Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

[CAN_JE]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

LeBron somewhat overrated

can u also post top 5-10 rebounding players from each position )

[ohvitser12]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

Great results.We can´t fix anything in this game iwth rosters.Like Love never averages over 15 rpg or players having 3 or more blovks per game.Lebron is the king of 2k12 and he actually averages quite similar stats in real life also so quite realistic,specially if Wade or Bosh is injured some time during the season.
Also are every team giving the ball downlow once in a while?I mean like Thunder,who actually doesn´t have great go-to-guys in the paint.In real basketball the ball goes to the post quite often to spread the game.

[aloncho11]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

Wait until I upload the newest version, which should be tonight or tomorrow morning. I'm doing some testing right now which may lead to more edits but I'll have the roster that achieved those stats up soon.

Swell

Here is the roster with tweaked Commit Fouls, Draw Fouls, and Rebounding Ratings that I used to get the recently posted sim-stats. I am going to tweak the Inside Shot and Dunk ratings for big men who score really high FG% and shoot almost exclusively from that range. I've found that by raising the Inside Shot and Dunk Ratings to 99 while lowering Close Shot, Mid-Range, and 3PT Tendencies to 0 can yield between 60-65% from the field. If you give a player with 0 Close-Range Tendency a Low Post Play, they will still take shots from that range.

This file has ALL transactions (not including all rookies) including the Nets getting Okur.

Thanks!

[CAN_JE]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

i think givin the teams same playbook rob their identity, unfortunately (
or is it the best plays?

[slimm44]

Its an edited Playbook. Check it out using a few teams.

[slimm44]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

Alright, I need some feedback. From those of you who are checking this thread and using the rosters I'm creating, do you think I should:

A. Keep the ratings how they are, tweak tendencies that haven't been touched yet (play passing lane, contest shot, etc), and continue creating rookies.

Or

B. Change Inside Shot Ratings so players will get a higher FG% and tweak tendencies/create rookies. To get FG% as close to accurate as possible, I'd have to change the Inside Shot Rating to 99 for any player that shoots 60% from that range (nearly every player in the league, 60% is the average scoring rate from that range) and increase Dunk Rating to 99 for players that shoot at least 65% at the basket (a very large portion of the league).

The reason is, 2k's Inside Shot rating scale only ranges from 30% to 60%. To get 50%, you have to have a rating of at least 90, to get 60% you have to have a rating of 99. In real life, the scale ranges from roughly 50% to 75%. I'm not sure how I feel about having that many players in the league with a 99 Inside Shot Rating.

Let me know what you guys think.

[jbar]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

Hey Slimm,

Well 99 Inside I think I can live with since technically you're gonna the have a best chance at a good shot if you're that close to the rim.

However 99 for dunking....welllll lol. Wouldn't that create outrageous animations for some players??

[slimm44]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

Hey Slimm,

Well 99 Inside I think I can live with since technically you're gonna the have a best chance at a good shot if you're that close to the rim.

However 99 for dunking....welllll lol. Wouldn't that create outrageous animations for some players??

Not if they're not given better dunk packages than they deserve. You can have a 99 Dunk Rating and have No Dunk Package. The rating makes it so you can assign dunk packages but also tells the game how likely they are to make dunk attempts.

My concern is that the Inside Shot Rating range would go from 60-99 to 85-99, with roughly 99% of all players being between 90-99. It leaves nearly no room for statistical variance and may render the Inside Shot Slider virtually useless. If you raise it too high, all players score at an amazing clip, if you lower it too low, no one will score at the bucket. There should be a normal 25-30% range at the location, not a 10% range.

I don't want all players scoring at the bucket at the same rate, but I want statistically valid results during simulations.

[jbar]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

Yep. Agreed. A 99 rating would basically make every1 invincible at the basket. TECHNICALLY when you're that close it should be ez but the whole NBA isn't that consistent.

Edit: But you know what? I was just thinking and if every ones tendencies are done correctly (which your rosters have done) then only players who actually drive consistently to the rim will have those stats affected and anyone else won't see much difference.
For example: Even if Russel Westbrook and Ray Allen both have their inside at 99, Russell drives more consistently than Ray. Hence why Ray Allen wouldn't really see a difference in his stats simulation wise. Correct or no?

[slimm44]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

Yep. Agreed. A 99 rating would basically make every1 invincible at the basket. TECHNICALLY when you're that close it should be ez but the whole NBA isn't that consistent.

Edit: But you know what? I was just thinking and if every ones tendencies are done correctly (which your rosters have done) then only players who actually drive consistently to the rim will have those stats affected and anyone else won't see much difference.
For example: Even if Russel Westbrook and Ray Allen both have their inside at 99, Russell drives more consistently than Ray. Hence why Ray Allen wouldn't really see a difference in his stats simulation wise. Correct or no?

When figuring out which shots the FG% is based on, only Take Shot and the Shot Location Tendencies are factored. Driving Tendencies don't matter. Any player with an Inside Shot Tendency above 0 are effected by the scale being off but players who take the most Inside Shots will be affected the most.

