Player/Team Ratings are up

[bateman11]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

Have some of you guys forgotten that ratings are editable or are you just so lazy that you can't edit them? Yeah, they need some work but if you have a problem with them, go and edit them when you get the game.

Also, about Daniel Gibson, I would say a 67. He had a good post season but anyone who thinks he is a top 20 PG must be biased.

[lebronze james]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

Have some of you guys forgotten that ratings are editable or are you just so lazy that you can't edit them? Yeah, they need some work but if you have a problem with them, go and edit them when you get the game.

If you have a problem with people discussing the ratings, don't click a ratings thread. You should be smarter than that.

[bateman11]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

I don't have a problem with it. But I just get fed up with the bitching, you know what I mean?

[GSW]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

n/m

[DJSebol]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

I'm sorry but why Greg Oden is a top 10 center and why Bynum isn't even on the list???

[DC]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

:y4: I was waitin to see how long it would take someone to say the "Ratings are editable; so stop crying; routine

[DC]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

And why not, especially considering that the man brought in to save Sonics basketball is also the highest rated rookie in the game (78)

Good unlike damn Madden that overrated everyone

[Chi Dynasty12]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

This is ridiculous. Worst ratings that I've ever seen.

How are the Raptors and the Magic each one of the 3 worst teams in the game?

And the Heat are somehow better than the Jazz when Miami was swept in the first round and return with a weaker roster this year?

And the Nets are better than the Bulls, Cavs, AND Celtics? That makes absolutely no sense, ATLEAST 1 of those teams are better than the Nets.

Also, I'm a die-hard Bulls fan, and there's no way that Ben Gordon and Luol Dneg should have the same rating. Deng is much better, and also I love Kirk to death, but he's not better than Deng.

This really just shot my chances down of buying this game. Ridiculous. I could easily have made ratings 100 times better than these. It's not that they're just a little off, these are way off and show no basketball knowledge at all.

[Lynsanity]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

NBA live uses a skill based rating system. They rate each player by individual skills independently of one another. The final tally or overall is not a measure of one player being better than another one as much as it is a reflection of one player being more skilled than another.

When comparing Steve Nash to Gilbert Arenas it is generally agreed that Steve is a better playmaker, but Arenas is a better scorer. Looking at the differences between the two players it is possible to end up with similar scores, but different abilities.

That being said, it is very possible that using the individual attributes within the game that Lebron James is as skillful as Kobe Bryant according the characteristics listed, but not as effective as Bryant within the scope of the game.

Team wise, the game uses the overall roster of the teams without much consideration to the actual makeup of the team's set rotation. The Spurs have talent, but are not as deep as the Dallas Mavericks. Therefore, the Mavericks would be rated higher. The Toronto Raptors are not as deep as the New York Knicks, but most likely will be a better team within the scope of the game due to the actual abilities of the starting line up, and the rotations that the computer uses.

The Boston Celtics have no depth at all, and without the Big Three are little more than a YMCA squad. The role players on that team are most likely rated very low. That would be enough to bring the team down to a 80.

Interestingly enough, the overall numbers of the teams have little to do with the teams final standings at the end of the season. I have found that Balanced teams such as the Spurs and Pistons rise to the top of their respected conferences despite tweaks to some of the other teams.

I turned Injuries and Trades off, and used modified variations of teams to discern how much of a difference could be made with stronger role players and the same stars. The same Role Players and Stronger stars. Stronger Role Players and Stronger Stars.

What I found was that while bringing up the role players made the teams look better overall, it was usually not enough to make a cellar team into a consistent play-off contender. Amping up the Stars without amping up the roleplayers helped the team win more consistently, but a flawed team still would not win as consistently as the balanced team that was not messed with. Amping up everyone to get a team with an overall of 99 was usually enough to get the team to the top of their conference, but usually was not enough to win 70+ games.

[Jano]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

Great post Lynsanity its good to see that teams that have strange overalls are still able to win consistently. This is one thing that concerned me about the overalls of the teams and players.

[CMH]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

NBA live uses a skill based rating system. They rate each player by individual skills independently of one another. The final tally or overall is not a measure of one player being better than another one as much as it is a reflection of one player being more skilled than another.

When comparing Steve Nash to Gilbert Arenas it is generally agreed that Steve is a better playmaker, but Arenas is a better scorer. Looking at the differences between the two players it is possible to end up with similar scores, but different abilities.

That being said, it is very possible that using the individual attributes within the game that Lebron James is as skillful as Kobe Bryant according the characteristics listed, but not as effective as Bryant within the scope of the game.

Team wise, the game uses the overall roster of the teams without much consideration to the actual makeup of the team's set rotation. The Spurs have talent, but are not as deep as the Dallas Mavericks. Therefore, the Mavericks would be rated higher. The Toronto Raptors are not as deep as the New York Knicks, but most likely will be a better team within the scope of the game due to the actual abilities of the starting line up, and the rotations that the computer uses.

The Boston Celtics have no depth at all, and without the Big Three are little more than a YMCA squad. The role players on that team are most likely rated very low. That would be enough to bring the team down to a 80.

