Sat May 24, 2003 7:25 pm
The players still seem like numbers on paper... I'd really like to have some personality beihind the games. I'd really like to see extremely difficult guys to handle like Isiah Rider or Dennis Rodman to be like they really are. In games they play well and the players have always played like they play (sort of) and it is good already. But real players have real problems and some of those should be implemented to bring the players to life.
Yeah, it would be nice to see players go through slumps, not always play their best, and be satisfied/disatisfied with things. That might be another case of "one step at a time" though, when getting that level of realism. Never hurts to talk about the possibilities though.
Crowd counts aren't in NBA Live 2003. I think you put it best - there's a limit on the amount of realism we want in the management aspect. After all, the role we play has always been roster management based, and hopefully that's how it stays - putting the team together, dealing with the salary cap and other teams, but not scrambling to make money or fill the arena. Too much would distract from actually playing the games.
Similarly, I hope there isn't too much detail in the presentation. I mean, I can do without a cutscene of my players taking off and landing in the team's private jet, or arriving at the arena looking either tired or refreshed. Sometimes, too much detail can be a bad thing - just too distracting.
Sat May 24, 2003 9:09 pm
Andrew wrote:Crowd counts aren't in NBA Live 2003. I think you put it best - there's a limit on the amount of realism we want in the management aspect. After all, the role we play has always been roster management based, and hopefully that's how it stays - putting the team together, dealing with the salary cap and other teams, but not scrambling to make money or fill the arena. Too much would distract from actually playing the games.
Maybe this could have more effect in the long run... Maybe some basic monetary amount be updated each post season, which would feel the effects of an amazing season and a poor one.
Similarly, I hope there isn't too much detail in the presentation. I mean, I can do without a cutscene of my players taking off and landing in the team's private jet, or arriving at the arena looking either tired or refreshed. Sometimes, too much detail can be a bad thing - just too distracting.
Too many cut scenes are never good... But EA's have always had a good eye for graphics and presentation. I don't think we need to worry about this... Maybe a cut scene when buying the jet??? Or something like that, but nothing that repeats over and over again.
Sun May 25, 2003 4:57 am
And we all know how EA's cut scenes never seem to repeat over and over again.Metsis wrote: Maybe a cut scene when buying the jet??? Or something like that, but nothing that repeats over and over again.
Sun May 25, 2003 8:06 am
Andrew wrote:Yeah, it would be nice to see players go through slumps, not always play their best, and be satisfied/disatisfied with things.
I can't specifically remember but there's this basketball game that i've played that shows the starters of the team and also shows their condition entering that game (good, great, etc.), i'm not really sure but it's probably nba shootout or espn nba 2nite (which has tmac in the cover).
size
Tue Jun 03, 2003 11:41 pm
Some good ideas there. I would also like to see size influence a persons game more. For e.g. if a young rookie comes up in the draft listed at Center, but is say, 6"9 225lbs, that should influence his game and make him less effective at the position. Live always seems to love generating undersized rookies. Most rookie SG's generated are 6"4, PG's under 6"0, SF's aroud 6"6 or 6"6, PF's 6"7-6"8, C's 6"9, etc.
If a PG in live has the right skills to be a C, then generally putting him there and changing his natural position will make him an effective C. In reality, anyone under 6"8 is not going to be very effective at all in the NBA at center, regardless of their skills, and thus should disadvantage the team when started at C in simulated games. A big reason for Tim Duncan's success is that he plays PF at 7"0' 260lbs, and is too big for anyone else at that position to handle. T-mac, KG, Shaq and penny (when he played PG) are other players who have been successful strongly based on their size and physical abilities. If you want to do well in live with generated players over franchise mode, (at least if you simulate all the games) all you need to go by are statistical type skills such as FG, 3PT, FT, rebounding, blocking, stealing, passing, etc. size, athleticism, endurance etc have very little if any impact.
Would shaq be shaq if he was only 250lbs?
Also, id like to see offensive and defensive awareness play a bigger part in the game. Players with low offensive awarenesses should get alot more turnovers then those with high ratings, should be easier to steal the ball off/block, etc, and more likely to make bad decisions (if they are CPU controlled). Teams with alot of players with low ratings here should have high turnover ratings, low assist ratings (beign a good passer means little if you dont know what is going on around you) and reduce a teams consistency.
