For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

[CMH]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

When the players play well out of the box (with the exception of sliders) people are going to realize that the rating system is fine.

Maybe some players shouldn't be lower in 3pt field goal rating than another player, but the truth is that everything is arguable. I could argue that Walker deserves to have a better 3pt rating than Dirk (I won't because in my opinion that would be silly, but I bet someone else could...and I might anyway if someone wants to challenge it just for the hell of it).

Anyway, we already know that one rating can be affected by other ratings. Perhaps the reason why one player is rated higher in 3pt field goals is because their other ratings make sure that their field goal percentage will still end up lower than another player with a lower 3pt rating.

But, I see people saying that they are going to bump ratings by 10+ points. I find it laughable. For some reason people still can't grasp the fact that 50-99 isn't 1-99. I still see the argument (especially on the IGN Boards) that a player with a rating below 50 doesn't belong in the NBA.

On a 50-99 ratings, yes. On a 1-99 ratings, no. I mean, why is it so hard to grasp that there are 50 extra points to play with? I don't understand why people make something so simple so complicated.

[Graphik]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

On a 50-99 ratings, yes. On a 1-99 ratings, no. I mean, why is it so hard to grasp that there are 50 extra points to play with? I don't understand why people make something so simple so complicated.

I cant ethier.

Good points BTW. I think one rating does in fact affect another rating. Such as aggressivness or Offensive awarness. I'm pretty sure those ratings boost other ratings like 3 Point and speed. Like a hidden multiplyer.

[Graphik]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

On a 50-99 ratings, yes. On a 1-99 ratings, no. I mean, why is it so hard to grasp that there are 50 extra points to play with? I don't understand why people make something so simple so complicated.

I cant ethier.

Good points BTW. I think one rating does in fact affect another rating. Such as aggressivness or Offensive awarness. I'm pretty sure those ratings boost other ratings like 3 Point and speed. Like a hidden multiplyer.

[Pared]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

When the players play well out of the box (with the exception of sliders) people are going to realize that the rating system is fine.

Maybe some players shouldn't be lower in 3pt field goal rating than another player, but the truth is that everything is arguable. I could argue that Walker deserves to have a better 3pt rating than Dirk (I won't because in my opinion that would be silly, but I bet someone else could...and I might anyway if someone wants to challenge it just for the hell of it).

Anyway, we already know that one rating can be affected by other ratings. Perhaps the reason why one player is rated higher in 3pt field goals is because their other ratings make sure that their field goal percentage will still end up lower than another player with a lower 3pt rating.

But, I see people saying that they are going to bump ratings by 10+ points. I find it laughable. For some reason people still can't grasp the fact that 50-99 isn't 1-99. I still see the argument (especially on the IGN Boards) that a player with a rating below 50 doesn't belong in the NBA.

On a 50-99 ratings, yes. On a 1-99 ratings, no. I mean, why is it so hard to grasp that there are 50 extra points to play with? I don't understand why people make something so simple so complicated.

[Pared]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

When the players play well out of the box (with the exception of sliders) people are going to realize that the rating system is fine.

Maybe some players shouldn't be lower in 3pt field goal rating than another player, but the truth is that everything is arguable. I could argue that Walker deserves to have a better 3pt rating than Dirk (I won't because in my opinion that would be silly, but I bet someone else could...and I might anyway if someone wants to challenge it just for the hell of it).

Anyway, we already know that one rating can be affected by other ratings. Perhaps the reason why one player is rated higher in 3pt field goals is because their other ratings make sure that their field goal percentage will still end up lower than another player with a lower 3pt rating.

But, I see people saying that they are going to bump ratings by 10+ points. I find it laughable. For some reason people still can't grasp the fact that 50-99 isn't 1-99. I still see the argument (especially on the IGN Boards) that a player with a rating below 50 doesn't belong in the NBA.

On a 50-99 ratings, yes. On a 1-99 ratings, no. I mean, why is it so hard to grasp that there are 50 extra points to play with? I don't understand why people make something so simple so complicated.

[Ofizzle]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

When the players play well out of the box (with the exception of sliders) people are going to realize that the rating system is fine.

Maybe some players shouldn't be lower in 3pt field goal rating than another player, but the truth is that everything is arguable. I could argue that Walker deserves to have a better 3pt rating than Dirk (I won't because in my opinion that would be silly, but I bet someone else could...and I might anyway if someone wants to challenge it just for the hell of it).

Anyway, we already know that one rating can be affected by other ratings. Perhaps the reason why one player is rated higher in 3pt field goals is because their other ratings make sure that their field goal percentage will still end up lower than another player with a lower 3pt rating.