What's weird is if you put the Take Shot slider at 100 and all Shot Location Tendencies at 0, then put the Take Shot Slider at 100 and all Shot Location Tendencies at 100, the player will take the same amount of shots.

There might (MIGHT) be a way to figure out how to go around all Shot Location Tendencies and just use Take Shot Tendency to determine where players take shots from. During gameplay, you would just have to make sure that a player has plays called for him that will put them in locations on the court where you want them to shoot.

For example, this may work:

Blake Griffin
Inside Shot, Close Shot, Mid-Range Ratings what they are in the roster.

50 Take Shot Tendency
77 (or whatever it is in the roster) Inside Shot Tendency
0 Close Shot Tendency
0 Mid Range Tendency

With Take Shot Tendency at 50, Blake will take 15 shots per 36 Minutes. If he keeps his Inside Shot Rating (87) he may be able to still get a sim FG% around 50 (I haven't tested this yet) because his tendencies don't tell the sim-stats to factor in % from the other locations except for the Dunk Rating, which for him, is at 99 and would add 5% to his FG%. Theoretically, this would equal 87 Inside Rating (47%) and 99 Dunk Rating (5%), giving him a FG% around 50-52%, depending on the sim. During gameplay, the low post plays will still put him in position to take shots when in that range (I've tested this part and, even with a 0 Close Shot Tendency, it works.)

However, I don't know if I want to put in the time to test this theory, and if it works, to completely redo all big men. And, if it worked, find all players that would need to be edited, then test the results team by team to see if it worked. I can't tell you how obsessed I've been with getting this right and how many hours I've spent re-editing this entire roster.

I also can't tell you how frustrating it is to get to this point and find out there's an obstacle that can't be overcome when I've figured out virtually every part of the game's sim engine, then applied scales across the league that work for sim stats and gameplay, and have been able to correct the parts of the game that people have said can't be corrected without breaking the gameplay.

I put a request in to Santa for a patch to implement a new scale for Inside Shot Rating. Hopefully, I'm on the Nice List.

[CAN_JE]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

Alright, I need some feedback. From those of you who are checking this thread and using the rosters I'm creating, do you think I should:

A. Keep the ratings how they are, tweak tendencies that haven't been touched yet (play passing lane, contest shot, etc), and continue creating rookies.

Or

B. Change Inside Shot Ratings so players will get a higher FG% and tweak tendencies/create rookies. To get FG% as close to accurate as possible, I'd have to change the Inside Shot Rating to 99 for any player that shoots 60% from that range (nearly every player in the league, 60% is the average scoring rate from that range) and increase Dunk Rating to 99 for players that shoot at least 65% at the basket (a very large portion of the league).

The reason is, 2k's Inside Shot rating scale only ranges from 30% to 60%. To get 50%, you have to have a rating of at least 90, to get 60% you have to have a rating of 99. In real life, the scale ranges from roughly 50% to 75%. I'm not sure how I feel about having that many players in the league with a 99 Inside Shot Rating.

Let me know what you guys think.

for me A. is better ) cause it's weird to see plenty of 99's ratings
maybe you'll find out smth, good luck man )

[CAN_JE]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

i simulated one season and checked team stats. I notice that just few teams scoring 100+ points. And in generally teams has low PPG rate due to lack of shot attempts and slightly low FG% for some teams. Also the best team in terms of AST per game is Dallas 22.8, the worst one - Wizards 16.1. In real life teams make more assists

[youALREADYknow]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

i simulated one season and checked team stats. I notice that just few teams scoring 100+ points. And in generally teams has low PPG rate due to lack of shot attempts and slightly low FG% for some teams. Also the best team in terms of AST per game is Dallas 22.8, the worst one - Wizards 16.1. In real life teams make more assists

slimm already explained why though and that's why he asked if it was OK for a ton of players to have insane Inside and Dunk ratings. FG% is down across the league unless that's done and that leads to fewer PPG and APG for teams. It's a trade-off between sim stats and gameplay.

[CAN_JE]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

slimm already explained why though and that's why he asked if it was OK for a ton of players to have insane Inside and Dunk ratings. FG% is down across the league unless that's done and that leads to fewer PPG and APG for teams. It's a trade-off between sim stats and gameplay.

I got it. Sadly that 2K don't fix it..
Btw, it was easy to increase ast. numbers by changing pass rating for each player. I did it with 3 teams and it worked.

[slimm44]

Re: Realistic Rosters/Sliders/Coaching Tendencies *Complete Overhaul*

i simulated one season and checked team stats. I notice that just few teams scoring 100+ points. And in generally teams has low PPG rate due to lack of shot attempts and slightly low FG% for some teams. Also the best team in terms of AST per game is Dallas 22.8, the worst one - Wizards 16.1. In real life teams make more assists

Last year, Houston led all teams with an average of 23.8 AST/G and the Bucks were last with 18.8. Did you set the MPG for all teams at the beginning of the simulation or did you let the CPU set them?