Ratings in Live 2004

What do you guys think about the ratings being from 0 to 99?
I think it was easier to "calibrate" the players when the ratings were among 50 and 99.

I like 0-99 better, i dunno why, it just feels better. More of a difference between players i guess.

I've grown used to the 0 to 99 ratings. A while back I said that it would be an unnecessary change, but I like the idea now. As Nick said, it allows for a greater difference between players. It's also easier to edit the ratings in the DBF now. Before you had raw ratings and their respective in-game ratings; now the value in the DBF is equivalent to the rating in the game. It's quicker when you don't have to stop, think and calculate.

Good point.
Another question. Are specific values for each position for attributes as speed, quickness, dribbling, etc?
What I mean is:
PF/C - Speed must be 40-70
PG - 65-99
I know you can give any value but what would fit better for a more realistic play?

Personally I like 50-99 because if the elite players are in the 90's wouldn't the "average" players be 70's?
Also wouldn't the below average players be at least 50's?
That's silly to have people with 30's as overall players, they wouldn't even be in the NBA if that was the case.
Hell what would CBA players be?
10 overall?
LOL.

I agree.
I think it's easier to rate the players in the 50-99 system.

Personally I like 50-99 because if the elite players are in the 90's wouldn't the "average" players be 70's?
Also wouldn't the below average players be at least 50's?

Why is everyone complaining so much...the ratings are the same as they've always been...0-99 is a lot better because it provides a much larger scale to define things in...

New Scale - Old Scale
Superstars: 90 = (90-50)*2 = 80
Near All-Star: 80 = (80-50)*2 = 60
Average players: 70 = (70-50)*2 = 40
Crappy: 60 = (60-50)*2 = 20
Shouldn't be in the league: 50 = (50-50)*2 = 0

it's the same scale EA has used for the last ten years...they just decided to stop multiplying by 2 and adding 50 before displaying it ingame...

So many complaints when a 1-100 scale is a lot more logical than 51-100...which is just stupid...

i like the new rating cuz in last years rating people like Jerry Stackhouse was the same rating as Larry Bird

To this response:
Why is everyone complaining so much...the ratings are the same as they've always been...0-99 is a lot better because it provides a much larger scale to define things in...

New Scale - Old Scale
Superstars: 90 = (90-50)*2 = 80
Near All-Star: 80 = (80-50)*2 = 60
Average players: 70 = (70-50)*2 = 40
Crappy: 60 = (60-50)*2 = 20
Shouldn't be in the league: 50 = (50-50)*2 = 0

it's the same scale EA has used for the last ten years...they just decided to stop multiplying by 2 and adding 50 before displaying it ingame...


My response is:
Number 1 I'm not complaining, I ball on Live regardless but since this is a forum and the question was asked either or, I prefer the 50-99.
First off who in the hell deserves a 31 in stamina that starts in the NBA?
Second why would a player like Lebron James get a 57 in quickness?
And you mentioned to like that?

You're telling me Lebron James is not quicker than power forwards?

LOL.

Also what determines someone getting a 10 in dunking when they really dunk in reality?

These attribues from 0-99 are ridiculous.

Like I said if the best of the best are in the 90's, the average players would have to be in the 70's.
Then overall-wise if All-Stars who start on their respective teams are in the 80's -90's, then what would the 'average" NBA starter deserve?

a 50?

Puhlease.

Number 1 I'm not complaining

First off who in the hell deserves a 31 in stamina that starts in the NBA?
Second why would a player like Lebron James get a 57 in quickness?
And you mentioned to like that?

You're telling me Lebron James is not quicker than power forwards?

LOL.

Also what determines someone getting a 10 in dunking when they really dunk in reality?

These attribues from 0-99 are ridiculous.

Like I said if the best of the best are in the 90's, the average players would have to be in the 70's.
Then overall-wise if All-Stars who start on their respective teams are in the 80's -90's, then what would the 'average" NBA starter deserve?

a 50?

Puhlease.

Hmmmm.

Anyway I prefer the 0-99 rating. At first when I saw the screens and stuff of the ratings I thought I'd go mad. Now I'm used to it.

Plus to everyone thats complaining, it is possible to change the ratings.

Good point.
Another question. Are specific values for each position for attributes as speed, quickness, dribbling, etc?
What I mean is:
PF/C - Speed must be 40-70
PG - 65-99
I know you can give any value but what would fit better for a more realistic play?

It depends on the player, of course, but there are standards. For example, big men usually have Dribbling ratings of 20-25 (and sometimes lower), while strong guards generally have Strength ratings in the 40s.

Second why would a player like Lebron James get a 57 in quickness?
And you mentioned to like that?

You're telling me Lebron James is not quicker than power forwards?

That doesn't have anything to do with the 0-99 rating scale. That has to do with EA's rating of players.

Also what determines someone getting a 10 in dunking when they really dunk in reality.

Did you complain when those same players had 55's in the older Live's? because it's the same rating.

Like I said if the best of the best are in the 90's, the average players would have to be in the 70's.

No. Players aren't that close together. An average player like Pavlovic for the Jazz is not 78% of Tim Duncan, him being 57% of Duncan makes more sense.

