Low Player Rating

by **Uzumaki** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:22 am

Danet could have a point here. As we've seen in the videos you can hire different coaches for different things that will give your team, or player, some extra points for 2-5 games, or whatever. Maybe they have changed the rating system to fit this?

by **wangster** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:23 pm

I think lower ratings accent a player's strength more. In 2003, all the superstars basically had mostly identical stats with offensive awareness in the high 90's, etc. This year, I really think if you made, say, off. rebounding 99 for a player, that player is going to stand out from the rest and be a monster in crashing boards.

at least, that's what I'm HOPING will happen.

by **Metsis** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:11 pm

It would be nice to see players strengths and weaknesses more... So a player with a good offensive game won't always be rated 85+ if he sucks on the defensive end or at rebounding.

If the change is made from 50-99 to 0-99, well it will certainly be intresting.

But I still think dynasty stats need to be increased via training, morale and such and the players have lowered ratings because of it.

But we'll know next week...

BTW the official page still says Live is coming out for the PC next week too. I don't know where you get your information, but they haven't changed it.

by **Boyk** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 7:44 pm

I say wait till the game comes out before ya bloody rip it and put it down :roll:

by **EGarrett** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:14 pm

I realized yesterday that I completely forgot what's probably the real reason they switched from 0-99...Draft Class Importing. The Ratings in the March Madness have always been done from 0-99 and now it will line up with Live's rating system. This way your college rosters will probably consist of guys rated 30 OVR to 50 or 60 OVR and you can compare them to the NBA guys. You can also tell who's good enough to go in the Draft.

by **Metsis** on Fri Oct 10, 2003 6:03 pm

Sounds reasonable EGarrett...

So the dynasty mode will not have the training etc. thing like the NHL does. NBA will have it's own training system, which we have had a little sneak peak at in the vids.

I still wonder what is the final catch in the game... Or have they just put it all out there in the open.

by **M@dDog** on Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:24 am

For the anxious ones with the lower ratings in live 2004, you can notice that :
- when you have the ratings between 50 and 99, you substract 50 from all and you obtain ratings between 0 and 49
- from here, you multiply the ratings by 2 and you obtain numbers between 0 and 98

Like that, you can recover the references you had in the old versions of NBA live but now you have more differences between all star players' ratings and bench players' ratings as it was said.

It is only a mathematical precision and I dont wish to offend anybody by adding that.

by **AznBBoyX** on Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:46 pm

The dunk ratings are really messed up. Dywane Wade's dunk rating is only a 35? While dunk ratings can go up to 100.

by **bballer22** on Sat Oct 11, 2003 4:25 pm

I dont thinkk its the ratings that really change the game. The main problem with 2003 was that layers were 1 dimentional.
Like y have Peja when u can have Tracy Murry for better 3s. Shit players had FG and 3pt rating of 90s while overall were 70!
there were no Hard workers in the game. If u wanter D, all u had to do was go to FA and find a pg with 90 or so in steels and he will lead the leuge. if u want easy scoring in low post for free u could go and get DeSahwn Deop ( or how ever u spell it) or Deshaw stevetson who could get 30+ just by dunking or best of all was D-Rob who had 90 in Off Awarness and was the leader for fast break, same as D-mile.
Who needed Bo outlaw or even Kidd, or B.Wallace!
they should give players better understanding of their rols!

by **Old School Fool** on Sat Oct 11, 2003 5:05 pm

I know what you mean Leo

by **Ruff Ryder** on Sat Oct 11, 2003 11:54 pm

The reason the ratings are so low is because instead of going with a minimum of 50 and max of 99 they went from 0-99. I think that has to do with gamespeed. But when i get the game ima do alot of editing.

by **JdotK** on Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:41 am

Sup yall, I used to be a member way back in the old days, when the site was black... you done good Andrew...

Any way, I love the ratings.

You gotta put shit in perspective. And if you look at the NBA and include years past, its hard to give many current pro's ratings in the Mid to High 90's.

Last year, as well as years past, too many guys were given 90 ratings, and this isnt accurate. I will use my two favorite players as examples. Last year, Paul Pierce was given (if I remember correctly) a 93 and Antoine Walker was given a 89.

Now take into account, that the ultimate player would have a rating of 99, seeing how you can't get any better than a 99. Would anyone on here consider either Paul Pierce or Antoine Walker anything close to the ultimate player? Well, maybe some of you would consider them towards the top of the Current NBA... but then lets add in the Greats: Jordan in his Prime, Bird and Magic, Chamberlain and Russel, Cousy and Havlichec.

These were guys who had a huge impace on the game... and I dunno how many of them we'd even consider to be the "ultimate player". So if these guys arn't 99, then there is no way Antoine Walker is a 89.

I actually believe that Garnett and Kobe having both 97's is way too high for them. They are great players, but they arn't that great... im would give em ratings right around 91 like Duncan got.

by **benji** on Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:44 am

DANet wrote:I imagine it will take some adjustment for the roster makers to start thinking in terms of 0-99 instead of 50-99...but the ratings from one version of Live never really translate nicely into the next version of Live anyway. Considering the fact that the whole dynasty mode is extremely roster dependent...I think there will need to be a period of adjustment for the roster makers regardless.

A good roster maker shouldn't have to make any adjustment. They should have been working in the .dbf using the 0-99 ratings since the olden days.

