What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

[qwerty521]

Is it only me or are the stats for mid-range jumper and three-ball hugely downgraded on every player on the current roster? For example LeBron has a 72 mid and 72 three, Harden a 76. And it happened with literally every player. What has 2k done?

[BoxyCougar]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

They probably did this to counter the better shot success rate.

[Shady Mike]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

Yo, are yall seeing this!? They like downgraded the entire league! Go check your roster! Glad I use a custom roster lol because this is crazy!

[qwerty521]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

They probably did this to counter the better shot success rate.

That's just completely stupid, they should rather put out another patch that removes the changes on shots from the last one. LeBron doesn't hit any threes anymore if he's not wide open and you get a perfect release. And comparing the historic teams now to the current roster the historic players are now way better on jumpers.

[thedream2k13]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

It counters the easy shooting .easier to do this than another patch

[Yuss]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

Daryl Morey is smiling. Now you have to score in the paint or shoot a 3.

But seriously, I am checking the ratings now, and it appears the top tier three point shooters are in the high 80s now (Curry SST 89/ MST 89 Korver SST 89 MST 86)

The top mid-range shooters are in the lows 80s range now (Curry 82 SSM/ 83 MSM Irving 80 SSM/83 MSM)

[Rockie_Fresh88]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

It counters the easier shooting

Bad news it doesn't help us at the rec lmaoo come on 2k

[thedream2k13]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

Daryl Morey is smiling. Now you have to score in the paint or shoot a 3.

But seriously, I am checking the ratings now, and it appears the top tier three point shooters are in the high 80s now (Curry SST 89/ MST 89 Korver SST 89 MST 86)

The top mid-range shooters are in the lows 80s range now (Curry 82 SSM/ 83 MSM Irving 80 SSM/83 MSM)

It should have been like this from beginning. Their new ratings system inflated individual ratings

[ksuttonjr76]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

It's a welcomed change. Damn shame the first person that I played got 16 offensive rebounds on me while I was one and done...it gave him way too many chances to shoot 3's. SMH. Otherwise, I forced 10 turnovers to my 4 and shot slightly above 40% myself. Changing the ratings was definitely a step in the right direction for online ranked games.

I wonder what they're going to do for the park and rec players?

[steelers99_58_36]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

Haha! What half-assery. Instead of fixing the problem at the source they just say screw it and insert a hot fix. A hot fix that won't work for any game mode other than online quick match.

These are probably the way the ratings should be over these inflated ratings that 2K puts out but this does nothing for any other game modes.

[Real2KInsider]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

Haha! What half-assery. Instead of fixing the problem at the source they just say screw it and insert a hot fix. A hot fix that won't work for any game mode other than online quick match.

These are probably the way the ratings should be over these inflated ratings that 2K puts out but this does nothing for any other game modes.

There is a patch process and as a 3rd party developer they can't upload them immediately, which means a "hot fix" is desirable in this instance. A lot of people have been complaining about the Patch 4 gameplay.

[LionsFanNJ]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

Ah no matter what they do. People will complain. Good to see.

[stillfeelme]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

Haha! What half-assery. Instead of fixing the problem at the source they just say screw it and insert a hot fix. A hot fix that won't work for any game mode other than online quick match.

These are probably the way the ratings should be over these inflated ratings that 2K puts out but this does nothing for any other game modes.

I really have no problem with this. This is the quickest change that they could do to bring the numbers back to reality. They saw those high shooting %'s and knew they had to do something. This is a short term fix, so maybe they have a long term fix.

[Real2KInsider]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

It should have been like this from beginning. Their new ratings system inflated individual ratings

There is a 25-99 scale but there is nothing saying the full scale has to be used for each attribute. The Inside rating was hard-coded 60-99 and Close shot rating 50-99 even after they made the 25-99 scale adjustment a few years back (they took this hard-coded restriction away in next-gen, but the scales still apply).

I believe that 2K is in the process of re-evaluating each attribute. Certain ratings "break" when they get too high or low. An obvious example of this would be STAMINA. Players under 70 Stamina are completely unusable due to the game's fatigue rate, thus players get nowhere near the minimum 25 rating, even though there is no hard-coded restriction.

I noticed a couple years back that few players have steal ratings lower than 50. Yet rarely is there a 99 steal. Most players fall within a 55-95 range (at least among non-rookies).

The same cannot be said for Block rating where the rating is much wider in range (Utah for example: Gobert 99, Evans 98, Favors 94, Cotton 29, Burke 28). They are clearly using the full scale.

It may well be that these are the new shooting scales moving forward. Shot ratings have been high for a number of years, I mean lets face it, if the majority of the league has 80-90 rating then there will be balance issues with shooting regardless of a meter. The rating factors towards a player's ability to hit "green" on the meter, and to be quite honest it is perfectly appropriate for them to adjust shooting scales rather than throw away a mechanic that very well be perfect when the numbers are properly tuned.

Ratings are fluid and meant to be changed. They are how we perceive the skills of players, which affects how we interpret and play the game. Everyone now needs to adjust and people generally resist change, especially that which they do not understand. Much like when the game updated speed/quickness across the board earlier in the year, though this will be felt to a larger degree given that shooting is such an intricate part of the game.

As far as off-court consequences of the change, I would guess that OVR ratings are messed up now for any season mode. The attribute weight will need to be re-balanced for 2K16 if this scale is kept, which is made clear here:

Overall Rating Average
PG: 78
SG: 76
SF: 75
PF: 80
C: 79

Big men have never had more value in NBA 2K than they do now. OVR affects lineups, trade logic, free agency, etc. The fact that there's a new shot meter does not get factored into any of that.

[Real2KInsider]

Re: What happened to mid-range and three ball ratings?

I would like to add that this year is easily the least I have ever played an NBA 2K game, and a big reason why is the gameplay seems to drastically change on a month-to-month basis. Honestly, rating changes like this count as mini-patches. We are really up to Patch 6 after 6 months of release.

As a gamer, I am not interested in re-learning the fundamentals of gameplay every 30 days. I genuinely feel like a beta-tester with a $65 "season-pass". I can't think of another title in any genre over the past 20 years that has done this; certainly not one I have played.

I understand better than most that sports games operate on a different development cycle than other genres, however that doesn't mean I need to propagate it. Here's hoping the stumbles of 2K15 lead to a much more consistent experience in 2K16... otherwise I may not be long for it.