Interestingly enough, the overall numbers of the teams have little to do with the teams final standings at the end of the season. I have found that Balanced teams such as the Spurs and Pistons rise to the top of their respected conferences despite tweaks to some of the other teams.

I turned Injuries and Trades off, and used modified variations of teams to discern how much of a difference could be made with stronger role players and the same stars. The same Role Players and Stronger stars. Stronger Role Players and Stronger Stars.

What I found was that while bringing up the role players made the teams look better overall, it was usually not enough to make a cellar team into a consistent play-off contender. Amping up the Stars without amping up the roleplayers helped the team win more consistently, but a flawed team still would not win as consistently as the balanced team that was not messed with. Amping up everyone to get a team with an overall of 99 was usually enough to get the team to the top of their conference, but usually was not enough to win 70+ games.

So I take it back. There is someone who actually gets the Live Rating system. Thank you.

[PlayaHataSupreme]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

So I take it back. There is someone who actually gets the Live Rating system. Thank you.

The main issue now is that how does the game look at the Raptors in Franchise mode.......... with the new system the AI uses to determine what kind of team it has, does it say the Raptors are rebuilding since in the game since they have among the lowest overall? Does it look at other equations and conclude that the Raptors are not rebuilding despite the 69 overall? And if so, why is that equation not placed at the forefront instead of the system they have now?

[Leahmic223]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

What makes me mad is the guy think Timmy is underated. I think 91 is good enough man.

I love these ratings because there isn't 15 players rated over 95.

In fact...two players rated over 95...that is friggin brilliant to me. IMO anythin over a 95 is a player with HOF skills...not saying they are HOF bound but they have the skills to be HOF players. The Two PLayers that are 96 Kobe and Lebron which is fine to me.

Madden screwed upand it screwed up their whole franchise engine because below average players were not 65-75, but rated in the 80s. When I saw Big Ben at 78 or 76, that is good. Because Madden's system would have had him at a 88 or something.

Also he said Chris Paul doesn't deserve to be 4 points about Deron Williams...okay lets get off the playoff hype boat for a second...Chris Paul is EXTREMELY SKILLED and I think had he not been injured the Hornets could have been in the playoffs. I can't remember how long he was out, but it was long enough. CP3 is a beast, in 4 to 6 years I feel he will be the best PG in the league. Not saying Deron Williams is far behind I just feel as though Paul is better.

Like the ratings though, but they mean nothing if the actual gameplay sucks.

[Pared]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

NBA live uses a skill based rating system. They rate each player by individual skills independently of one another. The final tally or overall is not a measure of one player being better than another one as much as it is a reflection of one player being more skilled than another.

When comparing Steve Nash to Gilbert Arenas it is generally agreed that Steve is a better playmaker, but Arenas is a better scorer. Looking at the differences between the two players it is possible to end up with similar scores, but different abilities.

That being said, it is very possible that using the individual attributes within the game that Lebron James is as skillful as Kobe Bryant according the characteristics listed, but not as effective as Bryant within the scope of the game.

Team wise, the game uses the overall roster of the teams without much consideration to the actual makeup of the team's set rotation. The Spurs have talent, but are not as deep as the Dallas Mavericks. Therefore, the Mavericks would be rated higher. The Toronto Raptors are not as deep as the New York Knicks, but most likely will be a better team within the scope of the game due to the actual abilities of the starting line up, and the rotations that the computer uses.

The Boston Celtics have no depth at all, and without the Big Three are little more than a YMCA squad. The role players on that team are most likely rated very low. That would be enough to bring the team down to a 80.

Interestingly enough, the overall numbers of the teams have little to do with the teams final standings at the end of the season. I have found that Balanced teams such as the Spurs and Pistons rise to the top of their respected conferences despite tweaks to some of the other teams.

I turned Injuries and Trades off, and used modified variations of teams to discern how much of a difference could be made with stronger role players and the same stars. The same Role Players and Stronger stars. Stronger Role Players and Stronger Stars.

What I found was that while bringing up the role players made the teams look better overall, it was usually not enough to make a cellar team into a consistent play-off contender. Amping up the Stars without amping up the roleplayers helped the team win more consistently, but a flawed team still would not win as consistently as the balanced team that was not messed with. Amping up everyone to get a team with an overall of 99 was usually enough to get the team to the top of their conference, but usually was not enough to win 70+ games.

Great post.

[Chi Dynasty12]

Re: Player/Team Ratings are up

Ok, you made a really long post defending it and I respect that, but out of all honesty, the roster ratings still suck to me and there is no complicated explanation behind EA's method. It's just that they took no time with the rosters or they don't know basketball as well as they should if they're making an NBA game.

The Raptors are a very skilled team, stacked with guys who can all play from 1 through 15, made the play-offs, and yet they are the 3rd worst team in the NBA? That means that EA thinks the Atlanta Hawks, Minnesota Timberwolves, Portland Trailblazers, Memphis Grizzlies, Seattle Supersonics, AND Philadelphia 76ers have more skilled rosters than the Raptors. Look at their rosters, and look at the teams the Raptors beat last year and please tell me how that makes sense.

Also the Magic, who made it to the play-offs last year, AND added Rashard Lewis are the second worst team in the NBA? EA better stay away from Dwight Howard.