I mean, you can easily convert these to Live 2003's super inflated overalls...
Webber = 86 in 2004...93 in 2003
Dirk = 84...92
Finley = 82...91
Benji = 75...87-88
Pedja = 73...86-87
Brad Miller = 70...85
LeBron = 69...84-85
Bibby/Rip = 67...83-84
Christie = 66...83
LaFrentz = 65...82-83
Darko = 62...81

Now, I might be crazy (very likely) but it's simple to think of these in comparison to 2003...

by **Nick** on Sun Oct 12, 2003 11:28 pm

Yeah, i was planning to mention what Benji said.

Well, i love the new 0-99 ratings. not only does it give more of a gap between players but there's more of a gap to becoming a 99 ovrl player. because in live 03 franchise...there are quite a few players that become 99 ovrl and you think to yourself. "Oh, well, my franchise player is as good as can be...what to do next?" Now getting to 99 will be quite a task... not that that's the am of the the game anyway...

it'll be interesting drafting 37 overall 2nd rounders...haha.

In the NBA Live Rookie Watch page for live 04, it has LeBron...obviously too much of a king for 0-99 double digit ratings!!!

Cleveland Cavaliers

Player: LeBron James, G/F, St. Vincent-Saint Mary's HS IGN Sports says: Might be the biggest star in the league and he hasn't even played a regular season game yet. Then again, anyone who's watched the preseason highlights already realizes that King James is the explosive, charismatic player with the dazzling passes and out-the-gym leaping ability the NBA has been looking for. In ten years there might be a movie called Like LeBron...he's that good. His NBA Live skills are quite impressive as well, as cyber-King tears through defenses with rim-rattling dunks, and is one of the players who uses the new pro-hop the best as he slips his way into the lane and finishes the play with an emphatic dunk.

NBA Live Overall Rating: 69

Height: 6-8

Weight: 240lbs.

FG: 763

3PT: 55

FT: 60

Dunk: 92

Range: 23'

Inside Scoring: 63

O. Reb: 25

Jump: 90

Strength: 62

Quick: 57

Speed: 72

Pass: 59

Dribble: 70

O. Aware: 69

D. Reb: 68

Steals: 32

Blocks: 43

D. Aware: 44

by **chipper** on Sun Oct 12, 2003 11:42 pm

Again, i must say i have no problem with the new rating system.

Put it this way. if it was like 0-99 since live 95 and all of a sudden they changed to 50-99 system, contracting gaps between players, we'd all be saying opposite things.

Think about it. what if it's 70-99 for next year's live

by **CHHAMP** on Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:32 am

I love it how players are rated 0-99. This way, role players will really be just that. While superstars will score the bulk of the points. Thats how it should be.

by **Sedge** on Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:19 pm

0-99, Alot better. You won't have everyone 90 or over becoming 99 all the time.

How nice! I wished I had a friend like that! All my friends stopped playing video games long time ago and all they do in their spare time is drinking.

Hand them a bong and I'm sure thier videogame play time will skyrocket.

by **chipper** on Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:08 pm

Sedge wrote:0-99, Alot better. You won't have everyone 90 or over becoming 99 all the time.

How nice! I wished I had a friend like that! All my friends stopped playing video games long time ago and all they do in their spare time is drinking.

Hand them a bong and I'm sure thier videogame play time will skyrocket.

Lol, but that's what they did to me to take me away from videogames

by **Metsis** on Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:54 pm

Man some of them new numbers are really sticking out like a sore thumb. Like a guy having offensive rebounding rated at 7 or like Darko's stealing at 11. Those numbers really sting in my eyes... But I'll, we'll have to get used to it.

What is a good rating in Live 2004??? I think this is a good question... Is 70 already good? Cause Kobe and T-Mac had field goal ratings around 70-75? Who has the highest field goals (next to shaq's 99 ofcourse)? And whos the best 3pt shooter and what is his score? And how fast is AI?

by **cyanide** on Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:36 pm

Metsis wrote:Is 70 already good?

I'd say so. 70 sounds like a starter on a team, but not a superstar. Maybe a potential bench player on the All-Star team, if he gets lucky.

by **Metsis** on Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:00 pm

cyanide wrote:
Metsis wrote:Is 70 already good?

I'd say so. 70 sounds like a starter on a team, but not a superstar. Maybe a potential bench player on the All-Star team, if he gets lucky.

What I meant was that if you have a player with Field Goals at 70, is it good?

Or if your guard has speed of 60, how good is that? This is what I was saying. That 70 in field goals is good cause Kobe and T-Mac are rated about that...

What about strength? One of the rookies has 99 strength! I'm thinking too high, but what do you people say???

by **chipper** on Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:36 pm

Metsis wrote:
cyanide wrote:
Metsis wrote:Is 70 already good?

I'd say so. 70 sounds like a starter on a team, but not a superstar. Maybe a potential bench player on the All-Star team, if he gets lucky.

What I meant was that if you have a player with Field Goals at 70, is it good?

Or if your guard has speed of 60, how good is that? This is what I was saying. That 70 in field goals is good cause Kobe and T-Mac are rated about that...

What about strength? One of the rookies has 99 strength! I'm thinking too high, but what do you people say???

Each rating should have a different standard. If Kobe and T-mac's FG ratings are 70, then probably that's about the highest i guess.

Prolly means they will make 70% of uncontested jumpers.

by **valrond** on Wed Oct 15, 2003 7:28 am

Well guys, if you have used the Live toolkit for 2001 or 2003, then you know that live worked already with 0-99 ratings internally, but then they converted them in the game. I guess now they just don't do that.

Low Player Rating

Who is online