I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

[billiethetree]

I started playing MyTeam in 2k13 and I loved the idea of playing cross generational fantasy teams, almost as if to end those arguments of who was better or which era was better. Now, in an effort to spice things up and try to get users to have more variety in teams, 2k has thrown the baby out with the bath water and given a lot of historical players completely non sensical ratings. And the dynamic duos just exasperate this even more.

Case in point, the Shaq-Penny duo. The idea of duos in theory sounds fun, but the application has been horrid. Yeah, maybe Magic Shaq played better with Penny, but why buff his FT to 85?? Why would Penny have an effect on his FT %? I realize this is a fantasy mode for fun, but this is totally immersion breaking. I want to play 95 Shaq vs other historic centers, but what's the point of playing with historic players if their ratings are completely nonsensical? It's not Shaq, just some random center with random stats. If you wanna buff shaq up to his greatest level of all time well ok, but he still wasn't shooting %70 from the line. I've yet to see a player in MTO miss a FT with the Diamond Shaq and his duo.

This goes across the board, especially with 3 PT buffs given to historic players who never would have shot a 3. You wanna make Pistol Pete, Rick Barry, or Jerry West 3 point threats? Okay I'll buy that, but Jerry Lucas? They may as well have just made up random players for all of the historical accuracy this mode provides. I would be ok if some of these things just made players overpowered, that's almost to be expected. But it's as if 2k put absolutely no thought (shocker) into any of these ratings and boosts and just did them at random.

[shamiers]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

I started playing MyTeam in 2k13 and I loved the idea of playing cross generational fantasy teams, almost as if to end those arguments of who was better or which era was better. Now, in an effort to spice things up and try to get users to have more variety in teams, 2k has thrown the baby out with the bath water and given a lot of historical players completely non sensical ratings. And the dynamic duos just exasperate this even more.

Case in point, the Shaq-Penny duo. The idea of duos in theory sounds fun, but the application has been horrid. Yeah, maybe Magic Shaq played better with Penny, but why buff his FT to 85?? Why would Penny have an effect on his FT %? I realize this is a fantasy mode for fun, but this is totally immersion breaking. I want to play 95 Shaq vs other historic centers, but what's the point of playing with historic players if their ratings are completely nonsensical? It's not Shaq, just some random center with random stats. If you wanna buff shaq up to his greatest level of all time well ok, but he still wasn't shooting %70 from the line. I've yet to see a player in MTO miss a FT with the Diamond Shaq and his duo.

This goes across the board, especially with 3 PT buffs given to historic players who never would have shot a 3. You wanna make Pistol Pete, Rick Barry, or Jerry West 3 point threats? Okay I'll buy that, but Jerry Lucas? They may as well have just made up random players for all of the historical accuracy this mode provides. I would be ok if some of these things just made players overpowered, that's almost to be expected. But it's as if 2k put absolutely no thought (shocker) into any of these ratings and boosts and just did them at random.

I can understand on the shaq point, but lucas had range, along with west and pete. The only ratings I think are bad is the 7'4 plus players bol,bradley,gheorge they were putrid in real life but for some reason have good shot contest ratings and what not

[harryl]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

They give the shooting range to guys that make sense. But they buff past point that can be justified.

But it makes the historic guys more relevant/playable. Out of all things that 2K does, this I'm more ir less okay with.

[Mweemwee]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

It always annoys me how guys like Shaq and Ben Wallace shoot 100% from the FT line every game even without DD influence.

It also annoys me how guys like Michael Cooper, Clyde Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, Robert Pack and Michael Jordan splash 3s easily every game, usually out shooting people actually known for being great shooters.

[billiethetree]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

Maybe Jerry Lucas isn't the MOST egregious example as he was something of a shooter, but his open 3 PT rating is an 88 compared to Ruby Dirk which is an 86. Cmon man, Jerry could hit a jumper but now he's better than the best shooting big man of all time?

How about Diamond Sabonis? He has an 80 open 3 rating, and seems to shoot at an even higher clip than that. He made .3 threes a game on .328 shooting for his career. This kind of stuff just takes this mode into NBA Jam or NBA Street territory.

[kabamaru]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

Generally 3 pt shooting has been really generous this year in ratings but with historic they went over the top. Raptors Bosh, hawks Dominique, David Thompson. Absurd

[harryl]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

If you want things to be realistic and true-to-statistics, then it's going to be frustrating.

I suggest that you try to accept that it's ultimately a game and 2K will try to balance out players in a way that's akin to how a game developer will try to balance out characters in a fighting game like Street Fighter or an FPS like Overwatch.

