People get way too hung up on overall ratings

[RyanFitzmagic]

It doesn't make sense to say "So and so is too high" or "X should be higher than Y." Overall ratings are not a linear means of determining how good a player is in the game. Badges, teammates, how you use them, position, and a bunch of other things matter.

Just saying. KG was literally a 101 overall one year, but 2004 KG is not the greatest player of all time.

[Trackball]

Quote: Originally Posted by RyanFitzmagic

Just saying. KG was literally a 101 overall one year, but 2004 KG is not the greatest player of all time.

I am now demanding a screencap of this KG's ratings.

[RyanFitzmagic]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trackball

I am now demanding a screencap of this KG's ratings.

I think you had to actually do some advanced stuff (like, look at code or something) to see his "true" overall rating. In the game, he was a 99 since they made it impossible to go higher than that, but if you took off that cap, his ratings equated to a 101.

[gremdog8]

I agree but the only argument I heard out of that whole iggy thread that made sense was that in myleague and mygm the ratings matter when attempting trades at least in past iterations of 2k. I don't know if the trade logic is improved to where teams value those certain players that aren't rated as high as one thinks they should be but are extremely valuable to that teams style/chemistry to where they are hard to trade for but in past 2k this hasn't been the norm. I could trade for almost any player on years past except the few elite players so I get why ratings matter in that perspective but from a game play standpoint as long as the dude has his strengths and weaknesses like real life counterpart I'm good. So to me it's not the ratings that needs to be tweaked as much as the CPU AI when it comes to trading.

[raidertiger]

It shows flaws in the calculation though when it's off by so much. I'd love to hear any argument why Kobe is 8 points higher than Iguodala, because you can bleat "it doesn't matter", but it does, because one of them is vastly underrated or overrated in general attributes, or the whole overall rating scale is completely wrong or does not take into account what it should.

[Sundown]

If OVR is often out of wack, then perhaps that suggests the OVR formula needs to be better tuned-- especially since the AI uses it in some not so minor fashion in various aspects of the game.

Of course OVR doesn't directly correlate with how a player plays with the sticks-- but it impacts many aspects of the game beyond that isolated way of looking at a simulated player.

The fact that OVR DOES matter is why player archetypes were created to properly rate players based on role and value. That was a great move. Discrepancies mean it needs further tuning-- not that we should just throw our hands up and say OVR doesn't matter in a game that directly uses that value for many evaluations.

If KG was a 101 one year, then either something is amiss with his ratings or the OVR formula needs adjustment. The very fact that the devs are scaling everything so that 99 ratings mean GOAT level and the fact that this results in proper relationship of players to their all-time peers, along with the effort to adjust value for roles all indicate they realize this importance, and didn't stop at "OVR doesn't matter".

[barond57]

Its more of a respect thing

[TGsoGood]

Quote: Originally Posted by raidertiger

It shows flaws in the calculation though when it's off by so much. I'd love to hear any argument why Kobe is 8 points higher than Iguodala, because you can bleat "it doesn't matter", but it does, because one of them is vastly underrated or overrated in general attributes, or the whole overall rating scale is completely wrong or does not take into account what it should.

I don't want to justify or discredit current ratings, but people should also consider the fact that the formulas are position based. Kobe is rated as a SG not a SF.

I'm sure Kobe's overall is lowered when his position is changed to SF.