Low Player Rating

by **HillwoodBalla** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 11:17 am

Has anyone noticed the low player ratings on some of the movies clips? I really dont like that, but i can understand what their doing, but have rich hamilton at a 67? come on now, i just cant see it.

But i was wondering if it was cause it was the beginning of the game, or cause its xbox? i dont know, what u guys think?

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 11:21 am

I hope the final ratings won't be like that - seems like there'll be a lot of players rated 50-something overall (Rod Strickland for example). Last year's overall ratings were fine, and would have worked this year with improved gameplay and sliders.

by **Jase23** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:31 pm

Maybe the scale of player ratings is different this time around? like say when rip is a 67 rating in 2004, it might equate to an 85 based on last years game or something like that? dunno.

by **endofanera** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:35 pm

I like them low, it gives you far more scope when comparing players.

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:48 pm

Jase23 wrote:Maybe the scale of player ratings is different this time around? like say when rip is a 67 rating in 2004, it might equate to an 85 based on last years game or something like that? dunno.

Note that guys like C-Webb are still 86 overall though. The range of overall ratings for good players is too large, IMHO. Few players should have overall ratings in the 50s, and teams like the Kings shouldn't have anyone below 70 in the starting lineup.

by **Jase23** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:51 pm

ah didnt notice there were still high rating players........ my bad.

by **Vins15** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:51 pm

agree...and Bibby 67? :shock:

just unbelieveable...even though Rating's isn't that important anymore..itz is still good if itz accurate...

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:54 pm

As far as gameplay goes, overall ratings are more or less unimportant. But if Dynasty Mode uses overall ratings to judge the fairness of trades (and judging by the fact overall ratings are prominently displayed, I'm guessing it does), then they are important roster management wise.

by **thetruth** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:57 pm

The new rating system is garbage. They now rate everyone from 0 to 99
(if you look in the traing camp vid from operation sports u'll see). They should have the rating from 40 to 99. I think this would have a better spread of the player ratings than live 2003.

Thats my 2 cents. :cry:

(already finding problems with the game............ and im yet to play 1 minute)

by **chipper** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:05 pm

I like the new ratings. I want superstars with 85+ ratings, real good players with 70+ and average starters with something like 60 and bad players hovering around 50.

In my opinion, good players and superstarts were not really different in the last year's version. All the stars had 90+ ratings and really, 90 and 93 were not much different. I could score 50 points with T-mac but so could I with Corey Magette (nothing against him btw)

I think these new ratings emphasize the gap between players even further, and so I like.

by **Larry Bird** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 2:50 pm

I like them low and spread apart like this. I think when we are looking at these players and giving them ratings we should be looking at all nba players from all of history. What we have now is like a percentile system. Guys like Mike Bibby are good, but I'd say he's no better than 70% of the players to ever play. I think we should reserve these 85-90+ rantings for the great players and future hall of famers. This is especially true since we have some of the greatest players to ever play the game in the game. Do you feel comfortable giving Elton Brand a rating almost as high as Larry Bird? I don't. It's no good when everyone is rated 80+, then there's really no difference between players, and it doesn't matter who you get, because everyone is good. it shouldn't be this way.

I see a problem with the trading, but I think they're on the right track.

by **Colin** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:04 pm

I like it a lot better when it's from 0-99, it gives you a greater feel of how good a player is. Now there aren't as many players with the same ratings and getting whipped in a trade won't be as likely.

by **Metsis** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:32 pm

I'm still saying that the ratings could be like they were last year. Maybe they've toned them down a bit, but the ratings are from the dynasty mode! In which (in NHL atleast) the players have seriously reduced ratings... So a Big Ben with 75 and Rip with 67 could well be Ben 85 and Rip 77 overall, and that would seem more normal in my mind. They could be even higher...

If there is a new ratings system, well that's good, but don't go putting your money on that, not just yet... The game comes out next week... The official page still has it coming out for all the platforms on the 14th and that's what I'm counting on.

Ratings have always been good in Live games and I don't expect them to change anytime soon... So the ratings are good. Ratings will be good and you really shouldn't worry about them.

by **nublu01** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:43 pm

i like their new rating system.... there is reason why the numbers are from 0 to 99. finally.... a sports game notices this. now we can have distinguishable superstar players, star players, regular players, bench players, and such. furthermore, not all the superstars are going to have the similar(and perhaps, same) ratings...

man.... live is getting everything right this year

by **Bredrin** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:44 pm

chipper wrote:I like the new ratings.

by **garnettfan21** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:58 pm

New rating system is fine with

maybe about a dozen or so players will be underrated but that can be fixed.

by **EGarrett** on Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:24 pm

Larry Bird wrote:I like them low and spread apart like this. I think when we are looking at these players and giving them ratings we should be looking at all nba players from all of history. What we have now is like a percentile system. Guys like Mike Bibby are good, but I'd say he's no better than 70% of the players to ever play. I think we should reserve these 85-90+ rantings for the great players and future hall of famers. This is especially true since we have some of the greatest players to ever play the game in the game. Do you feel comfortable giving Elton Brand a rating almost as high as Larry Bird? I don't. It's no good when everyone is rated 80+, then there's really no difference between players, and it doesn't matter who you get, because everyone is good. it shouldn't be this way.

