RE: consistancy ratings

[R0WDY's Wisdom]

Am I the only one feeling like this game was made with MO Magic revamped idea. Anyway here my 2cents on the subject how about if a player is capable of having a 14 pt nite or better using that individual EFG% like nogester mentioned, add try adding that with the players FGMperG average & there regular PPG average in there & you should get a nice number for that players streak rating.I can give ya'll a head up that Manu,J,Salmons,Turk,R.Jefferson didnt make the club so to me that labels them between a 40 - 60 streak rating(User Preference)
Beware that good scorers get to the FT line alot more then other so a high PPG is a plus

Also Neon what site are you getting FGMppgPer42 stats from?

[Neon1]

Quote: Originally Posted by R0WDY's Wisdom

Also Neon what site are you getting FGMppgPer42 stats from?

Out of my dome.....

Its easy to do.

Divide the amount of mpg you want (ex: 48.0mpg) by the players actual MPG (lets say its 36.0)


48.0/36.0 = 1.333

that 1.333 number is the number you multiply to whatever stat you interested in seeing.

[Neon1]

2kShare File name:
Neon1 2k10 Roster (v2.21)

Gamertag: Neon1 2k10

Pro 12min sim. Gamespeed may need to be 40. No sliders.




I got burnt out after the Nuggets. Teams after the Nuggets except for the Wizards havent have thier shot succsess ratings nor strength & consistency edited yet, but they are playable.

[Mo_Magic]

Quote: Originally Posted by R0WDY's Wisdom

Am I the only one feeling like this game was made with MO Magic revamped idea. Anyway here my 2cents on the subject how about if a player is capable of having a 14 pt nite or better using that individual EFG% like nogester mentioned, add try adding that with the players FGMperG average & there regular PPG average in there & you should get a nice number for that players streak rating.I can give ya'll a head up that Manu,J,Salmons,Turk,R.Jefferson didnt make the club so to me that labels them between a 40 - 60 streak rating(User Preference) Beware that good scorers get to the FT line alot more then other so a high PPG is a plus Also Neon what site are you getting FGMppgPer42 stats from?

It really wasn't.

Anytime I rerate the rosters with my various methods it always comes out on an EVEN lower scale than my last one(partially because of the lovely lower end I've been given).

For example, Kobe would be a 93, LeBron a 92, Wade probably around 90-92 and everbody scaled down from there. There would be about 20-30 players above an 80, IF THAT.

In my last rosters, Kobe would have been a 90 and the highest rated player, but when you take into account the now larger scale and all the new ratings that affect overall now like the shot off dribble, in traffic, and ALL of the "athlete" ratings, it would actually grade out to be a little lower(for example, the quickness rating makes overall jump a full 3-4 points in itself when maxed, Kobe's is in the 80's).

And that's not to mention that my ratings were all based real life statistics and hardly anyone graded out to a 90 in any rating(where as Dwight Howard is 99-99 rebounding default) because I took the "modern best" statistical season of this era and the last one and used those as my 'ceilings'.

[Mo_Magic]

And as far as the actual ratings go, I would agree with Nog and Rashidi, but have you actually seen that there really isn't a noticeable decline in shot making ability for the big men who roam the paint, Neon?

Because I know that Duncan does the great majority of his work from 5-16 feet out with his jumper and whatnot.

[Neon1]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mo_Magic

And as far as the actual ratings go, I would agree with Nog and Rashidi, but have you actually seen that there really isn't a noticeable decline in shot making ability for the big men who roam the paint, Neon? Because I know that Duncan does the great majority of his work from 5-16 feet out with his jumper and whatnot.

It's nothing major at all. You will notice that every big is no longer making every single hookshot in and around the paint, but its not as noticible with the star bigs. They have good ratings so they still do what they do, just at a more realistic level now.

Perimeter stars are not as predicatable anymore either. They go though stretches. Tim Duncan is fine, hes an 83 he wont have ANY difficulties playing as he should.


I mean Rashidi says theres no way Al Harrington should be an 85, but when you look at his own Knicks ratings it shows him give Al Harrington an 85....so apparently he doesnt even agree with himself. Dont know hom much stock i can put into that opinion.

I mean its nothing new, i would just say that they should actually see if it works for thier own eyes before comdeming other's work.

Im more than confident in what i do. It works.

[Mo_Magic]

Quote: Originally Posted by Neon1

It's nothing major at all. You will notice that every big is no longer making every single hookshot in and around the paint, but its not as noticible with the star bigs. They have good ratings so they still do what they do, just at a more realistic level now. Perimeter stars are not as predicatable anymore either. They go though stretches. Tim Duncan is fine, hes an 83 he wont have ANY difficulties playing as he should. I mean Rashidi says theres no way Al Harrington should be an 85, but when you look at his own Knicks ratings it shows him give Al Harrington an 85....so apparently he doesnt even agree with himself. Dont know hom much stock i can put into that opinion. I mean its nothing new, i would just say that they should actually see if it works for thier own eyes before comdeming other's work. Im more than confident in what i do. It works.

From my understanding, Rashidi really hasn't even tried to go to in-depth with the consistency rating. He hasn't created any sort of formula or anything.

He's not taking offense WITH your rating of Harrington, but the FORMULA FOR your rating of Harrington because an actually revised edit of the rating coupled with the fact that Harrington is a top 15 player in consistency seems out of place as he is anything but consistent in real life.

Make sense?

But if it works like you say it does, then I believe we should definitely test it and give it a shot. A player definitely has a higher likelihood to make easy chip shots from 5 feet in ANY concievable situation multiple times, rather than 16-23 footers in succession, which I think is what you're trying to show with your ratings, right?

[Neon1]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mo_Magic

From my understanding, Rashidi really hasn't even tried to go to in-depth with the consistency rating. He hasn't created any sort of formula or anything. He's not taking offense WITH your rating of Harrington, but the FORMULA FOR your rating of Harrington because an actually revised edit of the rating coupled with the fact that Harrington is a top 15 player in consistency seems out of place as he is anything but consistent in real life. Make sense? But if it works like you say it does, then I believe we should definitely test it and give it a shot. A player definitely has a higher likelihood to make easy chip shots from 5 feet in ANY concievable situation multiple times, rather than 16-23 footers in succession, which I think is what you're trying to show with your ratings, right?

Thats the problem, he and many people do game ratings as if its a ranked list. There is no "Top 10-Top 15" hanging on real life players. That is just opinion made by media and fans. Just because Tim Duncan is a more impactful player than Al Harrington doesnt mean every single skill he has is better.

I mean yeah it all looks good ON PAPER, but its not very effective in-game, results wise. It looks good in a blog, looks good looking over the roster page, but once you fire it up and let it play, you better get out you massive global sliders handbook.

I said it last year, ill say it again till im blue in the face...If you have to load up a million sliders to make your roster work, your actual ratings and or tendencies are not correct. No matter hom perfect it looks.


The consistency rating in-game is affecting the frequency and longevity of the "on fire" shot bar. "Consistency" is just a name they attached to the rating. Forget what you think of when you hear that wod associated with basketball, Just look at what it is doing/causing in-game.

In terms of what this rating causes in-game, his rating is one more for perimeter players then under the basket power guys. Everyone is at least 75% percent consistent wheb you talking layups, ive never heard "wow can he get a heat check....thats 4 layups in a row"


Download it let it play, then form an informed opinion, is all i ask.