A player with a very high defensive awareness should be extremely difficult to drive past or shoot over, and should generally better judge how to defend a player (e.g. high pressure on shooters, lower pressure on slashers) and any player guarded by such a player could possibly have their shooting ratings reduced by 5-10 while the defender is on them, and also less likely to be called for fouls. If a player has a low rating, they should be easier to pumpfake, dead easy to drive past and should get shaken hard off the simplest screen.
In simulations, teams with with alot of guys with high defensive awareness should have following effects on opposition:
*low scoring number
*low scoring percentages
*high turnovers
A team like detroit gets far because of their defence first, and this approach should be allowed in live.
Also, team averages and opponent averages should not be related. If your team is a top defensive team, they should not allor more thena bout 92 PPG. Similarily, if they are a really top offensive team, they should not average less then 100. If they are the best offensively and defensively, they should average 100 and allor 92. Live tends to vary team average and against average together. If you score more, the opposing team scores more, if you score less they score less. There should be more one sided games in simulation sich as 78-105 etc as opposed to 90% of games being within 10 points.
Teams with good clutch ratings should excel and win in most close games (e.g were the game is won/lost by less then 5 points).
Teams that are mainly jumpshooters should get to the foul line very few times. Teams with alot of athletic scorers and huge centres should get there far more often.
Another idea, all palyers have the expresison thingy. i.e. laid back, neutral, aggressive etc. all this does is affects facial expressions. Players with "laid back" ways, should argue less with refs, get called for less fouls, and rarely get tech's. Guys with aggresive personas should be more aggresive, thus get more fouls, more t's, argue more, etc. You could have the aggresiveness an even factor, as a high aggresiveness would make apalyer more likely to get to the foul line, more likely to get steals and blocks, more likely to go after loose balls, more likely to get big rebounds, etc, but on the bad side could be ore likely to get a T, more like to get foul calls, more likely to argue adn gget sent out and foul hard, and thus more likely to get suspended or fouled out.
Furthermore, endurance should have more effect. Players with bad ratings shoudl tire very quick, wheras guys wiht 90+ ratings shoudl be able to play wiht only 7 or 8 minutes or rest per game. Highly rated players should play more minutes. Doesnt matter how good aplyer is, if he isnt fit and cant work to full potention fro more then 20 minutes a game, then he isnt going to be played for 38.
Having lack of backups at a position should resule in starters in that position playing more minutes then the can handle possibly, thus reducing their endurance, increasing chance of injury and increasing the chance of picking up cheap fouls etc. Playing a 6"7 sf in replacement of an injured PF in live has little effect on simulated games as long as he can rebound and score. A natural SF will never be as effective and a natural PF at PF in general. Also playing a player off position should influence his number alot. Having a natural SG paly PG, SF play SG, SG play PF etc should heavily reduce the efficience of the team. In most cases, a decent natural point guard will run a team better then a good SG playing PG. In some cases this is not the case (e.g. when spree ran NY's offence quite well), thats where the 'secondary position' can comes into play.
Size and strength should play a bigger part in post battles. Quite a few times in live i've posted a big guy like Antonio Mcdyess or Tim Duncan up on marcus camby or reggie mille (on a mismatch). The player would be backed down so slowly that it would be lucky to see them move a virtual inch before a double team comes and steals the ball. Any 250lbs should send most 200lbs guys flying back and should score before a double team can even hope to arrive. Posting Olowakandi in Ratliff doesnt sem much different to posting McDyess on Malone in terms of the amount of push and shove.
Similarly, althought shaq should be able to back down most big guys, a 240lb guy shouldnt have much affect backing down Olowakandi. Somehow in live they always do. Putting a guy with 2 or 3 inches and 20-30 pounds advantage should reduce the effect of the offensive player heavily in the post.
At the same time, asigning a big guy with quickness (e.g. K-mart or KG) to defend a good guard (like kobe or t-mac) should provide better results then simply using another guard on them. It shoud also eliminate almost any attempt to shoot over the top of the defender. Putting KG defendign kobe has little affect, as kobe seems to get 4 or so inches away from him and get a shot off on him.
thats some of my ideas. abi late for live 2k4, but maybe next time aye?
later!
