I figured by making a thread for this would raise the awareness for this project...
We are basically making an attempt to make the draft classes from 2001 all the way to 2013 which would give the user the ability to re-write the future of the NBA!
Draft Classes
2001 - Beast10
2002 - Sternz1996 (Faces only, needs help with everything else)
2003 - Zten11
2004 - Green men are beast
2005 -
2006 -
2007 - SvRPS2SFW
2008 -
2009 -
2010 -
2011 -
2012 -
2013 - Tons are out
This is still a developing idea (the draft classes) but the roster itself is a project that is most likely to be finished.
And something I'm wondering about is whether or not I should rate these players by their outcome of their actual current career or what they should have been - such as Kwame Brown living up to the hype of being better than Kevin Garnett.
Once REDitor finally comes out we plan to add the cyberfaces to the players who do have one stored in the game.
Here's the link to the actual roster itself if you haven't viewed it yet - http://www.operationsports.com/forum...nterested.html
And here's the the attribute scale that we plan to use to have all these classes not stand out to the rest - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...yWlI0Nnc#gid=0
So if you're interested just comment the DC you would like to work on and I'll add your name.
Thanks for reading!


KEY NOTES:
Potential is one of the most important parts of this roster and if it's ruined or done incorrectly it could possibly ruin the entire association! Below is a little guide given to us by OS member vtcrb
You can use that as a small helpful reference.
Here is an example from me... If a guy like Kirk Hinrich turns out to be a 70 in your roster don't give him an +70 potential! In this case Hinrich could turn out to be a 85 overall player which is a star/ franchise player. A guy like Hinrich was basically to same kind of player every since he came into the league so it's okay for him to come in high but he shouldn't improve much and in this case should only have a potential rating around 65.
We are basically making an attempt to make the draft classes from 2001 all the way to 2013 which would give the user the ability to re-write the future of the NBA!
Draft Classes
2001 - Beast10
2002 - Sternz1996 (Faces only, needs help with everything else)
2003 - Zten11
2004 - Green men are beast
2005 -
2006 -
2007 - SvRPS2SFW
2008 -
2009 -
2010 -
2011 -
2012 -
2013 - Tons are out
This is still a developing idea (the draft classes) but the roster itself is a project that is most likely to be finished.
And something I'm wondering about is whether or not I should rate these players by their outcome of their actual current career or what they should have been - such as Kwame Brown living up to the hype of being better than Kevin Garnett.
Once REDitor finally comes out we plan to add the cyberfaces to the players who do have one stored in the game.
Here's the link to the actual roster itself if you haven't viewed it yet - http://www.operationsports.com/forum...nterested.html
And here's the the attribute scale that we plan to use to have all these classes not stand out to the rest - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...yWlI0Nnc#gid=0
So if you're interested just comment the DC you would like to work on and I'll add your name.
Thanks for reading!



KEY NOTES:
Potential is one of the most important parts of this roster and if it's ruined or done incorrectly it could possibly ruin the entire association! Below is a little guide given to us by OS member vtcrb
70 Rating, 80 Potential=80-90 Overall
64 Rating, 75 Potential= 75-86 Overall
60 Rating, 62 Potential= 62-64 Overall
64 Rating, 75 Potential= 75-86 Overall
60 Rating, 62 Potential= 62-64 Overall
Here is an example from me... If a guy like Kirk Hinrich turns out to be a 70 in your roster don't give him an +70 potential! In this case Hinrich could turn out to be a 85 overall player which is a star/ franchise player. A guy like Hinrich was basically to same kind of player every since he came into the league so it's okay for him to come in high but he shouldn't improve much and in this case should only have a potential rating around 65.
Comment