A Definate

[Icebane]

What they need to do is refine the stats. 50 to 99 is a weird way. What they should have is 0 to 100 is terms of percentage... EG if you set a player to 54 in the 0-100 type stats, 54 is the percentage he usually hits shots... So then the stats would have to be broken up, Like NBA INSIDE DRIVE 2000, where you have Inside the Paint, from 15 feet, From 20 ect...

And rebounds have from like 0-20 in how many they average a game or such, smae with all stats... Quickness and Speed and the like should stay the same... But the stats need to be more in depth and refined...

Shaq is 99 of FG is 2003... He never misses from inside 15.. But outside, he never hits.

Anybody else with me?

[Andrew]

Personally, I don't think there's a problem with the 50 to 99 ratings. It's certainly better when averaging out the overall rating, which would probably be considerably lower if the ratings ranged from 0 to 100.

[Icebane]

Yeah but having a FG of 83 is vague... 50-99 would be ok, but they need diffeernt catagories such as i said before.

[Andrew]

Well, FG and 3 Point ratings are seperate. But further splitting ratings up (In the Paint, from 15, from 20 etc) is not a bad idea. That's somewhat governed by Shooting Range though (which has become a hidden rating).

[Power And Proud]

I'd prefer the 0-100 rating in terms of percentage as well.

[Tuomas]

50-1000, where 100 would be MJ. And they should draw a line between the legends and today's stars. Come on, Stackhouse ain't better than Magic!

[Andrew]

Would anyone really warrant a zero percentage in any category though? And consider this: most point guards would likely be ranked fairly low overall, since their rebounding ratings would be sub-50, especially Offensive Rebounding. Sure, overall ratings aren't all that important to gameplay, but they do play a role in the frontend of Franchise Mode.

[Icebane]

Then make Rebounding not important for a PG overall rating... See if a PF isn't a great rebounder his overall rating would be low.

Do you get what I mean?

[Andrew]

They could do that again, make certain ratings more significant in calculating the overall ratings depending on the player's position. They did that in NBA Live 2001 (and I believe NBA Live 2002) but not in NBA Live 2003.

I really don't see why we'd need to change the scale from 50-99 to 0-100. At the end of the day, it represents the same thing, and most people are familiar with the current scale.

[Icebane]

Yeah, changing the scale maybe not...

2001 was good for its ratings, except it limited the created players, which is wrong.. Good that it stops blatant cheating, but When I create Myself, I like to make it true (Basically 99 on everything:p) like have a high jump and FG and 3 point, Not too high Def rebound etc

[Andrew]

That was NBA Live 2000. It was good in that it prevented cheating, but limiting when creating roster patches.

[Icebane]

2000... I have them both... Hardly ever played 2001.. I think I installed it, played two games a deleted it...