But, I see people saying that they are going to bump ratings by 10+ points. I find it laughable. For some reason people still can't grasp the fact that 50-99 isn't 1-99. I still see the argument (especially on the IGN Boards) that a player with a rating below 50 doesn't belong in the NBA.

On a 50-99 ratings, yes. On a 1-99 ratings, no. I mean, why is it so hard to grasp that there are 50 extra points to play with? I don't understand why people make something so simple so complicated.

You see I'm not interested in overall ratings at all, but things like speed, quickness, FT% [Devin Harris got a 67 FT rating ], they seem to deliberately screw up these things.

Josh Childress was faster and quicker than Deng, JR Smith, Gordon, Harris, etc, and he was the slowest out of all those mentioned at the combine. People already knew he wasn't that quick, yet they gave him a 75 speed, and an 80 quickness rating, common.

JR Smith had 64's in both, Gordon and Harris were in the 60's, and Deng's was about right, but shouldn't have been lower than CHildress. If you're telling me it's fine to have these things then I don't know.

Last year I edited every player, and when I simulated the stats were just like real life on every category, maybe off by 0.5 or 1 or 2 points in something like PPG, but compared to what EA had, my edits killed the originals, and you could fel it when playing too. So if someone this year it's going to screw up the sim engine, then they must not want people to edit ratings.

[Ofizzle]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

When the players play well out of the box (with the exception of sliders) people are going to realize that the rating system is fine.

Maybe some players shouldn't be lower in 3pt field goal rating than another player, but the truth is that everything is arguable. I could argue that Walker deserves to have a better 3pt rating than Dirk (I won't because in my opinion that would be silly, but I bet someone else could...and I might anyway if someone wants to challenge it just for the hell of it).

Anyway, we already know that one rating can be affected by other ratings. Perhaps the reason why one player is rated higher in 3pt field goals is because their other ratings make sure that their field goal percentage will still end up lower than another player with a lower 3pt rating.

But, I see people saying that they are going to bump ratings by 10+ points. I find it laughable. For some reason people still can't grasp the fact that 50-99 isn't 1-99. I still see the argument (especially on the IGN Boards) that a player with a rating below 50 doesn't belong in the NBA.

On a 50-99 ratings, yes. On a 1-99 ratings, no. I mean, why is it so hard to grasp that there are 50 extra points to play with? I don't understand why people make something so simple so complicated.

You see I'm not interested in overall ratings at all, but things like speed, quickness, FT% [Devin Harris got a 67 FT rating ], they seem to deliberately screw up these things.

Josh Childress was faster and quicker than Deng, JR Smith, Gordon, Harris, etc, and he was the slowest out of all those mentioned at the combine. People already knew he wasn't that quick, yet they gave him a 75 speed, and an 80 quickness rating, common.

JR Smith had 64's in both, Gordon and Harris were in the 60's, and Deng's was about right, but shouldn't have been lower than CHildress. If you're telling me it's fine to have these things then I don't know.

Last year I edited every player, and when I simulated the stats were just like real life on every category, maybe off by 0.5 or 1 or 2 points in something like PPG, but compared to what EA had, my edits killed the originals, and you could fel it when playing too. So if someone this year it's going to screw up the sim engine, then they must not want people to edit ratings.

[jdawgkemp]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

All I know is Ben Gordon is amazingly slow on the ratings, I'll definately be changing that.

[jdawgkemp]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

All I know is Ben Gordon is amazingly slow on the ratings, I'll definately be changing that.

[CMH]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

Well, speed is still a guess.

And, perhaps these ratings were made before the draft scouting.

I'm not saying that all the ratings are right. The only thing I find confusing is when people say that a guy is a 70 in field goals and should be an 80 because he's a great shooter. When you compare everyone's field goal ratings, it's easy to see that all the good shooters have field goal ratings in the 80's. So, a 70 isn't bad.

I still feel that some people are looking at 70 as the same 70 in a 50-99 system. It's not the same. A 70 in the 1-99 rating is like an 85 or so in the 50-99 old system.

I just don't get the, "the ratings are toooo low!!!" argument. They aren't low compared to their rating system. They are low in terms of numbers, but not low in terms of how the system is being used.

[CMH]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

Well, speed is still a guess.

And, perhaps these ratings were made before the draft scouting.

I'm not saying that all the ratings are right. The only thing I find confusing is when people say that a guy is a 70 in field goals and should be an 80 because he's a great shooter. When you compare everyone's field goal ratings, it's easy to see that all the good shooters have field goal ratings in the 80's. So, a 70 isn't bad.

