The reason why Live's ratings are too "low"

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • yeametal
    Rookie
    • Apr 2003
    • 26

    #16
    Re: The reason why Live's ratings are too "low"

    what the hell does it matter anyways, the best players are rated the highest anyways. its the same damn thing everyone else does, but with lower numbers. the effect is the same. i am tired of everyone whining about this, get a clue, it makes perfect sense, i would rather see only a few players in the 90's anyways. Shows how rare and complete the player is, i would rather see 3 90's in the whole game than 25 90's.

    Comment

    • yeametal
      Rookie
      • Apr 2003
      • 26

      #17
      Re: The reason why Live's ratings are too "low"

      what the hell does it matter anyways, the best players are rated the highest anyways. its the same damn thing everyone else does, but with lower numbers. the effect is the same. i am tired of everyone whining about this, get a clue, it makes perfect sense, i would rather see only a few players in the 90's anyways. Shows how rare and complete the player is, i would rather see 3 90's in the whole game than 25 90's.

      Comment

      • jayp3
        Rookie
        • Sep 2004
        • 11

        #18
        Re: The reason why Live's ratings are too "low"

        you can edit a player's ratings right? that shouldn't be a big deal.. we can make a thread that corrects player ratings.. i can't believe Gary Payton is faster (speed = 80) than Marcus Banks (speed = 70)

        Comment

        • jayp3
          Rookie
          • Sep 2004
          • 11

          #19
          Re: The reason why Live's ratings are too "low"

          you can edit a player's ratings right? that shouldn't be a big deal.. we can make a thread that corrects player ratings.. i can't believe Gary Payton is faster (speed = 80) than Marcus Banks (speed = 70)

          Comment

          Working...