who has the better roster update? NLSC or NBALive.org

[mmmchap]

I am currently preparing for my own live league and of course I want to use the current NBa roster. Ihave downloaded both the roster updates of NLSC and NBALive.org but I am confused as to which roster should I use to generate my season.? I want to know which roster is more accourate in terms of player ratings, and other settings for NBA Live 2004

[Jackal]

Ooh boy, this isnt gonna be purty.

[Filip]

NOTE: This is only my opinon and not a fact.

I have to say after downloading Ben's rosterupdate yesterday that I think it's better.
Andrews is also good, but it have hardly no rating updates to the players.
Bens have updated 95% (!) of all the playes, Ben's roster also got cool feat. like old classic teams like the Chicago Bulls '96 (including a Rodman update)

NOTE: This is only my opinon and not a fact.

[The Duke]

i have both, but prefer andrew's.

[Tony]

this has been discussed before... a month ago

Who has the best rosters out right now?
Andrew's NLSC Rosters 16% [ 7 ]
Lotto's Rosters 14% [ 6 ]
Ben's Rosters 69% [ 29 ]
Total Votes : 42

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~nbalive/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11124

And Ben's (nbalive.org, whatever) roster is even better now than it was then...

[Filip]

Hehe, I bet that Andrew with lock this thread up

[oboeguy]

Nets 55 overall? Sorry, nbalive.org, that's way off. Knicks 53 overall? They're bad, but not that bad. I'm sticking with NLCS and the original rosters, end of story for me.

[Millennium]

The teams are rated overall in according to the All-Star and Classic teams in the NBA-Live.org roster updates. If you go through the individual player ratings, they are accurate.

[oboeguy]

Nice try Millenium, but it doesn't really matter, because there's no way the Nets are 55 while Knicks are 53 and Sacramento, good as they are, are 83!

BTW, could you explain more clearly how the rating for a team is done? It's nice to finally know.

[Tony]

might aswell quote myself, since i had the same reply to someone else...

last year (live2003), the ratings scale was 50-99
this year (live2004), the ratings scale is 1-99

this year, the players were, by default, rated way too high - hall of famer types of ratings - which today's players are not.
when the ratings from this year are converted to last year's scale, they're pretty much similar as they were last year. therefore, the ratings in the current rosters are

[David]

To convert from NBA Live 2004 rating to NBA Live 2003 rating you just divide the rating by 2 and add 50. So in the example of the Kings being rated 83 would be about 91 in NBA Live 2003. And the Nets at 55 in NBA Live 2004 equates to about 78 rating in NBA Live 2003... It takes a while to get used to seeing players and teams rated in the 50's after seeing them in the 70's etc in past NBA Lives.. but a 50's rating isn't that bad in NBA Live 2004.. remember you can have ratings down to 10's and 20's... in 2004..

[redz]

i like both updates!

but.. i'm using Andrews roster for my dynasty and Bens rosters for exibition games... the only reason i don't use Ben's update for my dynasty is because players have very high season stats in the 1st season and unrealistic in the second season/or too low... which i hope Ben would fix in his next update!!

[benji]

I don't want to get into any kind of fighting here but I'd like to answer some questions.

oboeguy
Related to the classic teams, the Nets are only a 55. They may have a nice starting lineup, but their bench is horrible. The game calculates the overall out of all 12-15 players so teams with weak benches suffer an overall rating drop. But when you do a season or dynasty this usually evens out because the starters are playing big minutes and so the teams win like they should.

RedZ
I've tried fixing the problem without affecting gameplay since the first version of my roster without much avail. I will continue to try and fix it.

[oboeguy]

Ben, thanks for speaking up. I understand what you're saying about the Nets, though I don't think their bench is as bad as you say. Plus, Mutombo (Knicks) is better than a 40-something. You don't think he's that bad do you?

BTW, for anyone who wants to have both sets of rosters loadable at any time, here's how to do it. I believe Ben's roster patch is only one roster, right? If it's not, you'll see how to extend my technique anyway.

So, start fresh, install the NLSC patch. Load the roster from the 000 slot. SAVE it to another slot. Now you install Ben's roster patch, which will go into the 000 slot, and you will have it all. Don't know if Ben's patch takes more than one slot, but it should be obvious how to extend this method if it does.