I still feel that some people are looking at 70 as the same 70 in a 50-99 system. It's not the same. A 70 in the 1-99 rating is like an 85 or so in the 50-99 old system.

I just don't get the, "the ratings are toooo low!!!" argument. They aren't low compared to their rating system. They are low in terms of numbers, but not low in terms of how the system is being used.

[SonicMage]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

thanks for proving my point, the guy never said anything about previous season stats. THe fact that you cant prove a lot of them shows that they didnt rate people the way they said they did.

When I said "Just not all of them", I meant that there are ratings that are not based off previous stats and there are some ratings that I'm sure are based off stats but I havent figured out yet how. FG, 3PT, FT, and Inside Scoring are connected somehow to determine scoring but I have yet to find out how. I took some advanced statistics courses in college and I have been in the middle of doing some regression analysis on the data with some professional software that I have, but I am still investigating.

There are some ratings that I do know for sure are based off stats and those are the ones I can prove. The easiest one to visually see is the FT rating. Just look at the player's FT percentage from the previous season and youll see that the rating is the same. If the player had 79.4% FT in 2003-2004 season, then his FT rating in NBA Live 2005 will be 79. That is just an example. The others I know are the rebounding ratings, assists, steals, blocks, and fatigue. I am positive that these ratings are correct as intended in Live 2005 for everybody who isnt a rookie and who played more than 300 minutes in the 2003-2004 NBA season. There may be some slight adjustment that needs to be made because of playoff performance, also.

[SonicMage]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

thanks for proving my point, the guy never said anything about previous season stats. THe fact that you cant prove a lot of them shows that they didnt rate people the way they said they did.

When I said "Just not all of them", I meant that there are ratings that are not based off previous stats and there are some ratings that I'm sure are based off stats but I havent figured out yet how. FG, 3PT, FT, and Inside Scoring are connected somehow to determine scoring but I have yet to find out how. I took some advanced statistics courses in college and I have been in the middle of doing some regression analysis on the data with some professional software that I have, but I am still investigating.

There are some ratings that I do know for sure are based off stats and those are the ones I can prove. The easiest one to visually see is the FT rating. Just look at the player's FT percentage from the previous season and youll see that the rating is the same. If the player had 79.4% FT in 2003-2004 season, then his FT rating in NBA Live 2005 will be 79. That is just an example. The others I know are the rebounding ratings, assists, steals, blocks, and fatigue. I am positive that these ratings are correct as intended in Live 2005 for everybody who isnt a rookie and who played more than 300 minutes in the 2003-2004 NBA season. There may be some slight adjustment that needs to be made because of playoff performance, also.

[bamalam]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

Well, speed is still a guess.

And, perhaps these ratings were made before the draft scouting.

I'm not saying that all the ratings are right. The only thing I find confusing is when people say that a guy is a 70 in field goals and should be an 80 because he's a great shooter. When you compare everyone's field goal ratings, it's easy to see that all the good shooters have field goal ratings in the 80's. So, a 70 isn't bad.

I still feel that some people are looking at 70 as the same 70 in a 50-99 system. It's not the same. A 70 in the 1-99 rating is like an 85 or so in the 50-99 old system.

I just don't get the, "the ratings are toooo low!!!" argument. They aren't low compared to their rating system. They are low in terms of numbers, but not low in terms of how the system is being used.

i agree. starting at 100, both scales are the same. but work down and you will see the equivalent ratings:

old=new

100=100
99=98
98=96
97=94
96=92
95=90
94=88
93=86
92=84
91=82
90=80

this works out to 85 old = 70 new. same rating!
eventually, 50=0.

[bamalam]

Re: For those who are going to change ratings immediately...

Well, speed is still a guess.

And, perhaps these ratings were made before the draft scouting.

I'm not saying that all the ratings are right. The only thing I find confusing is when people say that a guy is a 70 in field goals and should be an 80 because he's a great shooter. When you compare everyone's field goal ratings, it's easy to see that all the good shooters have field goal ratings in the 80's. So, a 70 isn't bad.

I still feel that some people are looking at 70 as the same 70 in a 50-99 system. It's not the same. A 70 in the 1-99 rating is like an 85 or so in the 50-99 old system.

I just don't get the, "the ratings are toooo low!!!" argument. They aren't low compared to their rating system. They are low in terms of numbers, but not low in terms of how the system is being used.

i agree. starting at 100, both scales are the same. but work down and you will see the equivalent ratings:

old=new

100=100
99=98
98=96
97=94
96=92
95=90
94=88
93=86
92=84
91=82
90=80

this works out to 85 old = 70 new. same rating!
eventually, 50=0.