Ratings

[thaKEAF]

Am I the only one who wants the rating system to go back to how it was in Live 2003? In Live 2004 there's tons of starters rated like 40's and 50's who should at least by a mid 70. What I'm saying is in 2004 the ratings were just extremely low, and I didn't like that.

What about you guys?

[Sauru]

i actually liked the rateings in 2004. it allowed for more variety. if you make it 50-99 instead or 30-99(or whatever min was) you are gonna group players together who should not be grouped. btw just cause a played had a low overall rateing didnt mean he was a bad player. prince is a perfect example of this, he was damn good and rated really low.

honestly though i can live with either.

[Jackal]

Am I the only one who wants the rating system to go back to how it was in Live 2003?

Yes.

With it going upto a hundred, you can have a wider range of players. Stars are rated differently from role players. I like it the way it is.

[ATTENTIONWHORE]

As long as there are sliders, suck-ass players are not rated too high, All-Stars are rated the highest, and average joes are rated averagely, I could care less. (Big judgment call)

[thaKEAF]

I agree that it helped seperate Roleplayers from superstars but alot of people were rated way too low.

[Andrew]

I was skeptical when I first heard that NBA Live 2004 would have ratings from 0-100, but having become familiar with the system I have to say that I prefer it. As has already been noted, the difference between stars, role players and benchwarmers who don't stick around for very long is much greater. I could adjust if the ratings system switched back, but I'd rather the game keep the 0-100 ratings.

[Power And Proud]

Exactly. The rating system is just fine the way it is now. It makes it alot easier to serperate the Kevin Garnett's from the Travis Knight's in this league.

[hmm]

...........................

[Jackal]

Well, anyone valuable.

J/p Slam.

[ailive2005]

The 0-100 style or the way it is in NBA Live 04 (however you want it to be reconized as) is waaaaay better than how it is in the past. I hope they NEVER go back to how it used to be, but i don't mind if they tweak it so more people can see the value of it more clearly!

[Riot]

0-100 is 100x better. I love it. Keep it.

[Wormy10]

Yea, i agree with about everybody....keep it

[Jay-Peso]

Same here. I just like 0-100 a lot better.

[Metsis]

You just have to live with it... I don't see why EA would go back to 50-99 system from the 0-99 system.

You have to realize that you can have only one or at max two players with overalls in their 80's now, when back in the old day you had a bad team if you had a starter that was below 80.

60 is now like 80... Basically. If you have a starter with below 60 overall, you need to get it fixed... Get some help into that position.

Doubling the range of each skill really shows who is who in each category. Like you had guys with blocking at 70 and a guy with 80 in the old days, it really didn't matter at all. They both could block. Now if you have a guy with blocking 80, he's shot swatter supreme... And 50 is already good... You can make more different players with a wider array of skills.

And basically, you now know who the superstars are and everyone even half good are rated 80-85...

It makes the trading a bit tougher, but you can do it still. And you can't trade a couple of decent players for a KG or TMac... That you could in the old days.

They'll never change it back and that's the bottom line here... Live with it.