If a PG in live has the right skills to be a C, then generally putting him there and changing his natural position will make him an effective C. In reality, anyone under 6"8 is not going to be very effective at all in the NBA at center, regardless of their skills, and thus should disadvantage the team when started at C in simulated games. A big reason for Tim Duncan's success is that he plays PF at 7"0' 260lbs, and is too big for anyone else at that position to handle. T-mac, KG, Shaq and penny (when he played PG) are other players who have been successful strongly based on their size and physical abilities. If you want to do well in live with generated players over franchise mode, (at least if you simulate all the games) all you need to go by are statistical type skills such as FG, 3PT, FT, rebounding, blocking, stealing, passing, etc. size, athleticism, endurance etc have very little if any impact.
Would shaq be shaq if he was only 250lbs?
Also, id like to see offensive and defensive awareness play a bigger part in the game. Players with low offensive awarenesses should get alot more turnovers then those with high ratings, should be easier to steal the ball off/block, etc, and more likely to make bad decisions (if they are CPU controlled). Teams with alot of players with low ratings here should have high turnover ratings, low assist ratings (beign a good passer means little if you dont know what is going on around you) and reduce a teams consistency.
A player with a very high defensive awareness should be extremely difficult to drive past or shoot over, and should generally better judge how to defend a player (e.g. high pressure on shooters, lower pressure on slashers) and any player guarded by such a player could possibly have their shooting ratings reduced by 5-10 while the defender is on them, and also less likely to be called for fouls. If a player has a low rating, they should be easier to pumpfake, dead easy to drive past and should get shaken hard off the simplest screen.
In simulations, teams with with alot of guys with high defensive awareness should have following effects on opposition:
*low scoring number
*low scoring percentages
*high turnovers
A team like detroit gets far because of their defence first, and this approach should be allowed in live.
Also, team averages and opponent averages should not be related. If your team is a top defensive team, they should not allor more thena bout 92 PPG. Similarily, if they are a really top offensive team, they should not average less then 100. If they are the best offensively and defensively, they should average 100 and allor 92. Live tends to vary team average and against average together. If you score more, the opposing team scores more, if you score less they score less. There should be more one sided games in simulation sich as 78-105 etc as opposed to 90% of games being within 10 points.
Teams with good clutch ratings should excel and win in most close games (e.g were the game is won/lost by less then 5 points).
Teams that are mainly jumpshooters should get to the foul line very few times. Teams with alot of athletic scorers and huge centres should get there far more often.
Another idea, all palyers have the expresison thingy. i.e. laid back, neutral, aggressive etc. all this does is affects facial expressions. Players with "laid back" ways, should argue less with refs, get called for less fouls, and rarely get tech's. Guys with aggresive personas should be more aggresive, thus get more fouls, more t's, argue more, etc. You could have the aggresiveness an even factor, as a high aggresiveness would make apalyer more likely to get to the foul line, more likely to get steals and blocks, more likely to go after loose balls, more likely to get big rebounds, etc, but on the bad side could be ore likely to get a T, more like to get foul calls, more likely to argue adn gget sent out and foul hard, and thus more likely to get suspended or fouled out.
Furthermore, endurance should have more effect. Players with bad ratings shoudl tire very quick, wheras guys wiht 90+ ratings shoudl be able to play wiht only 7 or 8 minutes or rest per game. Highly rated players should play more minutes. Doesnt matter how good aplyer is, if he isnt fit and cant work to full potention fro more then 20 minutes a game, then he isnt going to be played for 38.
Having lack of backups at a position should resule in starters in that position playing more minutes then the can handle possibly, thus reducing their endurance, increasing chance of injury and increasing the chance of picking up cheap fouls etc. Playing a 6"7 sf in replacement of an injured PF in live has little effect on simulated games as long as he can rebound and score. A natural SF will never be as effective and a natural PF at PF in general. Also playing a player off position should influence his number alot. Having a natural SG paly PG, SF play SG, SG play PF etc should heavily reduce the efficience of the team. In most cases, a decent natural point guard will run a team better then a good SG playing PG. In some cases this is not the case (e.g. when spree ran NY's offence quite well), thats where the 'secondary position' can comes into play.
