary to make the game more realistic when playing. Sure the overalls are skewed (no way to adjust that in the editor), but the results are much more realistic.