So, yeah, Sabonis probably doesn't deserve an 80 Open 3, but the reality is that, 2K is trying to have him have a place amongst Diamond Centers. Trying to make it so that any of them are compelling choices, but one's choice depends on one's own style of play.

It's not realistic, but if you embrace the idea that it's better for the game to have balance and not have very clear, uniform Best Players within any bracket, then you'll find this all a lot less frustrating.

[Foldzy]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

David Robinson is shooting like 65% from 3 for me...

[AsYouSwish]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

It's tough to take historical ratings and make them into ratings that apply to today's game. So much has changed since then. Players are faster and stronger now (just due to advances in supplements, training, etc.). Before 1980 there wasn't even a 3 point line and it took until the 90s for teams to start shooting at a roughly-the-same-as-today clip and even longer before they could do it in volume.

So as 2k, how do you translate players from a different era into today's era? Nobody before 1980 shot 3 pointers since it didn't exist so do you give everyone low ratings? If a guy was known as a shooter from that era do you just fudge the rating a little bit as if he played in a 3 point era and had a chance to practice/focus on them? Or do you literally watch film for shots taken from more than 23 feet (which they probably didn't practice much because it was inefficient and only counted for 2 points anyway) and rate them based on that. Do you give all the current guys bad rebounding stats because Russell, Pettit, Lucas, etc. all averaged more than 20 a game for multiple seasons?

It's hard to compare players across eras so I think 2k is just trying to normalize everyone to the current era. Yeah, sometimes it makes for some exaggerated rankings but it's better than taking the literal approach with each rating.

(Dynamic Duos is a different story and I think those are more video game mechanics than trying to do ratings at all)

[TheHennessyWilliams]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

im with you. i use my rewards kenny anderson as an example. his dunk rating is absurd. and anyone who watched kenny anderson knows he couldn't jam like that. im going to post a highlight video soon of my overpowered kenny anderson lol

[2kplayer099]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

It isn't just historic players but I accepted all of this stuff a long time ago. Like my Curry gets multiple dunks a game(using the button). I know he dunks in real life at times but not as often as here.

[SLC_46]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

Curry dunking is the most cringe worthy moment in the game and the fact he goes up with two hands? Man... I've only ever seen him get one hand above the rim. He goes for the dunk too much his tendency is completely wack. JKidd use to throw down the odd alley oop in the 90s but I can't get him to ever dunk?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[knick9]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

2k used to be accurate but $$$microtransactions$$$ ruined it.

[Erithtotl]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

If you want things to be realistic and true-to-statistics, then it's going to be frustrating.

I suggest that you try to accept that it's ultimately a game and 2K will try to balance out players in a way that's akin to how a game developer will try to balance out characters in a fighting game like Street Fighter or an FPS like Overwatch.

So, yeah, Sabonis probably doesn't deserve an 80 Open 3, but the reality is that, 2K is trying to have him have a place amongst Diamond Centers. Trying to make it so that any of them are compelling choices, but one's choice depends on one's own style of play.

It's not realistic, but if you embrace the idea that it's better for the game to have balance and not have very clear, uniform Best Players within any bracket, then you'll find this all a lot less frustrating.

But by making players awesome at everything I think it hurts choices. Everyone starts to feel same-y. You aren't having to decide whether to risk leaving Shaq in late in the game for example. I see Richard Hamilton everywhere, because a career %34 3-point shooter has an 86 rating. He was famous for largely ignoring 3s and shooting 2s, and when he started shooting more 3s, his percentage got worse.

The super-tall centers are the worst by far. Its not like there aren't lots of great players to choose from, so why make some historically awful ones great? It'd be easy enough to give Bol a 10 speed and strength to make up for his height.

Part of the problem might also be that in myteam, I think they need to go with a completely different rating scale. Bad players should have ratings in the 10s and 20s, and that way it gives them room to go up, rather than starting everyone in the 60s, meaning there's minimal room for variation at the top of the player pyramid.

[Erithtotl]

Re: I wish 2k at least tried to make historic ratings realistic

I almost forgot, one of my least favorites, Steve Francis!

He was never really that good. At best he was a poor man's Kevin Johnson. He was flashy and athletic, but his career shooting line was .429/.341/.797. He averaged 6 assists and 3.5 turnovers! He was a good rebounder for a PG but really, he was at his peak a 'good' NBA player, not a world beater like his NBA 2K card. A similar level award, Shawn Marion, was a really, really good NBA player in his prime. WAAAY more valuable than Francis.