Size and strength should play a bigger part in post battles. Quite a few times in live i've posted a big guy like Antonio Mcdyess or Tim Duncan up on marcus camby or reggie mille (on a mismatch). The player would be backed down so slowly that it would be lucky to see them move a virtual inch before a double team comes and steals the ball. Any 250lbs should send most 200lbs guys flying back and should score before a double team can even hope to arrive. Posting Olowakandi in Ratliff doesnt sem much different to posting McDyess on Malone in terms of the amount of push and shove.
Similarly, althought shaq should be able to back down most big guys, a 240lb guy shouldnt have much affect backing down Olowakandi. Somehow in live they always do. Putting a guy with 2 or 3 inches and 20-30 pounds advantage should reduce the effect of the offensive player heavily in the post.
At the same time, asigning a big guy with quickness (e.g. K-mart or KG) to defend a good guard (like kobe or t-mac) should provide better results then simply using another guard on them. It shoud also eliminate almost any attempt to shoot over the top of the defender. Putting KG defendign kobe has little affect, as kobe seems to get 4 or so inches away from him and get a shot off on him.
thats some of my ideas. abi late for live 2k4, but maybe next time aye?
later!
Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:19 am
Another idea, all palyers have the expresison thingy. i.e. laid back, neutral, aggressive etc. all this does is affects facial expressions. Players with "laid back" ways, should argue less with refs, get called for less fouls, and rarely get tech's. Guys with aggresive personas should be more aggresive, thus get more fouls, more t's, argue more, etc. You could have the aggresiveness an even factor, as a high aggresiveness would make apalyer more likely to get to the foul line, more likely to get steals and blocks, more likely to go after loose balls, more likely to get big rebounds, etc, but on the bad side could be ore likely to get a T, more like to get foul calls, more likely to argue adn gget sent out and foul hard, and thus more likely to get suspended or fouled out.
That's interesting. An aggressivness rating would be interesting. For example, Paul Pierce would be very aggressive on offense, and VC wouldn't be.
I thought of a problem with too many classic teams. I was playing Madden 2003, and I had tried everything. The game got boring, because there wasn't anything else to make. The classic Eagle team had already been done. All I could do was add names. (Which I hope EA puts in the player names.)
Sat Jun 07, 2003 1:27 pm
I'm remaining optimistic that all the real players on the classic teams will appear. I remember classic teams were rumoured to be in NBA Live 2001, but the idea had to be dropped due to legal issues. This suggests that if EA is going to put classic teams in NBA Live, they want to make them as accurate as possible.
Sat Jun 07, 2003 3:56 pm
should dynasty eventually evolve into where you can be the owner-president of a team and decide to hire a new coach, vp, marketing rep. etc. to keep your teams making money for expenses, winning, filling arenas etc.. giving the people rankings upon how they'll handled their duties and the shape your organization is in, and have some leave for other jobs creating the need to find replacements from other teams or retired players. is anyone willing to try the idea of a staff putting the team together and just playing the game and managing the rotations, practices etc. just curious, this sounds as though it may be a start to getting some more new things implemented in later versions.
Sat Jun 07, 2003 6:21 pm
I think there should be a limit on that kind of detail. I feel if you add too much frontend management duties, it will draw attention away from a major part of Dynasty Mode - the ability to play multiple NBA seasons. Obviously, there is a call for in-depth management games, but NBA Live remains an action based sports sim. Features in the frontend have to be balanced out by gameplay.
I think it would be going too far to hire and fire a whole organisation of people, and to have to focus on making money, marketing, etc. Too much detail can be as bad as not enough detail.
In my opinion, Dynasty Mode would be best left as a multi-season mode, where you would also be responsible for basketball operations - trading players, free agency, possibly even hiring/firing coaches, etc. The business side of things, while providing another element, would draw too much attention away from the basketball - and that's what the game is supposed to be about.
I think it would be going too far to hire and fire a whole organisation of people, and to have to focus on making money, marketing, etc. Too much detail can be as bad as not enough detail.
In my opinion, Dynasty Mode would be best left as a multi-season mode, where you would also be responsible for basketball operations - trading players, free agency, possibly even hiring/firing coaches, etc. The business side of things, while providing another element, would draw too much attention away from the basketball - and that's what the game is supposed to be about.