Then overall-wise if All-Stars who start on their respective teams are in the 80's -90's, then what would the 'average" NBA starter deserve?

a 50?

Puhlease.

If they're average, on a scale of 0-99 that means 50. There are two-three players in the league today who should crack 90, five-eight who should crack 80, fifteen to twenty over 70, then most of the league should fall between 60 and 40, with the crappy players on the other side with some putrid ones like Trybanski and Stewart falling into the teens.

To compare in Live 2003, this means, 2-3 at 95, 5-8 over 90, 15-20 over 85 the bulk between 80 and 70 with lousy players below 70. So you're complaining about EA doing exactly what they've done for ten years and exactly what you want!!

Ben let's slow this down because you're all over the place.

Let's start again if an elite player is a 90 in overall rating.
The ABOVE-average player would be in the 70's.
The average player would range between 50-60's.
Above-average players and perenial All-Star Players are that close.
Shot attempts, minutes played, and hype are the only thing seperating the majority of NBA players.
They are all for the MOST part former College All-American players or High School prep stars.
Meaning: They have the ability on "average".
Again... on average.

This has nothing to do with 78% of Duncan or 58% of Duncan.
No one is 100 in any rating, so someone receiving their own attributes that reflect their own "strengths" has nothing to do with the man "rated" the highest overall.

For instance since J-Rich of Golden State is the reigning 2-time NBA slam dunk champion gets a 99 in dunking and deservedly so, a man like Keon Clark who dunks regularly with authority should get high 80's at "least".

My point of mentioning a 10 in dunking is:
What the hell is that?
Someone who rarely dunks but can?
Someone without the ability but they just added 10 or whatever toget his overall rating in the right range?

Either way you wouldn't know, you can speculate why, but my point of questioning it is because it's inconsistent.
They give alot of players who dunk regularly in games low dunking ratings in the 50's from games past and it was a problem then to me.
A la Bonzi Wells.


Speaking on this by natural rating, You're telling me Amare Stoudamire deserves only an 84 in dunking?

Oh and I have to add this to my poiint further more.
I know initially I made a typo and didn't addthe "above" average in there.

But again..the mojority of NBA players have the ability they don't have the minutes played.

What is a crappy player?
Who is a crappy player?
Is that a player with low PPG, low minutes, & low stats?
Or is that a player with no ability just a roster spot?

Because it's awfully funny how these average players get in when stars go down for extended periods of time and they put up good numbers.

My point in that is...there's no way to consistently tell who is just an average player skill-wise.

Vlade Divac, Tim Duncan, Gary Payton(now), Scottie Pippen(now), Karl Malone(now), skill-wise have average sttributes but their minds set them apart from alot of players with high "skill" levels.

Oh and I have to add this to my poiint further more.
I know initially I made a typo and didn't addthe "above" average in there.

But again..the mojority of NBA players have the ability they don't have the minutes played.

What is a crappy player?
Who is a crappy player?
Is that a player with low PPG, low minutes, & low stats?
Or is that a player with no ability just a roster spot?

Because it's awfully funny how these average players get in when stars go down for extended periods of time and they put up good numbers.

My point in that is...there's no way to consistently tell who is just an average player skill-wise.

Vlade Divac, Tim Duncan, Gary Payton(now), Scottie Pippen(now), Karl Malone(now), skill-wise have average sttributes but their minds set them apart from alot of players with high "skill" levels.

Seriously man! It is just a game!:shock:

Oh and I have to add this to my poiint further more.
I know initially I made a typo and didn't addthe "above" average in there.

But again..the mojority of NBA players have the ability they don't have the minutes played.

What is a crappy player?
Who is a crappy player?
Is that a player with low PPG, low minutes, & low stats?
Or is that a player with no ability just a roster spot?

Because it's awfully funny how these average players get in when stars go down for extended periods of time and they put up good numbers.

My point in that is...there's no way to consistently tell who is just an average player skill-wise.

Vlade Divac, Tim Duncan, Gary Payton(now), Scottie Pippen(now), Karl Malone(now), skill-wise have average sttributes but their minds set them apart from alot of players with high "skill" levels.

Seriously man! It is just a game!:shock:

Seriously Carmo, I know!
we're just talking within the topic of this thread.

I read everything and just decided the 50-99 system is better. Maybe it's just that I'm used to it, but I really think it's easier to balance the players and get a more accurate view about theirs capabilities.

Oh and I have to add this to my poiint further more.
I know initially I made a typo and didn't addthe "above" average in there.

But again..the mojority of NBA players have the ability they don't have the minutes played.

What is a crappy player?
Who is a crappy player?
Is that a player with low PPG, low minutes, & low stats?
Or is that a player with no ability just a roster spot?

Because it's awfully funny how these average players get in when stars go down for extended periods of time and they put up good numbers.

My point in that is...there's no way to consistently tell who is just an average player skill-wise.

Vlade Divac, Tim Duncan, Gary Payton(now), Scottie Pippen(now), Karl Malone(now), skill-wise have average sttributes but their minds set them apart from alot of players with high "skill" levels.

Seriously man! It is just a game!:shock:

Seriously Carmo, I know!
we're just talking within the topic of this thread.

hehehe

i like them you instead of 25 players with the same rating now theres onlike like 5