I see a problem with the trading, but I think they're on the right track.

The man has a point. I never did feel it was right that Jerry Stackhouse was rated the same as Larry Bird. With the new system you can be a superstar without being as good as NBA legends. I have a feeling this wil also help trade logic. No more signing 74 OVR guys out of the free agent pool and trading them with your 80 point guard for an 88 star point guard and a 62 bench guy. This way players below a certain level (maybe 50) have no value in trades and deep bench guys and free agents can all fall in that category.

by **Ugur** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:16 am

it can be taken in dynasty mode.You know in nhl the players' original ratings fell off because of some factors like morale and rinks ....
you gotta purchase upgrades to get the players to their original ratings in play now or even better.like getting a plane add +1 +2 att to players.
it should be like that.morale mostly effects that in nhl.after trades a players sux but after that he gets better.
why NOT ?
it should be dynasty.

by **Pirate** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:22 am

I love it... That way I can create myelf justly... with a rating of about 6.

by **EGarrett** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:50 am

I love it... That way I can create myelf justly... with a rating of about 6.

That reminds me of the time my friend's little brother was bugging me to put him in the game. I told him "okay, let's attempt to simulate the situation that would occur if you were thrust into an actual NBA game." I think he was a 51 overall...

by **Wade** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:11 am

Guys you always see the bad sides of the game there are many quailities and new things that espn and inside drive haven't got.Live is the best one of all.Ratings are not very important.Gameplay and grapihcs are better than last year and trading system improved a lot cause you can give and take 1 st or 2nd round draft picks

by **havasufalls** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:51 am

0 to 99 or 50 to 99 it really doesnt matter to me. We all know wen we get these guys on the court then they will produce. to me like many others have said even though the ratings are lower they may still play like we know them to play. i guess i will create my self also. me and my friends created ourselves but we only played aganist each other and it was like 4 teams all with 8 players so we were little more generous with our stats since we were comparing our selves to each other and not the NBA players.

by **chipper** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:27 am

havasufalls wrote:0 to 99 or 50 to 99 it really doesnt matter to me. We all know wen we get these guys on the court then they will produce. to me like many others have said even though the ratings are lower they may still play like we know them to play. i guess i will create my self also. me and my friends created ourselves but we only played aganist each other and it was like 4 teams all with 8 players so we were little more generous with our stats since we were comparing our selves to each other and not the NBA players.

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. :cry:

by **havasufalls** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:03 am

chipper wrote:
havasufalls wrote:0 to 99 or 50 to 99 it really doesnt matter to me. We all know wen we get these guys on the court then they will produce. to me like many others have said even though the ratings are lower they may still play like we know them to play. i guess i will create my self also. me and my friends created ourselves but we only played aganist each other and it was like 4 teams all with 8 players so we were little more generous with our stats since we were comparing our selves to each other and not the NBA players.

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.

sorry to hear that but u might get them to play if u create them all and show them they might be willing to play since they can play as them selves........just a thought

by **DANet** on Thu Oct 09, 2003 6:19 am

EA may have changed the ratings to vary from 0-99 to give more flexibility and a wider range of variation for the player ratings (primarily for dynasty mode). If the dynasty mode for NBA Live 2004 is anything like NHL 2004 then the player ratings are incredibly dynamic...they change every single day of the season!

For example:

Your team plays a game on Saturday...so after the game all your players' endurance and misc attributes are 1-2 points lower. Your next game is Sunday and you play that game with the lower ratings resulting from Saturday's game. After Sunday's game your players ratings are even lower...but thankfully you don't have a game on Monday and Tuesday...so you give the players Monday off and their endurance and morale goes up...and then you have a practice on Tuesday and their attributes go up. You decide to make a trade and trade your 71 overall player for another teams 73 overall player...but wait...your new 73 overall player is depressed that he got traded and now he is rated 70! Your next game is on Wednesday...but it's on the road...so your player ratings are lower because your team is not a good road team etc. etc. etc.

This is how it works in NHL 2004...and it is extremely challenging and fun. Based on the videos and screenshots I have seen for NBA Live 2004 I have no reason to believe that NBA Live 2004 will be much different...

Another reason for lowering the player ratings (still related to the dynasty mode) is that once you get your team going and start winning...your player attributes will go up and will actually be higher than the original player ratings. If your star is rated at 97...that means he can't get much better...but if your star is rated at 87...that means that even he can step it up and improve his game.

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.

Low Player Rating

Low Player Rating

Who is online